COVID-19

[jonetsu]

From today, entertaining, 15 minutes. Wash your hands !

Truthstream Media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjPt0fcyJjI

[CrocoDuck]

Population proportions and conditions in which they live also does not matter at all. You have undoubtedly seen many times some of the conditions in which people live in China, in large cities as well as the countryside. Then a population of 1.5 billion is the same as say, the population of Iceland. That for instance a large population eating a lot of fast food as in the US for instance is the same as the population of Switzerland.

In fact, numerical simulations largely suggest those parameters do not affect the spread of airborne diseases. Not only that, also previous pandemics attest that, such as the Spanish Flu infecting all of the world a part Antarctica and American Samoa, the latter due to implementing complete border closure.

I will refer you to this channel again for an overview of (simplified) simulations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

I'm afraid to say that the above sequence should have been labeled as such. Show the mayor of NYC and print clearly on the screen that the footage is from Italy.

Absolutely. Note, however, that you should not discard the overall incompetency thread. In the past few years, news outlets all over the world have been simply bumping around footage and reports without checking them first. News got reported poorly. This is a given, it always happen. It is at best a hint that there might be something dodgy at play behind the scenes, and in any way not a proof on its own. In fact, news are badly reported by default, so there is nothing sticking out from this one.

Isn't it a good time to question the use of computer models ?

The time is as good as any, or even ideal, to question computer models. If you ever felt bored enough to read through my blog (https://crocoduckoducks.github.io/) you will see that in my tutorials about numerical acoustics I plaster everywhere "never blindly trust the solver". This whole "let's question the models" things really resonates with me.

However, what questioning means? It means (simplifying):

• Point out why a certain model might be inaccurate, providing reasons for it.
• Show why the model does not work well by comparing with historic data.
• Ideally, produce an alternative model whose output you can compare against historic data to demonstrate that its accuracy is superior.

That is, questioning is not sufficient on its own. First, it must address specific points, in a detailed way. Then it must be followed by constructive input aimed at improving the models. Interestingly, many computer models are opensource (such as https://fred.publichealth.pitt.edu/) so you can directly point to the lines of code, or the underlying assumptions (as reviewed in papers such as this https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10. ... .2019.0018) to pinpoint exactly where inaccuracies might lie.

No need for speculation. If you think assumptions are broken, or that the establishment cooked the software to push some hidden agenda, please point us to the code.

I mean it's not like me and you are about to die, aren't we ?

Most likely no, we will be fine. Still, the brother of a friend of mine died at 40 without any underlying health conditions. The probability of us getting the harsh symptom is low. Infect enough people and you will see the cases.

You know, part of my job in the past was to design quality control for wearable audio devices. Let's assume that 5% of devices pass the quality test while being faulty. Low probability, right? Safe to not care, right? Well, depends. For high volume production (1000000 units a year) it is inadmissible. It will create a volume too huge of returning products, to the point that the profitability of the whole thing might not be granted (products have to be recalled in batches). It is not the percentage itself that states how small the effect is. Rather, the consequences of admitting the number states how small the effect is. Crank it down to 100000 units a year and 5% is probably workable (still too large to my taste, I always engineered the system to make false positives impossible). This is why you do not want this disease to spread.

Also, could it mutate? The Spanish flu did 3 waves: mild, lethal, mild. There is no indication Coronavirus is as susceptible to mutations. Still, things can potentially take a turn for the worse. In fact, there are at least 2 different strands around.

Isn't this a war, as France president Macron puts it publicly ? If this is a war against a virus, then why wait for studies ? If you get mugged on the street, will you ask the mugger to be in that and that position so you can use this and this technique learnt in the self-defense course ?

Wrong example. You do not want to react against a mugging, you want to quench a surge in mugging crimes being committed over an area. To do so effectively, you will refer to data gathered by the police, as well as historic data gathered elsewhere (or not) in similar situations, to inform the best course of action. The nature of things is that it will be exactly clear if stuff worked only after the facts. Good news: there are other countries that had the outbreak before yours. Partial data is already there to inform your decisions. As for the ultimate conclusion of what causes what? We will know in the future.

Obviously not. You haven't addressed the case of prof. Raoult but I'll come back to him. It might be that you do not know his case. Hopefully his looks will not matter. Being at the head of perhaps the most important European lab of infectious diseases should matter over his long hair, his red watch, and the ring he wears on a finger. I mean, it's not like he has promoted a former dictator.

Why drag him publicly in the mud for his recommended use of chloroquine/azithromycin ? Why was a talk show host almost laughing in his face ? I mention Raoult again since his approach is one of a 'war'. Direct action using cheap available medecine WHILE continuing research. As a larger counter argument to the stance which solely consists of waiting upon studies.

I don't know anything about this. But substances are being experimented all over the world, including my hometown (which is administering Heparin), with mixed results. And nobody is dragging anybody in the mud for it there, so I would say not everybody that is administering substances is being dragged in the mud.

Of course causality and correlation are not the same. Following this agreement we could immediately jump to the counter argument: pollution is safe for people. Let's show that pollution does not matter. Actually let's approve that a distance of 5 to 10 meters is safe to protect oneself during farmers' spraying of chemicals over their fields. Like it was done in France: to approve what's written on the barrels of pesticides. That's a positive step towards establishing that pollution does not matter for people.

No you cannot jump to the counterargument, the causal mechanisms between pollution and adverse health have been proven at the biological level.

Are you actually saying that smoking is OK for health ?

Are you taking a page from the "Mass Media Manual for the Effective use of Sensationalism"? Clearly, as it should be obvious from the whole context of my post and, well, the entire thread, I was referring to it in the context of COVID-19. It was hypothesized that smoking could make people more susceptible to harsher symptoms. In Italy the proportion of smokers is higher than in other European countries, so that could be an additional reason for higher mortality rate? Maybe, it makes sense. It hasn't been proven yet.

Science can tell. And IMHO I think it has told.

Is the condition of having a weakened immune system (by any means you can imagine) a condition that can lead to develop sicknesses ? IMHO I think that science is quite positive about that.

Absolutely. You can remove IMHO: you do not need it when talking about Science (as long as it is properly understood). Still, an healthy immune system can make cytokine storm much worse. This is why the Spanish flu was so lethal among young, healthy people. Cornoavirus is not at all like that, at the moment, and hopefully it never will. But Science also proven that an healthy immune system can make you more susceptible to certain diseases, as counter-intuitive as that is.

The other problem with this, as you might have witnessed, is that there are scientific experts everywhere. Bayer/Monsanto has scientific experts for instance, don't you agree ? Why oh why are they controversial if they are scientific experts ?

I am talking about Science, not single scientists. Single scientists are as biased and opinionated as you and me. Those working for corporations... must really be taken with a proper critical eye, to say it politely (a teacher of mine used to say "just throw their papers in the shredder"). Still, the process of review of scientific results from the whole of the scientific community is what advances knowledge. Which is why, if you think you have many reasons to doubt numerical models (for example) I encourage you to point those out the proper way, so that they can be brought into the spotlight.

I am not too sure my point is clear in all of this though. I am not against the questioning. I think it is just not being executed very well here. You have listed many, many things and you have been uniting the dots with straight lines. But what picture are you drawing? Is it a good representation of reality? I am really not very convinced at this point.

As an example, assume you are driving along with Karen, and you stop at the petrol station. You fill the car with fuel, so you know you will reach your destination. But Karen looks at the wrong display and thinks you have put 5 dollars in or something and starts complaining. You explain "no, Karen, no. I filled the car, we are good". Then, at 3/4 of the way, you get a flat tire. And Karen is like "you see??? I was right all the time, we would have never reached our destination". Thing is, Karen though you would have finished the fuel. It does not matter if the end result is the same as that of a flat tire: she is still wrong, even if the end result is the same. Karen impression of reality was wrong: there was enough fuel, and the reason why the car stopped is unrelated to that.

I kinda feel like the theories proposed here, if the events will match their expectations, are much like driving along with Karen. And this rubs me in the wrong way, unfortunately. Why? I already written enough.

[GMaq]

Hi,

Just to pop my head in to say... the discourse here is very interesting to read, my atrophied brain isn't fully grasping all of it but to echo @raboof thanks to all participating for the enriching discussion not dominated by ego..

@CrocoDuck

My condolences for the losses of people you know, things in Italy must be nightmarish right now, hold tight and stay healthy!

Now back to the discussion..

