Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Computers and social media Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery Skepticism/critical thinking

Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo, or: How Mikki Willis doubled down on COVID-19 conspiracy theories

“Plandemic” is back with “Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo.” It’s even more COVID-19 conspiracies with even less credibility!

About a third of the way through Plandemic: Indoctornation(or, as I like to call it, Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo or just Plandemic 2), the sequel to the conspiracyfest of a video called Plandemic that went viral in May featuring disgraced scientists Judy Mikovits that peddled virtually every conspiracy about the COVID-19 pandemic, the narrator attacks John Oliver for a segment that he did last month on coronavirus conspiracy theories. It’s a brilliant segment, and, in fact, you should watch it right now, before reading my discussion of Plandemic 2, because it will definitely put you in the proper mindset.

And here is Plandemic 2.

Besides in general just being peeved that John Oliver devoted an entire 22 minute segment to coronavirus conspiracy theories in general and spent time during that segment mocking and debunking the first Plandemic video in particular, Mikki Willis, the filmmaker responsible for Plandemic and Plandemic 2, takes umbrage at how Oliver began his segment with a litany of other conspiracy theories, including the moon landing hoax, noting that the “first thing to note here is that Mr. Oliver opens with commentary about conspiracy theories that are completely unrelated to coronavirus,” going on to complain, “This is a standard tactic used by propagandists to set a tone, so that anything that follows will be seen through the lens of absurdity.” After some 30 minutes or so of the conspiracy mongering of Plandemic 2, this struck me as a massive case of projection, a standard propaganda technique in which the propagandist accuses critics with the same sins against information, evidence, and logic that he is committing. Indeed, Plandemic 2 spends a good chunk of its running time going over conspiracy theories unrelated to coronavirus, including a favorite one from 110 years ago that John Rockefeller took over medical education through the Flexner Report and the American Medical Association in order to stifle “natural medicine” and promote petroleum-based pharmaceutical medicines.

Plandemic 2 is not as focused as the original Plandemic, likely partially because its run time is three times as long, but more importantly because it can’t seem to make up its mind what its central conspiracy theory is. So, like so many other quackumentaries, such as Del Bigtree and Andrew Wakefield’s antivaccine conspiracy film disguised as a documentary (VAXXED), it throws everything its filmmaker can think of against the wall and hopes that something sticks. Unlike the first Plandemic video, in which Judy Mikovits was clearly the focus and the hero, there is also not a single or clear hero.

Overall, the basic idea behind Plandemic 2 is that COVID-19 was engineered and released into the world as part of a plot to control the world through more restrictive and authoritarian policies and laws instituted in response to the pandemic, restrictions on social media against the “truth” that led Facebook, YouTube, etc., to purge the original Plandemic video from their platforms, restrictions on old media (TV, news, radio, etc.) that prevents the “truth” about coronavirus from being disseminated, and through being pretext for forced mass vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine, the purging of “natural treatments,” and the promotion of “toxic” and “dangerous” pharmaceutical treatments for COVID-19 over “natural” treatments.

Before we delve into this, first, let’s look at the villains. Of course, the CDC, the FDA, and the World Health Organization are demonized as villains complicit in this grand conspiracy. That’s to be expected. The main villain, however, the puppetmaster pulling most of the strings, is, according to Willis, Bill Gates. I guess that’s to be expected too in an antivaccine conspiracy film, and, make no mistake, Plandemic 2 is, at its heart, an antivaccine conspiracy film, as you will see.

The villain: Bill Gates

Bill Gates is, without a doubt, the biggest villain of Plandemic 2, which spends a lot of time launching ad hominem attacks about him that feature every conspiracy theory you’ve likely heard about him and his foundation, plus a few that you might not have heard of. To make all these insinuations of pure evil seeking population control, paralyzing children with oral polio vaccine, and working on weather control projects that even Doctor Evil might balk at (I kid you not) seem more plausible, there’s a prolonged segment that goes over the litany of Gates’ less savory business practices and activities during the time when he founded and ran Microsoft. For example, yes, we know that Bill Gates didn’t create MS-DOS, the operating system that became dominant and provided the base upon which Microsoft later developed Windows. We know that he purchased it and then licensed it to IBM for its PCs. We know that the Department of Justice launched an antitrust action against Microsoft in the late 1990s for monopolistic business practices. So what?

