El Escritor Inglés: April 2020

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

I See You, Mr Gates

Given the number of articles published this month, it would be easy to conclude that I am stuck at home with surplus spare time. Not so; I am beavering away for forty or so hours every week in a research facility and enjoying it. The reason for the recent batch of corona-posts is that I have struggled to make complete sense of the whole picture. Too many factors do not add up. I have felt for a while that something unidentified was staring me in the face, and an unsolved puzzle is a red rag. My initial beliefs were that SARS-CoV-2 is a bio-engineered entity; valid scientific data are being censored; world economic collapse, although inevitable, is being systematically engineered; and government politicians and their lackeys are inflating mortality data to fit an ulterior agenda. Nothing that I have learned or witnessed this month makes me doubt that these disconcerting conclusions are correct.

Even so, one or two crucial pieces of the jigsaw are missing. What are they? Why, at daily press conferences, do politicians and medical/scientific advisers trumpet such transparent propaganda? They speak like robots and behave like puppets, as if each straight-bat response is pre-programmed. Who is pushing the agenda? Who or what is the eminence grise? Who is the programmer?

Please follow my logic, but feel free to stop reading if you believe it to be too fantastic. Every day, we are told repeatedly that government decisions are being ‘guided by science’. This is a convenient deceit. It means: (a) no one can, therefore, blame the government for the disastrous effects of the lockdown; and (b) the public is not qualified to doubt either the veracity of science or the integrity of scientists. It is designed to give politicians plausible deniability.

Distraction is another propagandist’s tool. Much is made of the tireless commitment undertaken by health service workers, even to the extent of encouraging millions of people to stand outside their homes once a week and clap their hands like performing seals. There is also a (marvellous) 99-year-old military veteran who has raised millions of pounds by walking in his garden. The government is only too happy for him to become a focus of national attention, and for the public to think with heart rather than head.

We are told repeatedly — constant repetition is another tell-tale sign of propaganda — that the only way out of this unprecedented social control is a vaccine. This is yet another lie. Hydroxychloroquine has been a useful drug for decades. Most recently, in France, patients diagnosed as having COVID-19 have been treated with hydroxychloroquine, and results have been encouraging (Devaux et al., 2020; Gautret et al., 2020). Yet, government officials make lame, narrow-minded excuses, namely that it is not effective in every case, and that side-effects have been observed. Only a vaccine will do, they insist. In the meantime, people die unnecessarily. (Given the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, does this not warrant further clinical trials? What side-effect is worse than death?)

Now for the intriguing part. A worldwide vaccine is the brainchild of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, despite the fact that he has neither been elected nor does he possess any medical qualifications. At Event 2O1, held last autumn, he, in collaboration with Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, war-gamed a coronavirus pandemic, with a view to funding a universal vaccination programme (Figure 131.1). The COVID-19 saga occurred within weeks of the conference. Coincidence?

Figure 132.1: After initial incredulity, I am beginning to wonder whether the pandemic really was a result of laboratory negligence. (I would remind any coincidence theorists that both the 9/11 and 7/7 atrocities were also war-gamed, with uncanny precision, the latter involving the very same three Tube stations at which the bombs subsequently exploded.)

Now consider Bill Gates’s modus operandi. He obtains a licence, makes simple copies of something in vast quantities, and sells them to a captive world market. His riches have enabled him to fund academics, including government adviser Professor Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College, London, a discredited epidemiologist whose predictions for previous microbial outbreaks were criminally inaccurate, and also Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer, who misleads the public via daily television broadcasts. Conflict of interests here is staggering.

The Secretary of State for Health, a condescending fifth-rater called Matt Hancock, has made several references to the idea of immunity certificates for those who have supposedly recovered from COVID-19. He is careful not to define the word ‘certificate’. Gates is a firm proponent of ‘certificates’, too. His preferred type is a digital ID — see id2020.org — similar to a micro-chip implanted into a domestic dog. I wonder who Gates has in mind to own the licence for the worldwide imposition of such a draconian system.

Of course, viral immunity is not everlasting, so digital IDs would require the expense of Microsoft-style upgrades on a regular and perpetual basis. It could be argued that the intent of such invasive technology is benign enough. That, however, is not the point. Intent can change once the system has been implemented. The disturbing aspect is its scope. Digital IDs could also be employed, for example, to control bank credits and debits in a cashless world, where an individual’s funds could be sequestrated or suspended at the will of either bank or State, and for whatever reason. With no medium of independent exchange — i.e. physical cash — financial transactions (as well as vaccination status and all other personal data) could be monitored by Big Brother. Those not conforming to social controls, such as political dissidents, or anyone refusing to be chipped, could be made persona non grata at the click of a mouse (Figure 131.2). It is true that forced or coerced vaccination would breach the Nuremburg Code (1947), so would be unacceptable. However, if remaining ‘unchipped’ were to be made socially and economically intolerable, then resistance could be overwhelmed.

Figure 132.2: Despite being an atheist, I shall quote the Bible:

Revelation 13: 17

‘And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.’

Far-fetched? Well, if governments were being open and straightforward, then lies, propaganda and scientific censorship would surely be superfluous, would they not?