[jonetsu]

First and foremost, thanks for taking the time to write.

I will refer you to this channel again for an overview of (simplified) simulations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

Thanks for the link about simulations. It pretty much goes about what simulations would be. Please note that the person who did states clearly that he is not an epidemiologist and that what is shown is a toy model.

Immediately, as part of a reaction to the 'war' - albeit a reaction not devoid of thought - I'd advance the following question: Does a computer model totally bypass the advice of a world-known epidemiologist in face of a crisis ? Moreover, a world-known epidemiologist leader of a reputed large European research center on epidemics, itself storing the largest quantity of viruses in Europe, and who has an 'attitude' towards the gouvernment ?

More specifically, does the simulation take into account the economic part of countries ? At this stage it's rather obvious that the WHO is leading the behaviour of Western (at least) governments and that the WHO uses an AI model.

For instance, if the simulation tells that 3 million heads of cattle must be disposed of in order to limit the consequences of an epidemic, does it take into account the farmers ? Will we just go and 'obey' the simulation w/o further evaluation ?

Should we take into account Tedros, the WHO chief, who honored tyrant Robert Mugabe giving him the honorific role WHO 'ambassador'. By the same token, does the simulation take into account the processing of its own data by humans ?

Does it 'reflect' on the possibilty that its own AI recommendation would be taken at face vlue ?

If these questions do not apply at the moment, they are nevertheless, I find, important questions to ask as soon as possible, since the introduction at large of quantum computers is looming and that will boost by a very very large amount the processing of data. And thus likely the human response to the result of processing could be one of 'awe'. Since you mentioned of your work, I can say that I've worked close to quantum computers, crypto-related.

Absolutely. Note, however, that you should not discard the overall incompetency thread. In the past few years, news outlets all over the world have been simply bumping around footage and reports without checking them first. News got reported poorly. This is a given, it always happen. It is at best a hint that there might be something dodgy at play behind the scenes, and in any way not a proof on its own. In fact, news are badly reported by default, so there is nothing sticking out from this one.

Well, I'll bring back prof. Raoult ! BFMTV who lead the caracterization of prof. Raoult, is owned by interests linked to the pharma world. This is why I bring this as an example. France is a lighthouse of 'mondialism' currently lead by a banker. And whose ministry was (she left right at the start of the coronavirus, then apologized publicly in tears) directly linked to pharmaceutical interests.

The really cheap solution suggested by prof. Raoult based on 70-years old medicine that was classified by coincidence as venenous in January 2020, surely would not please 'big pharma'.

Are competitive business allowed then to pursue their competitive strategies in those 'crisis' times ?

Thanks for the link to your blog, although I'll check it out later for the time being.

Re: question computer models:

However, what questioning means? It means (simplifying):

[ ... list ... ]

No need for speculation. If you think assumptions are broken, or that the establishment cooked the software to push some hidden agenda, please point us to the code.

Do you think that the simulaion code used by the WHO is open to everyone ? (It might be, let me know, at the moment I'm asking). And if it's open, is that actually the code being used ?

Because in times of 'war' the practical aspects are important.

Most likely no, we will be fine. Still, the brother of a friend of mine died at 40 without any underlying health conditions. The probability of us getting the harsh symptom is low. Infect enough people and you will see the cases.

By now it should be common knowledge that the coronavirus (in general) targets the ACE protein receptor meaning that people with hypertension, high blood pressure are valid targets.

Funningly enough this surgeon takes the time at the beginning to show his credentials. He has authored a dozen of books too. This segment that I've extracted is specific to the ACE receptors. The video has currently been seen by about 11 million viewers.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4J0d59dd- ... 80&end=849

This guy is fully mainstream narrative compatible, so no worries

You know, part of my job in the past was to design quality control for wearable audio devices. Let's assume that 5% of devices pass the quality test while being faulty. Low probability, right? Safe to not care, right? Well, depends. For high volume production (1000000 units a year) it is inadmissible. It will create a volume too huge of returning products, to the point that the profitability of the whole thing might not be granted (products have to be recalled in batches). It is not the percentage itself that states how small the effect is. Rather, the consequences of admitting the number states how small the effect is. Crank it down to 100000 units a year and 5% is probably workable (still too large to my taste, I always engineered the system to make false positives impossible). This is why you do not want this disease to spread.

I do not consider that this demonstration extends to epidemics. What's best in face of a virus that targets 95% people with a weakened immune system ? To economically shut down countries because of the 'probability' ? Or instead to address the immediate concern for the tageted population while preserving in large parts economic operations ?

Also, isn't the whole principle, in face of such a rather 'innoffensive' virus althugh more that the seasonal flu who already kills thousands yearly in total indifference, to be exposed to the virus so that our bodies can have a shot at developing a proper response ?

By 'our' I mean the large part of the population that provides functional economic operations.

Wasn't that part of the WHO simulation ?

Thus I say, forme, "welcome to the covid-19 ! I want it !" No joke. It's now 7 years w/o any flu or any other seasonal sickness so I extend a big welcome !

Also, could it mutate?

It will of course mutate. This is why anti-flu vaccines are efficient to about between 40% and 50% (source: The American CDC)

Wrong example. You do not want to react against a mugging, you want to quench a surge in mugging crimes being committed over an area.

No. YOU are being mugged. RIGHT NOW. You are not going to see a politician in the middle of the evening. The mugger is in your face and wants the money. You are alone on the street.

It was hypothesized that smoking could make people more susceptible to harsher symptoms. In Italy the proportion of smokers is higher than in other European countries, so that could be an additional reason for higher mortality rate? Maybe, it makes sense. It hasn't been proven yet.

Come on. The thing targets lungs. See the surgeon's explanation above in full. The state of the lungs of a smoker would not matter at all ? There's scientific proof needed ?

Makes me think of the results of researches that claims that eating an apple a day is good for you. Or that it was proven recently that taking a walk is a valid exercise. So on so forth. We see those very often in medias.

I'll check the assertion that an immune system in good order actually can make things worse under certain conditions.

I am talking about Science, not single scientists.

So then it's kind of uprooted. Because Science is implemented by scientists. On this we agree, but why continue with this illusory assumption about Science ? Peer review ? What about a scientist who discovered HIV that turns at the summum of its popularity and comfortable retirement to pursue the notion that water has a memory and is then discredited by its peer for doing so ? Notion which by the way directly killed prof. Beneviste who became the subject of ridicule by the scientific community.

It's about prof. Luc Montagnier. Wikipedia: French virologist and joint recipient with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Because it so happens that peer review follows the same line as Science implemented by scientists. No wonder.

I am not too sure my point is clear in all of this though. I am not against the questioning. I think it is just not being executed very well here. You have listed many, many things and you have been uniting the dots with straight lines. But what picture are you drawing? Is it a good representation of reality? I am really not very convinced at this point.

I do not have the impression that I connected any dots at all, sorry.

About the Karen example: what if Pasteur, seeing viruses on the scene of infections links them to ambulances and police on the scenes of accidents ? Correlation. Let's ban ambulances and police so that we'll not have accidemnts anymore. Pasteur was not inside the body all the time. Can a tragic wrong turn happned at that time in Science ?

I do make a point though about an alternative way of considering things, based in part on the parallel established by prof Jullien mentioned in a previous reply, and partly by experienced internal martial arts that brought unexpected health results in my case. The underlying concept, millenia old, is about balance. Balance of organisms, of forces, of everything, and letting go, not being so much in the way of natural unfoldings bth at the physcal and mental level.

Getting rid of blocks. As with my recent bicycle accident at near full speed hitting the asphalt in a blink of an eye on a patch of black ice before sunrise, of which I still haven't recovered fully on the right hand side, not only the hand is the concern but the rest of the arm as well in terms of letting the flow of red cells and oxygen and whatever flow easily to the damaged part.

The same with mental processes, without knwoing it we very often are blocked into a comfortable pattern of thinking. The reaction is not to get into anarchy but rather to dissolve the blocking. It's some kind of a universal approach.

As with active relaxation. One who is doing it for two years will find out that a year ago, when one thought that this was it, I am relaxed, that it wasn't really.

Hey, on a musical note, Locanda delle Fate, "Forse Le Lucciole Non Si Amano Piu"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbaJfSEehns

How many heroes betrayed by the courage and beguiled by the incense and by weeping that somebody will sell!

Cheers.

[Noahsark]

Fundamentally there are what I would call faulty world views or lack there of at work too many times for too many people in our present age.

