A Cesspool of Insanity

The sluice gates of COVID

02.05.21

“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of

individual ignorance.” — Thomas Carlyle

L et us start simply, too much of the planet is still “locked

down,” masked, despite vaccinations, with over a year of
silly, life annulling nostrums and intrusions into personal
life and invasions into our autonomy. What we were told to
justify this was extrapolatory nonsense, and now is
demonstrable bilge.

Non masked down jurisdictions have done at least as well,

non-locked down regions or States are not awash with
crippling viral infections.

And ironically, so “confident” are we in our vaccines, that

adverse effects are backlogged, not discussed, and potential
causal links to seemingly evident mortality not even
entertained, lest the whole perverse scaffolding of mistruths
and partial truths comes crashing down.

And deaths from many of these failed COVID policies may

match or at least approach those “ascribed” to COVID the
disease. Taking a glance back at Italy, March and April
2020, a newly published report indicates there were 49,000
more deaths than average (extreme concentration of elderly,
the bulk in care homes, remember), 29,000 were “ascribed”
to COVID and 20,000 are being called “hysteria deaths”
owing to neglect and panic-stricken changes to medical care.

Take the staggering collateral damage of neglected or

deferred health care and deferred vaccinations for TB and
Polio, poverty and hunger being devastatingly exacerbated,
the economic ruin of so many and the inconceivable fallout
on all but the mega-rich, and then couple this with the
desire to “muzzle” disagreement and not only faces, exulting
in an unconvincing moral rectitude whose defining feature is
being terrified of open debate. The sluice gates need opening
for sure!

There is No “Science” to Follow

Science, when genuinely practiced, asserts falsifiable

hypotheses and welcomes widescale engagement. When it
conscripts “expertise” into allegedly “incorrigible”
conclusions, then it has devolved into dogma, a mongrel
religion. Spirituality, like science at its best, welcomes
mystery and realizes that anything akin to truth has no
reason to fear our questions… on the contrary.

When economic and political agendas are pureed into

scientific or medical jargon, asserted with sweeping
grandiloquence, militantly allergic to other narratives, then
we know we are dealing with gloss, what has been called
“the catnip of cosmopolitan opinion.” As long as the Uber
driver arrives, I get a check while working at home in my
sweatpants, and Netflix keeps streaming, all is well in
civilization!

The public looks swooningly on as Fauci flip flops and never

encounters an authoritarian response he doesn’t get thrilled
by (China first, the US when he could impose his swill will,
and now cheering the authoritarian cuckoo-land that
Canada has devolved into), or Neil Ferguson perfects the art
of predictive inaccuracy, or we are told to “vaccinate” but
not to trust the vaccines and live exactly as we were doing
before them, and this convoluted mess is called “science” or
“medicine” when it actually reeks of the most blatant
demagoguery.

And it was not “science” but the instilling of a pathetic

paradigm of human behavior that has been incubating for
some time, and finally, last year was pulled out of the
proverbial oven. And so that we could stimulate our
misguided self-esteem, we began “valorizing” shutting up
and doing our job, following the rules, and complying. This
made us “virtuous” or depending on our job, even “heroic.”
Stoic self-help, “surviving the everyday” got us promiscuous
kudos. The more unexceptional we were, the better.

Any sign of rebellion, or seeking stimuli, or autonomy, or

exercising our wits, or asking not to be treated as a gullible
rube, meant we wanted granny to die, and didn’t care about
the mass destruction of our species — or that portion of it
who can survive at home on home delivery and digital
streaming, the hell with the one third having to provide all
that, or the swathes of humanity whose health and
development were being undermined and assaulted due to
our being unable to deal with an influenza strain with a 99%
global recovery rate. What heroes!

Just Change the Standards When Inconvenient?

So, we now hear that the CDC will change the PCR test
“amplification” (Ct) setting to 28 post-vaccination. As
presumably, we all know by now, above 30, and the PCR
test, never intended by its originator for diagnosis, may be
detecting “viral debris” or “strands” which cannot be
infectious. If at lower amplification it detects the virus, that
is usually a sign of infectiousness. Reliability at around 28, is
not that different in terms of detection, to the “viral load”
assessing rapid Antigen test.

