6/15/20: COMPASSION KILLERS
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
The current COVID-19 situation came on so suddenly and insidiously that it has literally overwhelmed us physically, emotionally and spiritually and the resulting emotional pain appears to be more of an ‘abnormal pain’ rather than a ‘normal pain’. A normal pain would be seen as a usual psychophysiological response to a trauma which is initially intense and tends to resolve over time resulting in healing. An abnormal pain is one where the psychophysiological changes are so modified that the pain memory continues to elicit responses that would last beyond the time by which resolution and healing would be expected.
The local governments in all of their wisdom are so out of touch with reality that they are creating an environment of compassion fatigue where they are wanting us to care about all sorts of things – too many things that it all becomes noise to the soul and soon vital information will be ignored because people get to the point of losing interest in all things.
The media does the same thing – every day crisis after crisis, they want you to care about, from police brutality to Black Lives Matter to COVID-19 and if you look at social media you are beginning to notice a swath of people that don’t care about any of it.
As a human being you can’t care about everything but it seems like the media and governments want us to care about COVID-19 death tolls, riots, economic downturn, LGBTQ, #metoo, President Trump’s tweets, and the list becomes a bit trite.
Recognizing the early signs would mean being aware of the possibility of this happening and recognizing and accepting that everyone is vulnerable. It would be important to realize the extraordinary nature of the present crisis which requires an extraordinary response.
We are in a moment of crisis overload – and if you haven’t noticed there is a backlash from it and soon the majority of people are going to have to decide that enough is enough.
Rapid Onset Compassion Fatigue is a medical term for those who are now feeling the burn out from all of the crisis that we are being fed. This is beyond Trauma and it is a conditioning process that will certainly have massive repercussions.
Have you noticed that since the riots over police brutality local governments are beginning to act like parents whose kids found the Santa Stash of presents before Christmas Eve—the jig is up right? The local governments were saying no gatherings because of the spread of COVID-19, so how do they now explain that they allowed for gatherings of people to protest police brutality?
Those that gathered are the same virtue signalers that condemned those who did not follow social distancing protocols. Apparently there was something more important to care about other than science.
Who cares about science—it is simply a convenient card to pull when it is expedient but it only works if you can get all of the sheep to agree as long as it fulfills a political agenda.
But science is not a consensus-based activity, and so skeptics of consensus are looking to the sciences of epidemiology, virology,., and economics for evidence-based answers in order to figure out what is next.
But as scientist and author Michael Crichton explains in a paper he gave at Cal Tech in 2003, much of what is presented (“sold”) as “hard science” is nothing but guesswork / conjecture and consensus, basically reaching a politically appealing conclusion and then conjuring up some junk science to support the conclusion.
It goes for every single so called scientific endorsement from a political party and every solution they present is suspect because the governments of the world have never been on the right side of history with the so called sciences they support.
Oh – but they want you to have compassion for their junk science and if you don’t then you are anti-science. It is always a nice mental trap they set.
The scientific method is pretty straightforward: propose a testable hypothesis and then design an experiment that acts on only one variable: one group in which no action is taken and another in which one action is taken. If the action taken has a recordable effect, then that data must be replicated by other labs performing the same experiment to confirm that there weren’t errors in the protocol, equipment or data collection.
A variation of this protocol is a double-blind study, so-called double blind because neither the subjects/volunteers nor the researchers administering the experiment know which subjects received the active compound and which received a placebo.
Much of the “science” being presented about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy are models; they are models that have estimates and if you are following along the estimates have been wrong – they have been wrong and it is not anti-science to discuss it.
We’ve already seen models rejected as hopelessly defective, studies of treatments (pro and con) hopelessly compromised, and in multiple ways: sloppy math, sloppy data collection, data that can’t be confirmed, and on and on.
We find a mass of data of questionable value, for the basic reason that there are too many uncontrolled variables in every data set, too much guesswork in the models, and essentially zero experiments controlled for the number of variables and bias that meet rigorous standards for protocols and data collection.
In order to promote fear, the media and those who wish to push a vaccine on everyone threw out the data about the effects of the COVID-19 virus on younger, healthy people: though the virus kills relatively few people under the age of 50. These people didn’t die, and so they drop off the statistical count everyone is following as the key statistic. But the after-effects of the disease are long-term and serious, and deserve careful study. However, it is highly unlikely that we will hear about some of the lingering effects of COVID-19 in the young because we are far too focused on death tolls. Local governments are giving into knee jerk reactions when numbers come in showing spikes of contracted disease but this is common with any contagion –and as the World Health Organization destroyed their original model of how asymptomatic patients rarely spread the disease – it was immediately dismissed by those who could not let go of the power they have been able to grab to keep people under house arrest.