It becomes very hard to bridge certain lexicons of thought that exist between reality and illusion. The modern world we live in
is built on illusion for the most part - historically, economically, spiritually (meaning religions that obfuscate spirit) and psychologically.
The roots of illusion lies most predominately in our psychology.

Still to this day, we as a species are still plagued by superstitions and the most dangerous superstition of modern "men" is what is known as the superstition of authority. Through that one superstition many have given their minds away to the so called experts and authority figures while projecting their own moral predilections upon them. This is a most dangerous situation we find ourselves in today because of this blindness that has come to infect the minds of many.

Now, this may seem off topic but it is not because I am trying to illustrate the roots of the modern disfunction that has created this grand system of imbalance on the earth.

Mankind is plagued with various form of mind control that has come down through the ages that has been set in by trauma. We all carry the trauma of our ancestors with us - it comes down the line, as I like to say. Trauma does weird things to our psychology when it comes to bypassing our reason and locking us off in our left hemisphere of our brains which creates reductionistic thought. The modern world is driven by reductionistic thought and it is for a very good reason. It is because like cattle - over time the majority of men have been herded into this type of mindset.

Many people would like to believe, as the conspirators have trained them to, that there is no conspiracy at work on this planet and so people have been programmed to think of conspiracy to exist only in the minds of deranged theorist, when it is far from the facts. Hence if one was to do a word association game and the word conspiracy was presented - many would tag theory on to it in a knee jerk fashion.

"plan maliciously, agree together to commit a criminal or reprehensible act"
"To breath together" - https://www.etymonline.com/word/conspire

In reality the whole of history is filled with conspiracy and the only true version of history is the one that constantly takes this into account, hence we come to see history from a wholistic point of view rather than from a reductionist mindset that sees no connection between events - when in reality everything in life is connected to everything else, be it historically or otherwise.

Now this sets the stage for what is unfolding before us right now with this "corona virus" - but there is more to understand, and this story stems back into ancient times... but to bring it into modern times there are some things you all must understand. There is a plan to build a global government called the new world order and those who are behind building this global government are the ones who are behind this corona virus. This "pandemic" was a planned event that was designed to reshaped the nations of the earth and usher them into the global technocracy.

Those of you who refuse to see this conspiracy are blind partakers of it because of your own confirmation bias's about what you think the world to be instead of seeing as it is. The "elites" who are the conductors of this conspiracy could not complete their "great work" as they like to call it, without your blind obedience and willful ignorance that plays into their hands.

I will leave it at that for now and continue later getting more into the specific sources and information about this virus operation.

Please follow the links and take the time to thoroughly consider what is presented here.

For now I will leave you with a link to a talk that was done in 2010 by Bill Ryan from Project Avalon.
In it he talks about a secret meeting that took place in 2005 that was held in London.
Go to the 14:56 mark and listen to what he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73e4EfvVZGw

I recommend watching the whole talk and hearing about what was discussed in full if you have the time and interest.

on a final note - I am not trying to deceive anyone here - all I wish is for people to wake up and see what is going on so
we can deal with this problem of this new world order disease; heal this planet and ourselves, but if our psychological immune
systems continue to be compromised by ignorance and illusion - I guarantee you the suffering is only going to get worse...

On more link - the Statement of Principles and Purpose from my old online book store at internet archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060710200 ... iples.html

To be continued...

[CrocoDuck]

Thanks for the link about simulations. It pretty much goes about what simulations would be. Please note that the person who did states clearly that he is not an epidemiologist and that what is shown is a toy model.

Yes, he covers only the basics and his models are meant to study the fundamentals of epidemics. It does not go in any detail, but it allows to see what are the most fundamental parameters that do affect spread of contagious diseases, and what aren't.

Some of your questions to the best of my knowledge.

More specifically, does the simulation take into account the economic part of countries ? At this stage it's rather obvious that the WHO is leading the behaviour of Western (at least) governments and that the WHO uses an AI model.

Some modelling frameworks take into account demographic information as they can be related to spread of certain diseases. As far as I am aware, the models do not take into account the economic impact of containment measures. That has to be done with some other economic model provided by someone else. Also, as far as I am aware, AI is used mainly in natural language processing to allow Scientists to search effectively among large databases of papers: the number of papers published about this thing is already in the thousands and nobody can read them all.

Immediately, as part of a reaction to the 'war' - albeit a reaction not devoid of thought - I'd advance the following question: Does a computer model totally bypass the advice of a world-known epidemiologist in face of a crisis ? Moreover, a world-known epidemiologist leader of a reputed large European research center on epidemics, itself storing the largest quantity of viruses in Europe, and who has an 'attitude' towards the gouvernment ?

For instance, if the simulation tells that 3 million heads of cattle must be disposed of in order to limit the consequences of an epidemic, does it take into account the farmers ? Will we just go and 'obey' the simulation w/o further evaluation ?

Models, to be useful, have to model something specific with a good trade-off between accuracy and speed. We can model the entire universe with infinite computational power and infinite time, but clearly what we are talking about here are not models of everything. Models might say "let's kill 3 million cows" but it most likely will not model the consequences of it. That's the thing: model exist to inform decision, not to make decisions on your behalf. Whether you should kill or not those 3 million cows will depend on the result of some additional analysis you will carry on atop it. And make no mistake: in a situation like this you are guaranteed to be unable to make a choice that is 100% right (see below).

Are competitive business allowed then to pursue their competitive strategies in those 'crisis' times ?

If you ask me: NOPE. The state should seize control when in state of emergency, and release it afterwards. Sounds commie, I know.

Do you think that the simulaion code used by the WHO is open to everyone ? (It might be, let me know, at the moment I'm asking). And if it's open, is that actually the code being used ?

No, I do not know about the details of what the WHO is doing. As far as I am aware, studies are being run by Universities all over the world under commission of WHO, upon which the WHO bases its recommendation. Single governments also commission studies to universities and research centers. Based on WHO recommendations (which they can discard as they see fit) and the study they commissioned themselves the various governments will decide which policy to implement. In fact, as you can see across Europe, the policies are really not uniform. So, as far as I am aware, there is not a single data center running "the simulation". Rather, many different ones are being used, including those that are actually independent research. Which drastically complicate things for us if we want to review the bloody thing, if I have to be honest.

This would actually be quite interesting to do some research on, to understand who is asking who to do what and how.

I do not consider that this demonstration extends to epidemics. What's best in face of a virus that targets 95% people with a weakened immune system ? To economically shut down countries because of the 'probability' ? Or instead to address the immediate concern for the tageted population while preserving in large parts economic operations ?

I think it actually extends really really well. And this is why.

The virus spread very well because:

• Has a fairly long incubation time in which it can be transmitted and no symptoms are shown.
• A lot of people will not even show symptoms but still transmit it.
• A lot of people will only have mild symptoms, and hence will carry on with their life as normal. But they are contagious and hence they will spread the virus.

So, assume the spread of the virus is not kept in control. Then the virus infect everybody. Than everybody that has the potential of developing the harsh symptoms will do. This is the thing, a low probability does not matter if it is multiplied by a too large number (as an entire population).

Now, hospitals in first world countries are not rigged for massive spread of infectious diseases. And this is pretty nasty because, no matter what magic chemicals there might be around, if you get to dyspnea, and you have fluid in the lungs, there is no way around it: you must be attached to a respirator. There are X respirator, but Y people will need them. And Y >> X. This means that you will have to admit patients into critical care based on life expectancy or other similar parameters. For example, see UK NHS guidelines for critical care admission (official). Note also: the more time the virus spreads into humans, the higher the chance of a mutation to come about.

So, if on one end of the spectrum we do nothing, we end up with an overwhelmed healthcare system that cannot handle the cases, resulting with people that could survive dying instead, or developing chronic conditions, just because they have no access to cure. Also, queues and waiting lists for all other diseases will get longer, with people likely to die from conditions they could not get diagnosed, and cured, in time.

On the opposite end we barricade ourselves home and stop working for months. And there we got ourselves a recession at the very least, a depression at the likely worst. And then we end up creating mass of unemployment and a long list of things you really, really do not want to see.