Gates is one of the missing jigsaw pieces. Philanthropist or megalomaniac?

Devaux, C. A., Rolain, J. M., Colson, P., & Raoult, D. (2020). New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19? International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 105938. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938

Gautret, P., Lagier, J. C., Parola, P., Hoang, V. T., Meddeb, L., Mailhe, M., Doudier, B., Courjon, J., Giordanengo, V., Vieira, V. E., Dupont, H. T., Honoré, S., Colson, P., Chabrière, E., La Scola, B., Rolain, J. M., Brouqui, P., & Raoult, D. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 105949. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949

Saturday, April 18, 2020

Philosophical Checkmate

Have you ever heard of the Trolley Problem?

I was introduced to it by a drunken Hungarian guy on a ferryboat many years ago, but that is a separate story. It is a thought experiment, which involves an ethical dilemma, and has been chewed over by philosophers since the 1960s. Half a century of rigorous intellectual debate indicates that there is no clear-cut solution. The basic question is as follows:

A runaway train is hurtling along its tracks. Further along, five people are tied to the tracks, about to be run over and killed. In a nearby signal box, a signalman can divert the train onto different tracks, to which just one person is tied.

What should the signalman do?

a) Divert the train and kill only one person; or

b) Do nothing and allow it to kill five.

Herein lies the dilemma. There are two schools of thought. The consequentialist approach is that the signalman should divert the train, to reduce the number of deaths. The alternative, deontological, view is that purposefully diverting the train, leading to death, would be an immoral action, regardless of its consequences, so it should, therefore, be left alone. In other words, which is worse: passively allowing a disaster to happen; or actively instigating a less serious one? Furthermore, which would be more likely to incur the wrath of others?

The COVID-19 saga has brought into play a variant of this awful ethical problem (Figure 130.1). Perhaps more accurately, it has been government action which has introduced it, by means of the recent lockdown. The question is: given that there is no reason to believe that it will be beneficial to public health, should it be lifted immediately?

Let us apply the two aforesaid approaches:

a) Consequentialist:

The lockdown is lifted immediately. Consequently, the economy recovers faster and more vigorously. This enables better-equipped health services in the longer term and thereby reduces the total number of deaths. However, what if this deliberate act causes a sudden spike in deaths in the short term?

b) Deontological:

The lockdown remains for several months, and, in the short-term, death rate is not increased. However, permanent loss of economic activity leads to a severe reduction in government revenue in the longer term, and thus a lower standard of health provision and a greater total number of deaths ultimately.

Figure 131.1: The COVID-19 ‘trolley’ dilemma

What should Boris Johnson and his ministers do? End the lockdown and risk x deaths in the short term, or maintain it and passively allow 5x deaths eventually? The prime minister must by now realize that he has unwittingly manoeuvred himself into a philosophical checkmate (Figure 130.2). He will doubtless end the lockdown at what he believes is the optimum moment, to gain the benefits of both the consequentialist and deontological strategies. I fear, though, that he will end up with neither. Besides, what if, eventually, as I strongly suspect, it is proven that lockdown did nothing to prevent deaths at all?

Figure 131.2: The moment every chess player dreads: by the time he realizes his predicament, the game is already lost.

Friday, April 17, 2020

Another Lone Voice

Seven weeks ago, I gave Article 125 a provocative title, Frankenstein’s Virus. Applying Occam’s Razor (Figure 129.1) and my (limited but decent) knowledge of virology to a recent Indian research paper (Pradhan et al., 2020), it struck me as absurdly unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 could have evolved naturally. I was prepared to state, without equivocation, that this virus had been bio-engineered, probably at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is a stone’s throw from where the outbreak occurred.

Figure 130.1: The origin of the peculiar structure of SARS-CoV-2 demands explanation. It is far removed from other coronaviruses. The theory that its unique elements happened spontaneously, without deliberate molecular intervention, require far too many assumptions to be realistic. Mathematical improbability is too great.

Copyright unknown

Since that date, February 28th, I have received numerous emails, most of which stated that I am wrong, scientifically ignorant and unable to cite another scientist who shares my view. To counter the first and second accusations, allow me to counter the third. A few hours ago, Dr Luc Montagnier (Figure 129.2), co-discoverer of the HIV virus in 1983, made the same claim. Despite the ‘man-made’ theory being deliberately ignored by mainstream media, and Pradhan’s honest work being censored in a manic fashion, Nobel Laureate Dr Montagnier stated:

‘ ... to insert (a separate genetic sequence) ... molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.’

Figure 130.2: French virologist Dr Luc Montagnier (1932-), winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Dr Montagnier’s knowledge and understanding of virology far exceed my own. Nonetheless, whenever a scientific theory is ridiculed, ignored, censored, and its authors pressurized to withdraw its publication, alarm bells should be heard worldwide by anyone with an open, intelligent mind.