It is sad to see that there are hold outs that do not want to work or get on with their lives because of how terrified they are.
Common sense would be to cautiously get back to normal—it would smart be to maintain a skeptical circumspection about models, projections, conclusions, studies and narratives being sold now as it appears that the COVID-19 epidemic is ebbing.
It is wrong for those who think that waiting for a vaccine will guarantee security for everyone involved. It won’t and you can use all of the political defense you wish but again you are actually defending conjecture based on a model that is hopefully convincing enough for big pharma to cash in on fear based propaganda.
More than 100 companies are competing to be first in the race to get a COVID-19 vaccine to market. It’s a race against time, not because the death rate is climbing but because it is falling – to the point where there will soon be too few subjects to prove the effectiveness of the drug.
COVID-19, like other coronaviruses, is expected to mutate at least every season, raising serious questions about claims that any vaccine will work. A successful vaccine has never been developed for any of the many strains of coronaviruses, due to the nature of the virus itself; and vaccinated people can have a higher chance of serious illness and death when later exposed to another strain of the virus, a phenomenon known as “virus interference.”
An earlier SARS vaccine never made it to market because the laboratory animals it was tested on contracted more serious symptoms on re-infection, and most of them died.
Researchers working with the AstraZeneca vaccine claimed success in preliminary studies because its lab monkeys all survived and formed antibodies to the virus, but data reported later showed that the animals all became infected when challenged, raising serious questions about the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Moderna Therapeutics’ a vaccine company with investments from the Bill and Melinda gates foundation has gotten fast-track approval from the FDA and managed to skip animal trials altogether before rushing to human trials. Its candidate is a “messenger RNA” vaccine, a computer-generated replica of an RNA component that carries genetic information controlling the synthesis of proteins. No mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for marketing or proven in a large-scale clinical trial. As explained in Science magazine, RNA that invades from outside the cell is the hallmark of a virus, and our immune systems have evolved ways to recognize and destroy it. To avoid that, Moderna’s mRNA vaccine sneaks into cells encapsulated in nanoparticles, which aren’t easily degraded and can cause toxic buildup in the liver.
These concerns, however, have not deterred the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is proceeding at “Warp Speed” to get the new technologies tested on the American population before the virus disappears through mutation and natural herd immunity. HHS has already agreed to provide up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca and $483 million to Moderna to develop their experimental candidates.
Our tax dollars are being used to develop a vaccine that will probably not work.
. Both companies have attracted billions from private investors and don’t need taxpayer money, and the government’s speculative bets are being made on unproven technologies in the early stages of testing.
Is this something that people with any sense care about?
Of course not because the media and your local political leaders have failed to tell you this.. And they won’t care to do so.
The argument at one time was that the magnitude of the crisis justified the risk, but the virus is now disappearing of its own accord. The computer-modeled projection of 2.2 million U.S. deaths issued by Imperial College London who by the way is a business partner of AstraZeneca, triggering shutdowns across the United States, was subsequently found to be “wildly” overblown.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has also revised its projections. Experts disagree on what the new data means, but according to an expert at the Montreal Economic Institute, “The most likely CDC scenario now estimates that the coronavirus mortality rate for infected people is between 0.2% and 0.3%. This is a far cry from the 3.4% figure that had been put forward by the World Health Organization at the start of the pandemic.”
Yet some places are still on lock down because of spikes in cases – this could mean that there have been more tests done or that there are few cases trickling in as some late flu candidates can come in well into July. Can it be the same for COVID-19?
Well now everyone wearing a mask is now an expert and when faced with the new data are reluctant to remove their mask for fear of looking foolish. No need to worry because it is foolish to continue the charade.
On May 23 the CDC reported that the antibody tests used to determine whether people have developed an immunity to the virus are too unreliable to be used.
But none of this seems to be dimming the hype and the deluge of investment money being thrown at the latest experimental vaccines. And perhaps that is the point of the exercise – to extract as much money as possible from gullible investors, including the US government, before the public discovers that the fundamentals of these stocks do not support the media hype.
This does not change how Democratic leaders can extend the lock downs and emergencies in order to cash the hefty emergency insurance checks that they have been getting during the pandemic.
Who is benefiting? Not small businesses, not those out of work, not those who need new investment capital to get their businesses up and running again.
Now that the time for authoritarian lockdowns has passed, everyone needs reliable information to make their own assessment of risk as part of deciding what activities they will do or not do to further their own interests.