More disturbing is the not-so-subtle insinuation made in the film that Bill Gates is a pedophile. (A favorite tactic of cranks and conspiracy theorists—and, make no mistake, Plandemic 2 is, at its core, an antivaccine conspiracy film, as you will soon see—is to slime science advocates as pedophiles.) In the last third of the film, it’s pointed out that Bill Gates met with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein multiple times. This is, unfortunately, true, as reported last fall by the New York Times, and, worse, these meetings occurred after Epstein had been convicted of sex crimes. Sadly, he was not alone, as the NYT reported:

Over and over, Mr. Epstein managed to cultivate close relationships with some of the world’s most powerful men. He lured them with the whiff of money and the proximity to other powerful, famous or wealthy people — so much so that many looked past his reputation for sexual misconduct. And the more people he drew into his circle, the easier it was for him to attract others.

Gates later admitted that he had made a mistake meeting with Epstein, and apologized, further explaining that he had thought his discussions with Epstein could bring in billions of dollars for his foundation’s global health efforts, calling it a “mistake in judgment.” (Ya think?)

Personally, I like Seth Myers’ take on on Gates’ error:

Bill Gates said yesterday that he made a mistake when he met with sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein while fundraising for his foundation, adding, “But if it’s any consolation, I killed him.”

Nice subversion of the conspiracy theories about Bill Gates, there, Seth!

Plandemic 2 also claims that Bill Gates rode the “Lolita Express,” Epstein’s private jet. The insinuation (without actually stating it) is that Gates took the “Lolita Express” to Epstein’s private island, where he had engaged in sex trafficking. (Otherwise, why specifically refer to Epstein’s private plane as the “Lolita Express,” instead of just as Epstein’s private plane?) There is, however, no evidence that Gates ever visited Epstein’s island. Now, it is true that Gates flew on Epstein’s plane once, but it was to Palm Beach, not to Epstein’s island. He claimed he didn’t know that it was Epstein’s plane; whether you believe that denial is up to you.

None of this is to downplay the horror of what Jeffrey Epstein did or to excuse Gates (or any of the other wealthy and powerful men whom Epstein courted, such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump) for having associated with him. Gates, however, I can sort of understand, although not excuse. He pointed out in his apology how even his foundation is resource-constrained given the global need, and he had been told that Epstein could put him in touch with a lot of other wealthy donors. That being said, that Plandemic 2 salaciously brought up this history was very clearly intended as a means of insinuating that Bill Gates is either a pedophile or doesn’t have a problem with pedophiles.

Basically every conspiracy theory that you can think of about Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes an appearance in Plandemic 2; so I’ll just hit the high points (if you can call them that), the first of which involves the oral polio vaccine. Basically, at one point in the film Willis intones:

A 2018 scientific study released in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluded that over 490,000 children in India developed paralysis as a result of the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine that was administered between the years of 2000 and 2017.

Willis does his best to paint a portrait of “The Man” trying to “suppress” this study and concludes by bragging how it still exists on the NIH website, as if this represents “victory” for “The Truth.” Actually, it exists in the PubMed database, which is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which is part of the NIH. (In fact, here’s the study.) Of course, the existence of flaccid paralysis as a complication of the oral polio vaccine (Sabin vaccine) is a risk of the vaccine that has been known for a long time. It’s a large part of the reason why we now use the injected Polio vaccine. Basically, in rare cases, the attenuated (weakened) live polio virus in the oral polio vaccine can revert to a form that can cause polio. In most developed countries, a killed polio vaccine is injected. So why is the oral polio vaccine still used in some countries? According to the WHO:

On rare occasions, if a population is seriously under-immunized, an excreted vaccine-virus can continue to circulate for an extended period of time. The longer it is allowed to survive, the more genetic changes it undergoes. In very rare instances, the vaccine-virus can genetically change into a form that can paralyse – this is what is known as a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV).