So, in the middle of this spectrum there is a solution that will create some COVID-19 victims and some recession victims. It is inevitable. The tricky question here is how you nail the perfect compromise, and minimize the impact. I am surprised about what I am about to type, but I think the UK government has been having a sensible approach (citing from memory):

• Who can work from home shall do so. This will make it safer for those that cannot work from home.
• Elderly people especially, and those more exposed to the risk of harsh symptoms, by all means self isolate.
• At the same time, ramp up the capabilities of hospitals, including building new ones. Get a hold of those sweet sweet respirators. Get more companies to build them.
• As the hospitals get to full regime, and become more able to deal with the surges of cases, you can potentially get to the point you can de-quarantine people, as the hospitals at full regime are very efficient, and should be able to keep up.
• When the finger-prick tests become available, and their accuracy is confirmed, distribute them along the population. Those that are confirmed as immunized can go beck to ordinary life.

Not too unreasonable if you ask me. Also, the newly built hospitals are there to stay, which could help solving the bed crisis the NHS is currently affected by.

Still, I would invite to go deeper. All things considered, this is a very serious emergency. And that's the thing: emergencies are bound to happen. Not a pandemic? What about a beefy mass coronal ejection? Or remember the Iceland volcanic eruptions in 2010? According to what we know from historic records, that eruption was not nearly as violent as Iceland can do. A full force eruption would ground all planes for months in Europe, and directly impact agriculture, supply chains and the industry. Sounds like a recipe for recession.

I think the deeper question is: do we want to keep on running on an economic system that is prone to be periodically obliterated by unforeseeable events (conspirators aside) or build some degree of anti-fragility to it (for example)?

Thus I say, forme, "welcome to the covid-19 ! I want it !" No joke. It's now 7 years w/o any flu or any other seasonal sickness so I extend a big welcome !

That sweet sweet immunization really does look tempting. Still, if you have the disease spreading, you must be prepared to bury some of your loved ones. Of the people I knew that passed away, two were in the 40s, one 35 and one 70. Only two had underlying health conditions. I found out the other day that a guy that I met in passing at university, my same age (early 30) had to be attached to a respirator to survive. He too no underlying conditions, and he has fully recovered. That thing is: can you see how closely to home this will hit if it gets to spread to everybody?

No. YOU are being mugged. RIGHT NOW. You are not going to see a politician in the middle of the evening. The mugger is in your face and wants the money. You are alone on the street.

I politely disagree. Epidemics target populations, not single people. Any example that fails to capture this is inherently flawed: the reaction to an epidemic, however swift, is one that targets an entire population. And to target an entire population you need information and models. It is not a question of fight for fly.

Come on. The thing targets lungs. See the surgeon's explanation above in full. The state of the lungs of a smoker would not matter at all ? There's scientific proof needed ?

If, in my career as a physicist and acoustician, I did manage to learn at least one thing that one thing must be: reality is always counter-intuitive. Yes, you need to prove it. You need to prove everything. The way substances interact in a biological system is not trivial. That the chronic damages of smoke can produce worse conditions for a disease that target lungs is totally reasonable. But biochemistry finds the way to surprise you. And to be very very honest, I do not expect that it will be found that smoking does not affect this negatively. And in fact, I hope this will help people quitting burning money in order to lay asphalt over their lungs for good. Still, take this example.

Know kidney stones? I had them. Absolute shitshow. Nevertheless, they are stones of minerals that form in your kidneys. For years the consensus was that the higher the minerals in the water you drink the higher the chance for you to develop one. You know, it totally makes sense, right? Minerals are in water. From water, they pass through blood directly through the wall of the stomach. From there, the kidneys have to handle them. Well, it turned out this is nonsense. Not only urine at the kidneys is always saturated no matter what (it is kept stable by chemicals your kidney produce, the lack of which gives you the stones), but very high contents of mineral in water cause less susceptibility to kidney stones. That happens because with high mineral contents the crystals in water precipitate into bigger ones, that are too big to pass through the stomach wall, and get the way of the intestines instead, for you to safely poop. There, counter-intuitive stuff at its best.

So then it's kind of uprooted. Because Science is implemented by scientists. On this we agree, but why continue with this illusory assumption about Science ?

I do not think you know Italian, but if you know I would recommend this book. Its final chapter goes in details into a critical analysis of how things can (an do) go wrong in Science, how bias (conscious or not) plays a role in shifting experimental results, and all that jazz. Not only that, it delves into quantification of the issue to some extent. Science is not perfect, and it will never be. Still, the overall trend across history is that consensus is ultimately build upon the things that are true, despite there being huge highs and downs to this. I cannot, and perhaps do not want, to write at length about it here as that would mean rewriting an entire chapter of a book, and this is already too long. Maybe one day I will write a blog post instead...

@Noahsark, interesting stuff. I want to address one single thing.

Those of you who refuse to see this conspiracy are blind partakers of it because of your own confirmation bias's about what you think the world to be instead of seeing as it is. The "elites" who are the conductors of this conspiracy could not complete their "great work" as they like to call it, without your blind obedience and willful ignorance that plays into their hands.

I do not refuse to see conspiracy. Edward Snowden exposed a very real one, and it was not the only one. The thing is, it was a real one, and the evidence he provided was overwhelming. You might be the most intelligent person on the planet: there is no guarantee that the conspiracy theory you come to develop is real. Do you see my point? You can explain all events with multiple theories. Many are conspiracy theories, many are not. Which one is the correct one? What is going on in reality? In the domain of conspiracy theory, I do not mind the theory as much as the lack of its validation. How do you know that that is the truth?

Also, take it from this angle. Are you fighting against the establishment when you think they are able to control every single aspect of the world, or are you accepting deep inside you that they (whoever "they" means) have total control. Because the latter, to me, seems like reinforces the establishment on a psychological level.

And do you know why this really, really rubs me the wrong way? Because ordinary people, intelligent people like you, make theories. And this is no wrong. No wrong at all. I love it. It is great. Keep on doing. I do it to! But when the validation step is missing, and your theory is only induced by finding links between events, with the risk of over-fitting what you are observing, then you are at risk of developing an impression of reality that is flawed. And by risk I mean, pretty much guaranteed. In fact, the perception of reality of most individuals comes across as flawed according to many studies, such as this.

Is that a problem? Well, people will act - in the real world - according to the perception of reality they have. A few years ago there has been a referendum where I currently live. Many went to vote, but (whatever they were voting for) they did so on a flawed perception of reality, especially about key issues such as immigration and sovereignty. This resulted in an outcome at the end of which I was left with less rights. As a result of that, I am less free. The irony in this is that people believed the would get more freedom for everybody instead.

I do not want to delve into the details as I do not want to sound like I hate one of the parties in that mystery referendum I am referring to. I do not. I believe that both the options could have had very reasonable, rational, arguments to them. In a parallel universe, the same referendum result happened, but those who voted did it because their theories were grounded in reality, condition upon which, if I still would have lost rights, I could have tolerate it.

So you see, people might think they are fighting the establishment, but then they give it back the wheel of their communities as soon as the establishment presents itself as anti-establishment. And in doing so they reduce the freedom of others, and this happened to me in the real world.

(by the way, I have written about related things in my old crap blog)

I would suggest one thing, if I am allowed to. Every time you see, or develop, a theory, and it seems to work very well, ask yourself: "How do I know it is the truth?".

[CrocoDuck]

My condolences for the losses of people you know, things in Italy must be nightmarish right now, hold tight and stay healthy!

Thank you mate.

[Noahsark]

@Crocoduck -- I can see that you think that I am making a theory and then trying to fit the world and its events to fit it.
That is not what I am doing at all. What I presented is a deduction that comes from years of research and looking into these
subjects for the past 28-30 years.

Continuing on from where I left off in the last post...

For anyone reading this; to understand the back drop of this great conspiracy which brings us to our present time one must take
the time to that it takes to gain the understanding of what this agenda is and how those who are involved in it operate in the world at large.

You must start somewhere and one of the best independent researchers and journalist of our time is James Corbett of The Corbett Report.
So I will direct you to his documentary page at his website:
https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-r ... mentaries/

And specifically I will encourage you to take the time and watch 2 of his documentaries from that page.

The World War 1 Conspiracy:
https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

and How/(and)Why Big Oil Conquered the World:
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/

...and If you are feeling enthusiastic about learning about this conspiracy I would recommend you watch them all, but the other important
aspect of this agenda is the money system and how it really works - so I would encourage you to watch...

Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve:
https://www.corbettreport.com/federalreserve/

These documentaries will give you a good foundational understanding as to what and who are the players operating from on high,
what their goals are, and what means they employ to reach those goals. One of the fundamental dysfuctions that they operate from
is that "the means justify the ends." These people will do anything to achieve their ends and that includes releasing a virus or some other
biological agent on the worlds populations to do so.

Another fantastic independent journalist of our time is Whitney Webb and she has recently released an article called, "All Roads Lead to Dark Winter."

This article will clue you in on the people who were connected to the dark winter drill/exercise from 2001, the anthrax release that happened not long after the 911 attacks in america and the event 201 and crimson contagion exercises of last year and its connection to the covid-19 pandemic that is unfolding as I write this:
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com ... rk-winter/

Link to Event 201 exercise videos:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... G7XOVYB9Xm

Then I will direct you to Spiro Skouras's channel who is another real news man of our time and watch his interview with
Dr Frances Boyle who is the author of the US Bio-warfare Act and listen to what he has to say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_TPjbu4FAE

I would also recommend that you watch all of Spiro's reports that he has done since he started covering this story:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkKOQN ... eeQ/videos

From there I would go and watch Ryan Cristian's report from March 6, 2020
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com ... not-china/

After taking the time and it will take some time to go through all of this information. Then come back and make a reply and
tell me what you think is going on after considering all of this I laid out for you. You will not be able to tell me or anyone else
after learning from these independent sources that the media that many are listening to is telling the truth - the mainstream
media across the globe is lying to the people.

One final report for this post and I know I have given you alot to look over but this one is important as well.
Corbett's report Medical Martial Law 2020:
https://www.corbettreport.com/medical-martial-law-2020/

So... I will leave it at that for now... in the next post I will address the specific points from the past post that you all have made.

Thanks for taking the time to read and educate yourselves - it is much appreciated.

May the light of truth lead you and may it set you free!

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Michael Willis]

May the light of truth lead you and may it set you free!

"We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"

[jonetsu]

Hello,

Some modelling frameworks take into account demographic information as they can be related to spread of certain diseases. As far as I am aware, the models do not take into account the economic impact of containment measures. That has to be done with some other economic model provided by someone else.

In other words we do not know much about how it goes at the WHO regarding this, we do not have the source code but, one thing is certain, the WHO president has honoured Zimbabwe tyrant Robert Mugabe by offering him the role of honorific ambassador of the WHO. That we know (1). We do not need extensive studies for that do we ? If we do, wouldn't that be equivalent to trying to sneak a way to justify this nomination ? As for the various frauds he's accused of, notably during Ethiopian epidemics, it's another matter (2)

Models, to be useful, have to model something specific with a good trade-off between accuracy and speed. We can model the entire universe with infinite computational power and infinite time, ...

But there's just about not that much of a certainty about black holes. Recently supposedly a picture has been made showing the existence of a black hole. The source of the observation about uncertainty: 'renegade' physicist Jean-Pierre Petit and his model of the universe. Petit is one of those scientists targeted by the Good Objective and Always Curious Science. Petit is notably known for the MHD propulsion system that allows missiles for instance to be able to take quite sharp turns (3)

Are competitive business allowed then to pursue their competitive strategies in those 'crisis' times ?

If you ask me: NOPE. The state should seize control when in state of emergency, and release it afterwards. Sounds commie, I know.

"Commie" ? I'm afraid I do not relate to this approach. In the Western world since at least Étienne de La Boétie in 1574 (Latin version) and 1576 (French version) (6) it's known that a good part of people in a society are apt to live in a state of submission towards governments. That the government is 'commie' or 'capie' (for capitalist ?) does not matter much. The principle remains that humans tend to have people in charge of a complex society that exceeds small scale small village decisions so that these people take care of the country while the regular folks go on with their lives.

I have no problem with this, independently of the type of government. I consider that it makes sense for human societies to proceed like that. Where the problem lies though, is that those people in charge will look rather for their own interests. Even in Asian societies where for millennia the emperor represents a divine leadership (see the thousand years old Yi Jing writings and commentaries through the ages, especially the dynamics of hexagrams) there are dissensions and competition for power. There's corruption that settles in and a 'capie' society is certainly not exempt of that even though we might bath in the sweet waters of Liberty and Democracy. Or rather what stands for them in the modern world. I think they are more like trademarks for a manufactured substitute, about which you can see famous thinker Noam Chomsky and his "Manufacturing Consent". Noam Chomsky is world-wide appreciated for his view on society (9).

Society. And Pure Science. One is implemented daily wile the other is not in its purest sense and is also implemented through society and its members. One can be an expert statistician but its his boss and convictions that will prevail most of the time.

If one follows all strict protocols to establish that (5G) cellular waves are harmful, to the brain or other parts, do you think that the Purity of Statistical Science will set in motion a revolution just because of its Pure existence to ban any further developments until a solid thorough research is made which could last for years ?

Is Greenpeace just made out of a bunch of people who never went to universities ?

Both some Greenpeace activists and some Bayer/Monsanto scientists might have frequented the same university and the same courses.

This is why I keep my distance when a technocracy influenced solution is put forward. Because for all practical purposes Pure Science only exists in the minds of some. It has just about no real daily implementation even though many believe otherwise.

Even though many believe that the doctor at a corner office has all the answers when in fact he's regularly visited by salesmen from pharmaceuticals that offers nice gifts if the doctor makes the right move. When doctors are not simply checking out symptoms and cross-referencing them to a database of pharmaceutical products to provide prescriptions to satisfy not a patient, but a customer.

No, I do not know about the details of what the WHO is doing.

So then let's drop this open-source-check-the-code thing ? Which more and more seems like a dream regarding how the WHO operates ?

As far as I am aware, studies are being run by Universities all over the world under commission of WHO, upon which the WHO bases its recommendation.

Again the darn world creeps in. Again, why has the Tedros chief of the WHO nominated Zimbabwe tyrant Robert Mugabe to a honorific WHO 'ambassador' ? We was he accused of frauds regarding epidemics in Ethiopia ? The nomination was removed following outraged people.

Can you imagine a mafia boss asking the best people in the world to make models so that he can tell the neighbourhood people that they need 'security' ?

In fact, as you can see across Europe, the policies are really not uniform. So, as far as I am aware, there is not a single data center running "the simulation". Rather, many different ones are being used, including those that are actually independent research.

Across Europe and more, in North America also, the exact same behaviour is undertaken. Throw away the economy of each country in the name of a virus that largely only attacks people with an immune deficiency. Let's not address the problem in a more targeted way for these people while keeping a major part of the economy running.

Instead, let's obey a simulation model. Remember the zika pandemic 'Made in WHO' that dropped dead to the floor. Never took off. Zika, which perfectly inoffensive. Their modelisation efforts wasn't much by then.

What was the state of the health system in many countries before this viral attack ? In France there were dozens and dozens of suicides from health system worked including doctors. For years. The governments did nothing in face of these serious alarms. Instead the government directed the hospitals to borrow privately in high risks loans, which ended up aggravating the health care system.

Were other European and North American countries free of any health care system problems ?

How long do we have to study very hard in order to show that eating a lot of chemical abundant industrial foods is not good for health ? What is the amount of research money that goes into that ?

You perhaps know doctor Robert O. Becker and how he was lead to study wave forms. Yes, individuals have to be brought up in this discussion, as opposed to only use broad concepts. That guy, the other guy, that other scientist who died of exhaustion when the scientific world turned against him (Jean Benveniste (13)) , whose research was picked up (mentioned again, I know) by Luc Montagnier, discoverer of the HIV. Who then in turn went to work in China (12)

Individuals. As opposed to largely approved textbooks and researches. So what are we tempted to do ? Ignore those individuals and rely on general consensus, which is less tiring and comfortably convenient. That's certainly a winner stance. Cannot loose an argument.

Robert O. Becker. Nominated Nobel prize twice. Was puzzled by salamanders and their capability to grow again lost body parts. From there he was lead to study wave forms. ELF waves also. And how they affect human bodies. He relates in one of his two books how money was very hard to get to do these researches. He even got very clear messages from the army at one point to stay away from some research. He nevertheless contributed to preventing the construction of a 9 700 km ELF underground antenna in Wisconsin, project Sanguine (10)

Curious individuals. Isn't that an expression of Science ? Why do they have so many problems to carry on research at times ?

Wouldn't it make sense for any aspiring scientist to stay away totally from those individuals in order to have a good career and a nice retirement ? Wouldn't that be, simply human ? Meanwhile Science takes a blow.