The problem is no one is getting a definitive answer as to when the coast is clear— this is because those who are running governments are doing so on a hunch – there is no science involved here.
This is why if the people do not get the official all clear they are going to be terrified to do any normal behavior.
People have to weigh the risks and not rely on governments pushing political agendas.
Keep in mind that the same companies and government contracted agencies behind “saving you” from COVID-19 are the same agencies that have created “Gene Drive” technologies for biological weapons programs that are supposed to be illegal.
We reported with Elana Freeland that in a 2010 document titled “Biotechnology: Genetically Engineered Pathogens,” the US Air Force acknowledged that it was studying “genetically engineered pathogens that could pose serious threats to society,” including “nano particle weapons,” “binary biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, host-swapping diseases, and designer diseases.” During the Clade-X discoveries we also reported that DARPA was behind the creation of both DNA and RNA vaccines, funding their early research and development by Moderna as well as by Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Again, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
In December 2017, over 1,200 emails released under open records requests revealed that the U.S. military is now the top funder behind the controversial “genetic extinction” technology known as “gene drives.” These genetic ‘kill switches’ could also be inserted into actual humans through artificial chromosomes, which – just as they have the potential to extend life – also have the potential to cut it short.”
Biowarfare is forbidden under international treaty, but the army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick says its investigations are to “protect the warfighter from biological threats” and to protect civilians from threats to public health. Even assuming that is true, are the army’s technicians proficient enough to tinker with the human genetic code without hitting a kill switch or two by mistake?
Considering what we don’t know about the inner workings of DARPA, the institutes of technology so influential to modern warfare, and other historically dangerous institutions, what technology they be pioneering or even experimenting on us with?
Nano-tech that triggers a genetic propensity for COVID-19? Nano-tech that triggers rage in order to create civil upheaval and more gatherings to ensure a community spread?
The speculation is warranted. But does anybody care?
Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine … uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus.
In many ways, the vaccine almost behaves like an RNA virus itself except that it hijacks your cells to produce the parts of the virus, like the spike protein, rather than the whole virus. Some messenger RNA vaccines are even self-amplifying…. There are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including the possibility that they generate strong type I interferon responses that could lead to inflammation and autoimmune conditions.
This vaccine is a technology – and can be utilized for more than just a coronavirus.
Moderna has other friends in high places, including the Pentagon. Several years ago, Moderna received millions of dollars from the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Moderna’s stock has more than tripled this year, taking it to a market cap of over $22 billion. STAT News called it “an astonishing feat for a company that currently sells zero products.” Many of the companies actively developing COVID-19 vaccines have longer and more impressive track records. Why all the investor interest in this “unicorn” startup that went public only in 2018 and has no record of market success?
The major advantage of mRNA vaccines is the speed with which they can be deployed. Created in a lab rather than from a real virus, they can be mass-produced cost-effectively on a large scale and do not require uninterrupted cold storage. But this speed comes at the risk of major side effects. In a 2017 TED talk called “Rewriting the Genetic Code,” Moderna’s current chief medical officer Dr. Tal Zaks said, “We’re actually hacking the software of life.”
You should fear this vaccine – it is sounds worse than the disease it wishes to cure.
Despite government and health authority claims to the contrary, the accumulated evidence from the COVID-19 ‘outbreak’ earlier this year points to it being no more significant than a seasonal ‘flu-like virus’ in terms of its infection and mortality rate, and that the significant death toll ‘from Covid-19’ is primarily due to the effects of unnecessary long term lockdowns.
The combined effect of the incessant broadcasting of ‘Covid terror’ into people’s homes and the furloughing of staff and cancelling of elective surgeries meant that many people with serious health issues were, like the residents of care homes, left to their own devices.
Those who died in the process were required COVID-19 tests and if it was detected in the deceased they were thrown into the statistical pile of faceless deaths.
If we can reasonably conclude that governments knew that this virus was no real threat and, indeed, little different to a seasonal flu in terms of infection and mortality rates and therefore no significant threat to anyone and not likely to ‘inundate the health service’, why did they pursue the policy of lockdowns with all of the disastrous and pernicious effects they would foreseeably cause?
It was clear from the beginning that the governments of this world were not in charge of COVID-19 policy decisions, and these were being handed down to them by scientists and ‘experts’ under the aegis of the World Health Organization. We must also look further ‘up’ the hierarchy for the culprits. The problem with that is that, beyond the overt governments of this world there are merely faceless ‘advisors’ of different stripes and with different (and often competing) interests.
So I have one more thing to care about – an appeal to investigate one of the biggest health scandals in history.
But I have little hope of any real calling to account over this public health scandal.