It takes a long time for a cVDPV to occur. Generally, the strain will have been allowed to circulate in an un- or under-immunized population for a period of at least 12 months. Circulating VDPVs occur when routine or supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) are poorly conducted and a population is left susceptible to poliovirus, whether from vaccine-derived or wild poliovirus. Hence, the problem is not with the vaccine itself, but low vaccination coverage. If a population is fully immunized, they will be protected against both vaccine-derived and wild polioviruses.

Since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of OPV have been administered to nearly 3 billion children worldwide. As a result, more than 13 million cases of polio have been prevented, and the disease has been reduced by more than 99%. During that time, 24 cVDPV outbreaks occurred in 21 countries, resulting in fewer than 760 VDPV cases.

Until 2015, over 90% of cVDPV cases were due to the type 2 component in OPV. With the transmission of wild poliovirus type 2 already successfully interrupted since 1999, in April 2016 a switch was implemented from trivalent OPV to bivalent OPV in routine immunization programmes. The removal of the type 2 component of OPV is associated with significant public health benefits, including a reduction of the risk of cases of cVDPV2.

The small risk of cVDPVs pales in significance to the tremendous public health benefits associated with OPV. Every year, hundreds of thousands of cases due to wild polio virus are prevented. Well over 10 million cases have been averted since large-scale administration of OPV began 20 years ago.

Circulating VDPVs in the past have been rapidly stopped with 2–3 rounds of high-quality immunization campaigns. The solution is the same for all polio outbreaks: immunize every child several times with the oral vaccine to stop polio transmission, regardless of the origin of the virus.

Dr. Vincent Iannelli has more. Basically, in countries with a high prevalence of polio, the benefits the small risk of cVDPV is hugely outweighed by the benefit of preventing wild polio transmission. Once the level of polio falls below a certain point, then it makes sense to switch over to the inactivated polio vaccine.

But what about the claim in Plandemic 2 that the OPV is responsible for nearly a half million cases of paralytic polio between 2000-2017? The source of this claim is, unsurprisingly, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and WHO data only show 17 cases of vaccine-derived polio between 2000-2017. The study cited has also been criticized for its methodology. You can read all the criticisms here. Some of the key problems include the inclusion of children up to age 15, even though polio vaccination is targeted to children 0-5 years old; the correlation isn’t seen in four of the states in India; and how the proportions of actual diagnoses of acute flaccid paralysis cases have varied over time and what percentage fit into the classical criteria as practiced in the western countries to which the authors have drawn the non-polio AFP rate comparisons of India. Basically, the conclusions of this study are very questionable (at best), and it’s telling that Willis couldn’t find any other studies besides this cherry picked study to support his claims.

Here’s another of Willis’ claims:

In partnership with MIT, Bill Gates has developed a new technology that allows vaccines to be injected under your skin, along with your medical records.

Über-quack Joe Mercola was harping on this particular technology last week. It’s not nearly as nefarious as Willis and Mercola makes it sound. For one thing, knowing who’s already received a specific vaccine can protect that person from unnecessarily being advised to receive that vaccine again if there is uncertainty over whether he’s ever had it. Moreover, the technology doesn’t allow the “injection” of your medical records under the skin. It only allows a doctor to read whether you received a specific vaccine or not. The collaboration also started in 2016, long before the current pandemic started.

The litany continues, and includes fear mongering about Gates’ efforts to mitigate human-caused climate change and (if you believe the description) an effort to use genetically modified mosquitoes as vaccines in collaboration with a company called Oxitec. This is a misleading description. What Gates has really done is to support an effort to create genetically modified mosquitoes that can’t reproduce or are resistant to malaria so that they don’t spread it to humans and to explore a similar technology to modify mosquitoes so that they produce antigens in their saliva that could function as, in essence, vaccines. Another effort involves modifying protozoa that cause malaria to be weakened, so that if a mosquito with the organism bites a human there is no disease but an immune response is provoked. In other words, Willis did the same thing he accused John Oliver of doing: Throwing a bunch of fear mongering unrelated to coronavirus out there and then using it to paint the idea of using mosquitos as “flying syringes” against malaria as ridiculous and dangerous. It’s the same thing he did bringing up tired old claims that Rockefeller used the Flexner Report to declare war on alternative medicine and to parrot the old discredited trope that medical error is the third largest cause of death in the US.