The “40” that was the norm for too long, hence our extended
“case-demic”, and which has given way post WHO’s much-
belated guidance, would constitute 12 doublings from 28.
We should hope ALL PCR tests, pre OR post-vaccination
will use the same setting of 28 or less, otherwise, it is truly a
fraud and a farce.

Each PCR test “amplification” essentially doubles the source

material, and the number of times it is amplified is called
the “cycle threshold” (Ct). Quite apart from this, there is a
general problem with “false positives” especially when
incidence is very low in a population. But amplifying
excessively is not so much a “false positive” as a “false
clinical positive” (FCP) where non-viable virus material is
what is being detected.

Fascinatingly, in the vaccine trials, to accept something as C-

19 they insisted (Moderna published guidance) on at
least two of the following symptoms: fever, chills, headache,
sore throat, taste disorder, or at least one of the following:
cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, evidence of
pneumonia PLUS a PCR test! Oh, that we might be as
cautious when not peddling pharmaceutical remedies!

So, let us hope, and insist, and ensure, the settings are the
same; that we are comparing like to like. To opt otherwise is
to enter surreal, manifestly nefarious territory, capriciously
putting our finger on the scales.

There is though, on this topic, genuinely enticing news on

the PCR front from the Ministry of Health in Sweden.
Having enjoyed the fruits of their sanity in terms of relative
economic solvency and relatively mild COVID mortality
despite a temporary surge of “positive tests” (now having
peaked without Germanic chest-pounding and lockdown
over-reach), the Swedes have now declared that PCR tests
cannot be a basis of confirming infectiousness!

Ministry of Health quote:

“The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot

distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and
viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system
and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine
whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses
can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after
the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious.
There are also several scientific studies that suggest that
the contagion of COVID-19 is greatest at the beginning of
the disease period.”

One small step for medicine, a giant leap for sanity,

rationality, and evidence. Curiously, this key bit of news is
glaringly missing in mainstream coverage.

Let Us Speak Plainly

Even SAGE admits now that restaurants and pubs

contributed only a nominal number of COVID infections
(roughly 220 or some such), of course, one could argue
they’ve been essentially closed in the UK. But no such
disproportionate number comes from jurisdictions where
restaurants have been open either, Taiwan, Singapore,
Sweden, Finland, Norway, 22 US States. Yet under some
“theory” of indoor space transmissibility (rather than
looking at congestion and ventilation), detached from data,
the gross impositions on livelihoods and personal choice
have continued.

Speaking plainly on another front, the Weimar Court in

Germany held against masking in schools, and the judge
who ruled the prescriptions illegal has found himself being
surveilled, investigated, residence pilfered by an eerily
officious “State” apparatus. This beggared believability in a
so-called “democratic” country. But it is wrenchingly true.
Other voices if not so “official” are just “de-platformed” or
not booked, estranged, or rendered pariahs.

In society at large, people have been

rendered phobic in terms of seeing relatives
or loved ones, again unable to distinguish
“biological survival” with “life” and “living” and
all that makes being alive worthwhile.

And COVID hysteria is renewed as new “hotspots” are

located with prurient glee. The mania sweeps coverage of
India, but the fact that 2,000 perish from diarrhea each day
there and 1,200 daily from tuberculosis and respiratory
illnesses are among the top 10 killers due to appalling air
pollution and sagging public health, and that in relative
terms, the UK has a more dire outbreak than India with 1.4
billion in population, these are all perspectives that dare not
be spoken as they would interfere with our rampant
hysteria.

Israel “post-vaccination” has instituted a de facto sustained

state of emergency, with two-tier citizenship essentially
between those who have opted for an experimental gene
therapy called “vaccination” and those who haven’t. The
Israeli “Green Pass” bypasses parliamentary protections and
asserts the right to include and exclude (getting jobs,
traveling, going to cultural sites, worship, visiting your
children’s schools) over a viral strain, again, that virtually
everyone recovers from and most don’t know they had.