This would actually be quite interesting to do some research on, to understand who is asking who to do what and how.

Like for instance journalists that would actually be asking how do the coronavirus tests work. Do they measure the antibody reaction to the coronavirus, which many have inside of them as a natural phenomenon ? Do they measure viral load ? Why aren't they asking those questions ? Already,m in the case of the young Portuguese that recently died, there was a mistake as he did not die of the 'coronavirus' but of a meningitis.

Why do we see so often a ping pong use of the terms 'coronavirus' and 'covid-19' ? Thousands of people die each year due to the regular flu. Are we 100% certain that all deaths today are due to precisely the covid-19 before 'trumpeting' about them in the medias ? Is it possible to scientists in the field to question the approach taken ? And the ones who do, are they more or less silenced by the weight of crowds agreeing with governments and the WHO ?

I think it actually extends really really well. And this is why.

The list is plainly normal. Nothing new at all.

So, assume the spread of the virus is not kept in control. Then the virus infect everybody.

But that's not it. I mean, is it called for to adopt a W. Bush "for us or against us" binary approach ?

Why not assure a good economic operation while continuing research ? Which obviously mean targeting immune-fragile people first and not jamming up the whole system. Which is turn means use very cheap chloroquine now and not wait for studies.

Than everybody that has the potential of developing the harsh symptoms will do. This is the thing, a low probability does not matter if it is multiplied by a too large number (as an entire population).

Everybody developing harsh symptoms is it ? Or is it really everybody that has the potential. It is so common to jump from one to the other at the emotional level. On what criteria is this propensity evaluated, is it taken into account at all now, in the medias and with politicians ? Surely evidence (notwithstanding exceptions although we are not making trends on exceptions aren't we ?) has shown that the coronavirus strain 19 affects people with already deficient or surcharged immune systems. Contrary to what medias and politicians are strongly suggesting.

Why should we parade empathy now when years of suicides of health system professionals did not alarm us at all ? When should we parade empathy now when thousands and thousands and thousands of people died every year due to the flu ? We did not care at all then. Why put our hearts on the sleeve now in some kind of a tribal sense of togetherness when we didn't give a sheesh about all those previous deaths ? Isn't the lack of a vaccine and the fear of the unknown unashamedly exploited ?

There are X respirator, but Y people will need them. And Y >> X.

Revealing. So far I always thought that X and Y stood for Xavier and Yolande and that the ">" represented the number of times Xavier impregnated Yolande to produce offspring.

This means that you will have to admit patients into critical care based on life expectancy or other similar parameters.

This is now just about to get the world population acceptance. About 30 minutes ago, at least 7 727 miles from Europe, it was mentioned on radio that it'll have to be done.

And so, at which % of the max capacity were the health care systems running prior to the covid-19 ? I do not know about Italy, but I know about France (dozens of doctors committing suicide, from at least 2014 (4)) and Canada where complains about the condition of hospitals are frequently heard.

So, if on one end of the spectrum we do nothing, we end up with an overwhelmed healthcare system that cannot handle the cases, resulting with people that could survive dying instead, or developing chronic conditions, just because they have no access to cure.

So, in the middle of this spectrum there is a solution that will create some COVID-19 victims and some recession victims.

Well, there's the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin compound. If it wasn't for the medias going against it full speed.

I am surprised about what I am about to type, but I think the UK government has been having a sensible approach (citing from memory):

This is undertaken by a lot of Western countries in the world, the U.K. is not unique. even priests are urging people to pray online.

I think the deeper question is: do we want to keep on running on an economic system that is prone to be periodically obliterated by unforeseeable events (conspirators aside) or build some degree of anti-fragility to it (for example)?

To paraphrase, the part that's itching about this is the 'we' part. Since when are 'we' in charge ? We elect people that in turn will take decisions for us. Soldiers will be sent to topple so-called 'regimes' in the name of democracy with the people's money. Weapons will be made available to "moderate rebels". Countries will see their infracstructure destroyed while we will get the nice little flask of white powder agaitated in our faces at the United Nations (by a Colin Poweel in this case). On "60 Minutes" state secretary Albright will justify the death of 500 000 Iraki children due to invasion and sanctions (11).

What role does this 'we' play ? And what role does this 'we' have in democracy ?

No. YOU are being mugged. RIGHT NOW. You are not going to see a politician in the middle of the evening. The mugger is in your face and wants the money. You are alone on the street.

I politely disagree. Epidemics target populations, not single people. Any example that fails to capture this is inherently flawed: the reaction to an epidemic, however swift, is one that targets an entire population. And to target an entire population you need information and models. It is not a question of fight for fly.

Why politely ? I do not understand. What are you saying ? The reaction to being mugged and the reaction at large to an attack on a nation boils down to the same basic steps. At least since Gustave Le Bon (1895) (8a, 8b) the psychology of masses is akin to the psychology of a single person. It is possible to model crowds as a single person with its own psychology. We all know very well how humans behave in crowds, dropping individual values to adopt values of the crowd. Knowledge about that is even much better today even w/o using quantum computers. Feed in many prominent social media interactions, get simulations out. Follow day-to-day people who insults others, people who have then loose arguments, see why they do so.

Don't need Clausewitz or Sunzi for this, although they can help.

So yes, a person getting mugged will choose an approach. A country being attacked will choose an approach. If the person is practical he/she will choose quickly an efficient way to defend and protect assets. In the case of being mugged, the person will not take the time to review his theoretic self-defence moves. Please mugger, put your right foot just a bit more to the left. There's no time to do so. In the case of a country the sensible thing to do is the same. Protect assets and defend.

Shutting down the economies of countries is not about protecting assets. It is about contracting debts and paying interests.

The solution is not between total confinement and doing nothing. I'm afraid they are many more nuances in real life. Those nuances are primordial for a proper defence.

Come on. The thing targets lungs. See the surgeon's explanation above in full. The state of the lungs of a smoker would not matter at all ? There's scientific proof needed ?

If, in my career as a physicist and acoustician, I did manage to learn at least one thing that one thing must be: reality is always counter-intuitive. Yes, you need to prove it. You need to prove everything.

I'm afraid I will skip in this reply the listing of multiple Science sources that demonstrate that smoking is not good for health.

Know kidney stones? I had them. Absolute shitshow.

I know by name. Haven't been to a doctor in ages. Last time I was disgusted by the quick service which consisted of basically sending me to the pharmacy. Got for over $100 of medicine, disposed of them, including antibiotics, in a day since my state improved much. Luckily the insurance paid. This happened before starting to do internal arts.

So then about your kidney stone description, why are crystals precipitating into larger ones ?

I do not think you know Italian, but if you know I would recommend this book.

I only can read - naturally - a little. I speak two languages, have a good handle on German since the years working there, and have some rudiments of Arabic. Although I have no interest in learning yet another abstract language. Thus I'm studying Chinese, which is a lot of fun. Very very interesting, going along the taoist culture at the same time. But I'm sure the book makes total sense. Wouldn't be at Springer Verlag otherwise would it ?

Consensus: see above. Comfortable, agreed upon, throw everybody else out ? Radiate them of doctor's and scientific associations for "misbehaving" ? Is that the true spirit of Science ?

Concerning reply to Noahsark.

I do not refuse to see conspiracy. Edward Snowden exposed a very real one, and it was not the only one. The thing is, it was a real one, and the evidence he provided was overwhelming. You might be the most intelligent person on the planet: there is no guarantee that the conspiracy theory you come to develop is real. Do you see my point? You can explain all events with multiple theories. Many are conspiracy theories, many are not. Which one is the correct one? What is going on in reality? In the domain of conspiracy theory, I do not mind the theory as much as the lack of its validation. How do you know that that is the truth?

So for instance the owners of French media BFMTV are linked to the pharmaceutical businesses. I can provide names and dates for all this. In turn Agnès Buzyn, French minister of health is directly linked to pharmaceutical businesses. Her husband is also directly linked to them. BFMTV drags internationally renowned immunologist prof. Raoult in the dirt for suggesting chloroquine (7a, 7b).

Should we wait for a complete study of this for years and years to come ?

(Hydroxy)Chloroquine is 70 years old and was given to millions of people. On January 2020 The French government reclassified chloroquine as a venomous substance (5). How much studies to we need to start to think ?

Also, take it from this angle. Are you fighting against the establishment when you think they are able to control every single aspect of the world, or are you accepting deep inside you that they (whoever "they" means) have total control. Because the latter, to me, seems like reinforces the establishment on a psychological level.