Mikki Willis wants to believe!
Mikki Willis wants to believe!

Near the end of the film, Willis intones portentously:

Bill Gates is either one of the most misunderstood men alive, or one of the most convincing con men to ever live. Is he a benevolent hero or a malevolent opportunist?

Personally, I would love to believe that one of the richest men in the world is giving away his fortune for the betterment of humanity.

I want to believe that endearing smile.

I want to believe that his heart is as soft and warm as his sweater.

At the very least, I want to believe that he’s unaware of the damage he’s done.

I suppose that’s why throughout the film, Willis uses the most unflattering photos and film footage of Gates that he can find, including several shots of Gates rocking backwards and forwards in a chair clearly designed to suggest the “stimming” behavior common among people with autism, all with the video modified in that ominous style commonly used in political attack ads. (Like Del Bigtree, Mikki Willis is anything but subtle.) I suppose that’s why Willis regurgitates every conspiracy theory about the Gates Foundation he can find. I suppose that’s why he strongly insinuates that Gates is either a pedophile or has no problem with pedophiles like Jeffrey Epstein. That’s what one does when one truly hopes that someone like Bill Gates isn’t evil, right?

The COVID-19 pandemic was a plot!

Besides Bill Gates conspiracy theories, Plandemic 2 goes to great lengths to try to imply that COVID-19 comes from a lab and that it was intentionally released, the corollaries being that the CDC, Bill Gates, and other nefarious forces knew that COVID-19 was coming before it happened. To that end, a man named David E. Martin is introduced at the beginning of the film. It turns out that, of all the people interviewed for this conspiracy film disguised as a documentary, Martin by far gets the most screen time. No one else even comes close, not Judy Mikovits, not Meryl Nass, not Mary Holland. In fact, Martin gets at least as much screen time as the filmmaker Mikki Willis, if not more. It makes me wonder if Martin wrote the damned film!

At this point it’s worth mentioning that, with only one exception (bioethicist Art Caplan, who must have been tricked into being interviewed for this film the way that Richard Dawkins was tricked into appearing in the anti-evolution film Expelled!), every “expert” interviewed is an utter crank. Dr. Meryl Nass, for instance, has been mentioned in this blog before in the context of Ebola conspiracy theories. She was a legitimate scientist who published seminal papers on anthrax, but for many years has not exactly a reliable source. For example, she’s been known to show up on quack websites like Mercola.com spouting antivaccine tropes, to write a letter asking for help to the antivaccine website Vaccination News, and to write a great deal about mass vaccination programs, particularly anthrax vaccines in the military, viewing it as a cause of Gulf War syndrome. Indeed, she has her very own page on that granddaddy of conspiracy sites, Whale.to and did this video for Gary Null. Just a perusal of her blog Anthrax Vaccine reveals a whole lot of COVID-19 nonsense, including a ringing endorsement of hydroxychloroquine (which is the Black Knight of COVID-19 treatments and for which the randomized clinical trial evidence is increasingly negative). But she looks reputable on the surface. Then there’s Mary Holland, the antivaccine lawyer who’s been featured on this blog a number of times trying to be a scientist and doing it badly (and unethically). Then there’s Luc Montagnier, sufferer of the Nobel Disease, who believes in homeopathy, has become antivaccine to the core, and of late has been peddling conspiracy theories that coronavirus was made in a Wuhan lab.

Dr. Nass’s key claim is that COVID-19 was engineered. There is very good evidence that it was not, in particular a paper published in March in Nature Medicine in which investigators analyzed the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, and found no evidence of human engineering. Oddly enough, she can’t come up with any good reasons why that paper’s conclusions are mistaken. All she can say is that the paper’s arguments “didn’t hold water” and “didn’t make a lot of scientific sense.” Tellingly, she doesn’t explain why, in her opinion, the paper’s arguments “didn’t hold water” and “didn’t make a lot of scientific sense.” Of course, her explanation is that “somebody” must have forced the investigators to publish this paper and “somebody” must have forced all the high-powered people (like Francis Collins) to say it’s great science.