With this precedent set, might the government “treat itself”

to insist any of its policies are an “entrée” or else a “ban” to
life? Essentially, agree with the government and be
“allowed” that which you were born entitled to. Don’t do so,
and we will show you how provisional your rights can be.
And we will show you that absolutism can flourish
anywhere, even in cultures that have the most grounds for
historical sensitivity in these matters.

These are reports coming from Israeli health advisers and

everyday citizens on the ground, of course not “allowed” to
agonize us on YouTube, that new fount of probity and virtue.
And if this pilot program works, can other governments also
now assert this anytime they wish to declare a “public
emergency” backed by a few medical quacks and many
quaking advisers?

This is vulgar and vile.

“In a crisis — and politics is one permanent

crisis — those in power could always declare
a state of emergency to justify exceptional
measures.” — Arthur Koestler

In Pakistan, the army has just been sent in to enforce

curfews and mask-wearing in key cities when, in a
population of over 200 million people with 17,100
“ascribed” deaths, that means 0.00855% of the population
have been affected. We are to believe this is “virus control”
rather than evident further spasms of global control
fetishism and decision making dementia?

With 100 million vaccinated in the US, why has the TSA
extended mask mandates for public transport until
September when there are 22 States demonstrating, literally
proving, in data terms, this is absurdly unnecessary? Again,
anyone who thinks this is “science”, has developed a
terrifying capacity for self-delusion.

A Japanese Stand
Howard Steen shares a letter from a Japanese Professor
friend, under fire for not wearing a mask at his University in
Japan. Rather than wilting away, he does what we all
increasingly must — speak up, and speak passionately,
rationally, and emphatically.

He begins by pointing out a female nurse from Fukuoka,

aged 26 was found dead on her sofa, foaming at the mouth,
bleeding at the nose, after undergoing the “experimental
gene therapy” we call “vaccination.” He is at pains to point
out he can’t “prove” that was the cause, “although nobody
seems to die of vaccination these days.”

But his next words deserve to be heard directly,

“She died on the altar of fear, a sacrificial

lamb to the gods of fear-mongering who,
refusing to leave from our lives every day
since March 2020, shout at us through the
television, smart media platforms, and
announcements at work.”

Indeed, life is now a barrage of admonitions. Our psyche is

battered by “updates” on clusters and attempts to terrorize
us from interacting with each other.
He points out that when we suspect this infection,
we “test” it with a test its own manufacturers
confess — in the literature that accompanies each
kit — is not by itself “diagnostic” and cannot detect
a live infection. Yet we have mortgaged the world to
its vicissitudes.

Of being “spotted” without the diaper on his face, he says,

“I apologize to the two staff members who

had to pass by my class to check whether I
was wearing a mask or not. It seems we are
in a war-like situation and have to keep an
eye on dissidents all the time.”

He goes on to point out that he is not opposed to masks per

se. For example, he insisted his three little children wear
them when a nuclear explosion in March 2011 sent
radioactive dust to their region. He felt, in that instance,
there was relevance. This time though, he feels it is not the
pathogen, but incomplete information relentlessly being
recycled. The charitable name for that is “propaganda.”

As a sentient, critically thinking person, the Professor points

out that he can see there isn’t factually or objectively a life-
threatening situation, but only an infatuation with fear
which gets “upgraded” with every variant, or seasonal
“spike”. He reminds us how generous the Japanese
Constitution is in protecting liberties, severely limiting what
the leaders can do even under states of “emergency.” Of
course, these leaders actually pay attention to their
Constitution, a novel idea that seems to have eluded
most of the Western democracies over this period.

He cites the plethora of Nobel laureates and eminent

scientists who are pushing back against this misinformation,
including those in the Japanese scientific community. He
cites the pressures to conform, mentioning Karin Moelling,
who received the highest honor of the German state, the
“Order of Merit of Berlin” for her contributions to virology,
now an outcast. Others who have been pilloried include
scientific and medical eminences like Sunetra Gupta of
Oxford, John Ioannidis of Stanford, Martin Kulldorff, Carl
Heneghan and others. This is a who’s who of distinguished
researchers, benched from mainstream public discourse.