Why does it have to be a fight against the 'establishment' ?

Stirring oneself internally is falling right into a vulnerable position. Does it mean to let it go to not be stressed, to not be 'fighting' ?

Here's no theory: oppose your force when an attack comes. In order to be prepared, let's say you go to the gym often and take self-defense courses. But the notion is still to oppose force against force. You will then always have a chance to loose a fight during an attack for the simple reason that there'll always be someone stronger than you. Simple. The same goes with everything else, mental processes included.

The 'establishment' likes it when one is opposing force. It means one is stressed, anxious, is stirred internally, and that plays along very well the lines of the 'establishment'. On the other hand, when one has reached through constant diligence and effort a good state of inner peace, then some kind of balance prevails, if not finding a stable joy about Life. That state the 'establishment' does not like. It is squarely allergic to it. Joy should be gained by the levers and mechanisms provided by the 'establishment'. I will not go into religion here.

And do you know why this really, really rubs me the wrong way? Because ordinary people, intelligent people like you, make theories. And this is no wrong. No wrong at all. I love it. It is great. Keep on doing. I do it to! But when the validation step is missing, and your theory is only induced by finding links between events, with the risk of over-fitting what you are observing, then you are at risk of developing an impression of reality that is flawed. And by risk I mean, pretty much guaranteed. In fact, the perception of reality of most individuals comes across as flawed according to many studies, such as this.

Of all discussions and writings out there about perception, the chosen argument was Ipsos Mori, a polling company working for customers, whose polls are published by mainstream medias at large ?

How often have we read popular polls that are irrelevant and suggesting boosting the power in place ? How often has Macron's popularity gone down while magically always remaining at the same level ?

Is that a problem? Well, people will act - in the real world - according to the perception of reality they have.

And presenting them polls will influence their decisions. In France people will vote only for the candidates shown in the mainstream medias. If a party such as the UPR, that has a president professionally well-versed in gov't economics but critical of the 'establishment' is not shown at all in the medias, then the masses will not seek out its existence.

The irony in this is that people believed the would get more freedom for everybody instead.

I do not know the details, although these people were going to vote n the subject of immigration and expecting more freedom ? These two topics do not immediately surface as being linked together do they.

I would suggest one thing, if I am allowed to. Every time you see, or develop, a theory, and it seems to work very well, ask yourself: "How do I know it is the truth?".

How do we know the truth about life ? We live.

However, you go along the same lines as the 'famous' David Icke in that he's also often saying to ponder and never take what he says for granted.

This said the principle you mentioned can be - and should be - applied to everything and emotions should not interfere. Example: you report the deaths of completely 100% healthy people who fell due to the coronavirus strain 19. I have no proof at all that their health was 100% perfect, whatever you can say I will not know until I see past health history records. Hence it naturally follows that I will not make a link between what is up to now a virus that attacks people with a weakened immune system. Sorry about the lack of emotion, although it is not a lack of empathy.

I follow the principle you stated and there are no reasons to consider that virus otherwise as it was initially described, exceptions in nature taken into account, as there always will be exceptions. Reasoning is not derived from sparse exceptions especially in such fields has biology and nature.

Unfortunately this is not the way the mainstream medias sees it, and politicians, as we day after day witness a blatant exploitation of emotions taking over rationality.


References


(1) "Robert Mugabe's WHO appointment condemned as 'an insult'"
BBC, October 2017
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41702662

(2) "Candidate to Lead the W.H.O. Accused of Covering Up Epidemics"
New York Times, May 13 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/heal ... reaks.html

(3) Wikipedia, Jean-Pierre Petit, Italian version
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit

(4) "Chaque année, 45 médecins se suicident !"
"Each year 45 doctors are committing suicide"
Le Point, février 2014
https://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/ ... 283_57.php

(5) French government web site
"JORF n°0012 du 15 janvier 2020 texte n° 13"
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/arre ... A/jo/texte

(6) Discorso sulla servitù volontaria:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discorso_ ... volontaria

(7a) "Coronavirus, il farmaco contro la malaria funziona in 3 casi su 4"
La Repubblica, 8 marzo 2020
https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medici ... 251594568/

"Lo studio su 24 pazienti" - Guess what. This was dragged into
the dirt by the meidas, lead by BFMTV. Yesterday, some pharma
research using sea worms and 10 patients did not get a
single bad press article. There was even no "Who is the CEO of
this company ?" style of article.

(7b) Didier Raoult, wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult

Yes, the prof started to let his hair grow following the attitude
of some politicians.

(8a) Wikipedia: "Psicologia delle folle"
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psicologia_delle_folle

(8b) Wikipdia: Gustave Le Bon
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon

(9) "Manufacturing Consent", documentary, almost 3 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII

(10) Wikipedia: "Project Sanguine"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sanguine

(11) "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996, CBS News. Journalist: Leslie Standahl. Excerpt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

(12) Wikipedia: Luc Montagnier
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier

(13) Wikipedia: Jean Benveniste
"memoria dell'acqua"
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste



In totally optional music and coloration, Deux Ex Machina:

"Multiverso", live 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8

[jonetsu]

An interesting thing I noticed now since several days, is that yahoo news rejects a comment when the comment mentions something about "we" knowing you more than yourself. At each try the comment was rewritten from scratch, thus reworded. The comments did not contain any 'dirty' word. The comments did not contain any politician name. The comments did not contain any insult. Essentially it was about:

"We" know you more than yourself. The mechanics of human behaviour, and modified behaviour when placed into a crowd, is by now very well known. Stemming from early researches by Freud and co. the analysis of those behaviours has attained a high precision, largely due to the steady input of massive popular social platforms interactions along with simulations. It works well because it is grounded on human behaviour mechanics. It excludes spiritual aspects. And for the most part our lives are limited to those mechanical aspects. For the vast majority, a deep spiritual process and experience, one that involves the whole being in face of death for instance, is not a concern. Moreover, if only a few can go deep into their lives in introspection, the possibility of having such a crowd borders on the impossibility. We can get political party members' cards. But we'll never be able to get a 'spiritual party' card showing that we did the spiritual effort. Because there's no instrument to measure this.

I do not see why at each try yahoo news would immediately reject a comment with such a content. Social platform is mentioned but why would yahoo reject such a comment ? No harm is made by the expression of such a view. There are a lot, lot worse comments, including a wide array of insults, and even racist comments, that are published by others, no problems, on the same yahoo news platform.

[Noahsark]

I just wanted to pop in a post a link to this new report from Spiro Skouras --

Henry Kissinger and Bill Gates Calls for Mass Vaccination and Global Governance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Aps2NPe54

[CrocoDuck]

Hi there!

In other words we do not know much about how it goes at the WHO regarding this

So then let's drop this open-source-check-the-code thing ? Which more and more seems like a dream regarding how the WHO operates ?

Sorry but no. Single governments are commissioning studies to third parties, and acting upon the outcome of those studies and the WHO recommendations. What would make sense to do here is stop assuming that the WHO is dictating policies (it doesn't have the authority to do so) and then track down who is doing the studies and how. Universities often develop and use their own open source software. Papers are also published among the not open source ones describing how they (supposedly) work.

If you want to question the assumption underlying models, you have to find those assumption first. If those are nowhere to be found, dang. That's sucks. At the moment, neither me or you have searched deep enough, so I do not see how it is possible to make any conclusion about how reliable those models are.

The fact the frauds happened in the past is not proof they are happening now. Rather, it is a strong incentive at doing what I am describing above, as the actors are indeed suspicious. Even the most suspicious of criminals needs the proofs to be convicted, and what I am describing is an attempt at finding some kind of tangible proof.

Like for instance journalists that would actually be asking how do the coronavirus tests work. Do they measure the antibody reaction to the coronavirus, which many have inside of them as a natural phenomenon ?

I was referring to what I said above. It would be interesting to know which government entities are commission epidemiological simulations to who, and how those are being carried on.

Across Europe and more, in North America also, the exact same behaviour is undertaken.

No. The approach of the UK is more relaxed than that of Italy and that of Norway is more relaxed than that of the UK, making less use of coercive rules and more use of recommendations. They are using all the same paradigms, that are social distancing and hygiene, which are known to work due to historic data, including those from the Spanish Flu, but applying them to different degrees.