According to Dr Montagnier, the truth will out. I agree; although the extent to which governments and pliable media attempt to suppress unwanted points of view is often staggering. In this case, though, even nefarious politicians will struggle to keep the truth concealed. The genomic structure of parts of SARS-CoV-2 is known. Scientists throughout the world will decide for themselves whether the ‘foreign’ inserts occurred by (near-miraculously) random mutation and subsequent selection, or by laboratory ‘gain-of-function’ design. One day, world leaders, if they are honest, will wonder, also, whether its release was accidental or malicious. I maintain, for now, my initial belief in the former explanation. More crucially, however, there is, as yet, no proof that this virus causes disease and death.

Brave Dr Montagnier is hoping that the Chinese government, if responsible, will come clean. I admire his optimism but I do not share it.

Thursday, April 16, 2020

For 2020, Read 1984

Figure 129.1: A disturbingly Orwellian image of UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock speaking via videolink at the opening of an NHS Nightingale Hospital.

Friday, April 10, 2020

Death By Propaganda

These strange times are becoming stranger. Never in human history have so many people been under such strict control of so few. If that does not make the whole world pause for thought, then it should (Figure 128.1).

Figure 128.1: The words of the great American essayist Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) have never been more apposite.

Copyright expired

Despite mainstream media being in overdrive, worldwide panic is unwarranted. The UK, for example, is witnessing the equivalent of a slightly-worse-than-average flu season. The total number of deaths (per unit time) bears no statistically significant difference from previous years. However, infection and mortality data are being presented in a shamelessly deceptive manner.

Data manipulation has been a standard government tactic for decades. When the unemployment rate rocketed from the 1980s onwards, millions were subsequently omitted from the overall figures. The rate of inflation has been similarly altered, with the Retail Price Index (RPI) having been substituted for the (conveniently lower) Consumer Price Index (CPI). Public information is routinely designed to mislead rather than inform. It is Orwellian.

COVID-19 mortality figures are being ‘adjusted’ for the same reasons. Numbers include not only those who have died of acute infectious respiratory disease, but also those who have died with it, and even those merely suspected of having died with it. Hence, the figures, published daily to a great media fanfare, are grossly inflated (Figure 128.2). Such fraudulent criteria have never applied to any other infectious illness, so why now, with COVID-19?

Figure 128.2: If these COVID-19 cases are undiagnosed, then how can they possibly be known to have had it? Bottom of the class, Mr Badcock ...

We must, therefore, ask two questions: (a) why the blatant lies; and (b) what other propaganda is being fed to the public? A few days ago, it was reported that prime minister Boris Johnson had been admitted to a hospital intensive care unit. None of the ordinary government ministers have been hospitalized, indeed none of the other 649 Members of Parliament, just the premier himself. A mere coincidence? As a result of his highly-publicized confinement, popularity ratings of him and his party have increased, and the British people have been distracted from his irrational policy U-turns. While I might accept that the PM remains ill, and wish him well, is his condition being exaggerated for propaganda purposes? It smells familiar.

The lockdown strategy risks making the cure more devastating than the problem itself. Forgive me for sounding heartless, but, to a very small approximation, only a proportion of the elderly and chronically ill are being ‘nudged off the perch’ – hardly anyone else. Why not recommened isolation for them only? The rare occurrence of a young, seemingly healthy individual dying from infectious respiratory disease is presented in such a melodramatic way by the media that it is clear that they are following a script.

Latest estimates state that developed economies are set to contract by between 10 and 30% as a direct consequence of the lockdown. This will lead to a dramatic fall in tax revenue; millions more people will require welfare support (from a smaller tax base); and funding for healthcare will become perilously inadequate. That said, a massive crash, followed by a 1930s-style economic depression, would have happened anyway. COVID-19 is a catalyst, not the cause itself, as the turnaround had already begun. Stock markets have fallen by more than 20% since the beginning of this year; currency printing presses in the US and EU have been cranked up to unprecedented levels; and the debt bubbles continue to inflate. In Article 127, We Are Being Played, I asked: is COVID-19 a convenient pretext to bring down the entire system in a controlled fashion before it does so in a random one? If you say no, then why all the lies and propaganda?

Since the police and other officials were given their new powers, some, inevitably, have morphed into goose-stepping day-glo warriors, finding any spurious reason to intimidate the public. British police, while renowned for patience and common sense, have, to date, prevented homeowners from sitting in their own front gardens, and grocery bags have been searched for unapproved purchases. These, fortunately, are isolated cases. However, people are forbidden by law to go for a leisurely drive in their cars, even if they do not get out of them. Most astoundingly, beaches have been closed, despite fresh salty air being far more beneficial than indoor air; and, furthermore, coronaviruses are highly sensitive to ultraviolet light.

One minor consolation: outside, it has never been more peaceful (Figure 128.3). Despite parks and other public spaces having been cordoned off (Figure 128.4), the sun is shining during the Easter weekend, and traffic noise has abated almost to nothing, leaving the sounds of nature more distinct.

Figure 128.3: The only other person on the beach. (Enlarge to view.)

Figure 128.4: Nature behind bars: wind-bent trees in a field of daisies.

It seems quite possible that life will never revert to how it was. I suspect that is the plan, and it appears to be working. I repeat: we are being played.