And none of their most frothing critics can even clearly

allege why they all have taken a purported collective leave of
their senses. We know why their opponents toe the line,
benefited by being of service to the purveyors of advantage.
But why would people at the top of their field risk their
livelihoods and painstakingly earned careers? Why would
they indeed if the stakes were not so high? If along with us,
their world and civilization were not teetering on the brink?
On masking in particular, the Professor points out that a
“constitutionally illegal mandate” is being inflicted upon a
remote rural corner of Japan, though the US States without
mask mandates, as I’ve said above, have hearteningly
demonstrated what an overwhelming chorus of research had
already confirmed. He writes,

“Is that because a 60–140 nanometer long

virus, smaller in dimension than the
wavelength of UV radiation (100–400
nanometer) is miraculously confined by a
cloth mask?”

The Professor had missed the memo whereby his University

had been transmuted into a Theological College for
Asymptomatic Stupidity.

He asks, with such meticulous mask-wearing in so many

parts of the world, why is the curve never flattening? And he
concludes, as we all should,

“But perhaps the most important life-saving

measure would be for all of us, the
stakeholders of the Normal life, to allow free
and fair public discourse into the conditions
that have brought us into this dystopian
nightmare.”

Bravo, Professor Saji!

These Are the Stakes!

I really worry when I read that “normal is around the

corner” because infections are down, people are vaccinated,
enough of us have been infected, or whatever palliative is
cited for the restoration of that which was “stolen” through
state force backed by unflinching misrepresentation.

You see, if you buy the premise that things had to improve
before we were allowed our lives back, that governments can
take and make such judgments over an extended period of
time, and order foreclosure of lives and bankruptcy of
businesses and delayed medical care and educational
destruction, and imposition of addiction or suicide-inducing
levels of anxiety or stress, or retard years of progress in
global health and poverty and children’s education over a
statistically unimpressive viral strain, long after it’s clear
that’s what we’re dealing with, and even “suggest” passports
and other apartheid-like impositions, and we lemming-like,
mulishly, slavishly, just acquiesce, then we have retarded
human development, progress, and social evolution in a way
unparalleled in human history.
And one vaccine-evading variant, and we’re right back
where we started? Logically, we must be, unless this sick,
toxic, horrific evangel is fully repudiated and routed. One
new “public health” or other “emergency” and the same
playbook might again be trotted out, after all, there is this
horrifying precedent.

If we need “permission” to ply our trade, congregate where

we wish (yes, informed by medical guidelines and natural
self-preservation and prudence), travel where we will,
experience life in its fullness, develop our capabilities, be
intimate with those we love, then let the pathogen come
today and take us away, for what anyway is the point?

Albert Camus writes in his remarkable The Plague (1947),

describing the inner life of this locked-in town,

“Thus, in a middle course between these

heights and depths, they drifted through life
rather than lived, the prey of aimless days and
sterile memories, like wandering shadows that
could have acquired substance only by
consenting to root themselves in the solid
earth of their distress…”

He writes of the “wounds” that imagination inflicts on those

who yield to it, a disincentive to anticipate the future. Well,
we can’t go back. Because back there is the soil of this
tragedy, of us collectively asleep at the wheel, as our
sovereignty as humans was whittled away.

Now, there is a great, slow but hopefully definite gathering

of all political stripes, races, perspectives, united by one
thing: the demand to be allowed to be, unalienably human.
And if we start there, not gushing with relief that our
“masters” might give us a conditional taste of freedom, but if
we insist that freedom is the fundament, and democratic
governance is incoherent except as a conversation premised
on that bedrock, then, maybe then, this “plague” will have
been redemptive and purifying. Otherwise, God help us, and
we are voting for the erosion of everything we have loved
and valued.

Victor Hugo’s epic book, Les Miserables, in its operetta

musicalization, asks,

“Will you join in our crusade? Who will be

strong and stand with me?”

Well, hopefully, that answer is in every mirror, mind, and

heart in the land. Every constructive act of life and freedom
affirming activism counts and matters.
Omar S. Khan