Why not assure a good economic operation while continuing research ? Which obviously mean targeting immune-fragile people first and not jamming up the whole system. Which is turn means use very cheap chloroquine now and not wait for studies.

The sources that you kindly provided say exactly why to do so. First of all, chloroquine allegedly helps in reducing the time one needs to heal, which is all good, but it still does not reduce the need for respirators, which does not reduce the strain on healthcare. Then, it is known to interact, with adverse effects, with all the other medications that are used during intensive care, that are still needed even if you use chloroquine (your mate Raoult himself has reported all of this according to your sources). So... doesn't really sound like the silver bullet you are portraying in this thread.

And so, at which % of the max capacity were the health care systems running prior to the covid-19 ? I do not know about Italy, but I know about France (dozens of doctors committing suicide, from at least 2014 (4)) and Canada where complains about the condition of hospitals are frequently heard.

In the 70s Italian healthcare system was reformed because infectious diseases were not very common anymore, and population was getting older and affected by chronic diseases instead (cancer, hearth diseases and the like). Hence, it was restructured to crank up the capacity of dealing with chronic diseases at the expensive of infectious ones, as that was not needed anymore. So, when an epidemic hits, there are not resources to fight it.

Why do we see so often a ping pong use of the terms 'coronavirus' and 'covid-19' ? Thousands of people die each year due to the regular flu

And hospitals do get very strained in flu seasons but at least they do not normally need to hook all flu cases to respirators for weeks. Also, in Italy, in 3 months COVID-19 appears to have made as many victims as the flu did in the entirety of 2015 and half as many as the flu made in the entirety of 2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31401203. Are the COVID-19 numbers inflated, or confused with ordinary flu? Seems to me that the rate of people dying at the current moment is anomalous. If the COVID-19 statistics are inflated, this cannot be just raised as a question. It is a claim that needs to be substantiated.

To paraphrase, the part that's itching about this is the 'we' part. Since when are 'we' in charge ?

I was more like proposing that we start thinking outside the box at large. With emergencies being granted, and an economy that cannot be halted, we set ourselves for disaster. With all the skepticism in the "mainstream" that pervades this whole thread, I find it intriguing that the core of the economic system itself is not put into question. Your point can be summarized in "it is stupid to social distance as it hurts the economic system". I also find intriguing that in all of this questioning the power is still seen as invincible and voting useless. So what purpose achieve the questioning really?

Everybody developing harsh symptoms is it ? Or is it really everybody that has the potential.

Right... potential is quantified by probability. Let's say a disease has a probability of, I don't know, 0.4% of killing healthy people between 10 and 20 years old. Then, you should expect 400 healthy people every 100000 infected which are in that age range to die. Don't look at 0.4%, look at "large number" times 0.004. No need for emotions here (as robotic as it sounds). Numbers will do. That's was the entirety of my point.

Revealing. So far I always thought that X and Y stood for Xavier and Yolande and that the ">" represented the number of times Xavier impregnated Yolande to produce offspring.

I am not sure if this is a joke. If so, I don't get it. But X and Y are two numbers, and X >> Y means X is much larger than Y...

Why politely ? I do not understand.

It is an English expression to say "I disagree with you, but I respect your point of view, buddy".

I'm afraid I will skip in this reply the listing of multiple Science sources that demonstrate that smoking is not good for health.

Can you please for the love of God stop pretending that I am saying that smoking is good for health? I never ever implied that, not even in passing. I have said that, in the context of COVID-19 only, the link between smoking and higher probability of severe outcome of the COVID-19 disease specifically has been proposed, it makes a lot of sense, but has not been proven yet. This should be clear enough English, especially for a polyglot like you.

Consensus: see above. Comfortable, agreed upon, throw everybody else out ? Radiate them of doctor's and scientific associations for "misbehaving" ? Is that the true spirit of Science ?

None of the above. I am referring to consensus as defined in science epistemology. Specifically as in the context of paradigm theory. See below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2wSIfy ... by-kBkAe9V

So then about your kidney stone description, why are crystals precipitating into larger ones ?

As far as I remember from what I read, it has to do with the relationship between composition and precipitation rate. I cannot dig out the same paper I read back then (it was 10 years ago actually, maybe it is even outdated information now that I think about it) but I found this one which rings some bells: https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wil ... /bju.14871

Glad that my experience with the hospital was much better than yours. I got treated very well. What a day, though. That thing is painful.

Right, even though I might sound grumpy here and there I am really enjoying the conversation and I really liked to write on this thread. Still, I feel like I need to take a pause from COVID-19 related things as more people I know are getting infected and I feel I need some distraction. I will maybe come back to the thread in a few weeks time, or maybe just decide to leave it for good. Rest assured that it has been a pleasure to talk with you gentlemen.

Good luck and stay safe!

[jonetsu]

I've listened to the Spiro latest video post. The points seems to be all valid. I haven't check them all yet, and probably will not check them all, but will do some I find interesting. It's up to people to ponder about these things. I'd be also interested with anyone saying that what is brought up in the Spiro video is wrong. His comment is well balanced I find and again, underlines that people have to ponder these things and not just gulp them down.

The reverb in Gates' talk at about 30:00 is terrible. The guy is worth more that many many countries in the world and all they could come up with is that horrible reverb ?

Some remarks on some points raised by Spiro:

Releasing jail inmates: already done, recently in France. About 6 000 inmates were thrown out of jail. When I say that France is a 'lighthouse' of mondialism ... run by a banker.

Chloroquine: France again: dragging world-renowned immunologist leader of the large Marseilles IHU prof. Raoult publicly in the dirt.

Possible theft of large stocks of cholorquine in France ... inquiry on-going.

UPDATE: The CEO of SNF, a large French chemical company, 6 600 employees, worth 3,9 billion €, was arrested by the police for having recommended hydroxychloroquine, with instructions on how to proceed, to the employees. Hydroxychloroquine was reclassified on January 13 2020, after 70 years of existence and millions of prescriptions, as a venomous substance by the French government. The CEO was released after interrogation. But the signal is clear.

However, there was an ad during the video.

I despise those ads which becomes more and more common. I'm quite sure that there's no link between Spiro and the choice of the ad.

spiro.jpg (25.86 KiB) Viewed 2374 times

The video part of the ad started with the opioid addictions which is very true. Then moved on saying that China has to be blamed for that. At what point I raised an eyebrow. What ?

The Epoch Times.

Which is yet another front for the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa sect of which leader Li Hongzi was briefly mentioned in this thread, along with a video of the yearly march they have in New York, having thousand of people marching the streets. Falun Gong is worth tens and tens of millions.

I have to make it clear: I do not like Falun Dafa because it is a sect that uses qi gong to get people in their ranks. They attract sect members by promising them relaxation through age-old qi gong practices.

The problem is that 1) there's no need to be part of a sect to reap from qi gong practice benefits. 2) The sect also has a politic stance: slamming China on all accounts. It's not the target of the slamming that's important in the end but the fact that qi gong practice is paired with political activism.

When one relaxes, and this is a very important first step in any material and spiritual handling, there should be no political concerns in the background. Quite the contrary actually. In relaxation, and that's a main aspect, one 'relaxes' the mind, the body, everything. In qi gong this is done actively, not by collapsing, by executing slow movements which also occupies the brain by focusing on inner body vision so to speak. As opposed to traditional sitting meditation in which one observes the thoughts come and go. Traditional sitting meditation is also not about collapsing, just to make it clear. Too often the mistake is made that if one relaxes to the maximum one collapses, which is not the goal with those 'internal arts' practices. It's rather a question of being relaxed and in balance. Much like, say, herons or similar birds standing att imes quietly on one leg and always responsive to the environment.

This said, as the Li Hongzi interview excerpt I posted in this thread along with the Times Magazine 1999 reference, the point he makes with E.T.s trying to steal human souls through technology is interesting. I keep that as an interesting comment but reject the whole sect for the aforementioned reasons.

Cheers.

[jonetsu]

Just quickly for now.

Sorry but no. Single governments are commissioning studies to third parties, and acting upon the outcome of those studies and the WHO recommendations. What would make sense to do here is stop assuming that the WHO is dictating policies (it doesn't have the authority to do so) and then track down who is doing the studies and how. Universities often develop and use their own open source software. Papers are also published among the not open source ones describing how they (supposedly) work.

Right.

The WHO is seemingly using DISMOD II and MODWATCH.

Download links:

Main, which contains links to download:

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_b ... ftware/en/