Holland, meanwhile, claimed that India “kicked out” the Gates Foundations due to deaths that occurred during a trial of HPV vaccine in India. However, five of the seven deaths were not related to the vaccine, while for the other two investigators concluded that a link between the vaccine and the girl’s deaths was “unlikely.” More importantly, although the Indian Parliament did conclude that there were ethical problems with informed consent for the trial, the Gates Foundation was not “kicked out” of India.

But back to David Martin.

Martin is the founder of M-CAM International and describes himself thusly:

Dr. David E. Martin is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance. He is the developer of the first innovation-based quantitative index of public equities and is the Managing Partner of the Purple Bridge Funds. He is the creator of the world’s first quantitative public equity index – the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM. Actively engaged in global ethical economic development, Dr. Martin’s work includes financial engineering and investment, public speaking, writing and providing financial advisory services to the majority of countries in the world. Dr. Martin is the architect and founder of the Global Innovation Commons and is the author of the international legal framework for the Heritable Knowledge Trust and Heritable Innovation Trust programs. He has pioneered global programs to bring corporate and stock market transparency to multi-national extractive industries and has been instrumental in repatriating value to countries which have been subject to corporate and financial abuses. His work on ethical engagement and stewardship of community and commons-based value interests is at the forefront of global financial innovation. Dr. Martin is a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. He served as Chair of Economic Innovation for the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization and has served as an advisor to numerous Central Banks, global economic forums, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, and national governments.

If his role in Plandemic 2 is any indication, the man is a total crank, a conspiracy loon of the highest order, and I’d be highly skeptical of anything his company does. I mean, seriously, right from the beginning of the film, Martin and Willis go to great lengths to portray “Event 201,” an October 2019 exercise simulating a pandemic and the subsequent coronavirus crisis as evidence that it was all part of a plan.

However:

But Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, which hosted the event in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said that it did not predict the current outbreak, and was instead aimed at highlighting “preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”

The exercise’s “About” page said: “In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually.”

“Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global — a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences.”

I’ve noted before that Event 201 is one of the favorite things of COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, given that it was a simulation of a serious pandemic that occurred only five months before an actual serious pandemic was declared, but it did not, as is implied by Martin and Willis, predict the COVID-19 pandemic or that Anthony Fauci predicted the 2020 pandemic in 2017. Also, it’s not as though there haven’t been similar exercises:

Johns Hopkins has hosted other simulations with evocative names in recent years — including Dark Winter in 2001, Atlantic Storm in 2005, and Clade X in 2018. The World Economic Forum has said such simulations are important for preparing for the average of 200 epidemics that take place annually.

What about 2017, the year that Willis mentioned in his claim?

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a 2017 event at Georgetown University that there would be “a surprise outbreak” facing the Trump administration. But that doesn’t mean he predicted the coronavirus pandemic. Fauci talked about a wide range of diseases that emerged or intensified during his tenure at the institute, including HIV/AIDS and West Nile virus.

Martin goes back even further, though, implying that the origins of the COVID19 pandemic go back over 20 years, with Martin saying:

In 1999, patents on coronavirus started showing up. And thus began the rabbit trail…In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control saw the possibility of a gold strike. And that was the coronavirus outbreak that happened in Asia. They saw that a virus they knew could be easily manipulated was something that was very valuable, and in 2003 they sought to patent it, and they made sure that they controlled the proprietary rights to the disease, to the virus, and to its detection and all of the measurement of it.

Martin then opines that you can’t patent a natural DNA sequence, “reasoning” further that, if the coronavirus patented by the CDC was natural then it was illegal to have patented it or, alternatively, that if the sequence was patentable it must have been engineered, adding that if it was manufactured it was a violation of international laws against biological weapons. Basically, the whole premise is based on poorly (and dishonestly) interpreted patent searches.

I’m tired at this point; so I’m just going to quote a lot of the refutation to this nonsense, which Martin surely knows is nonsense. (If he doesn’t, he has no business running the sort of organization he runs.) First, though, let me point out that in 2003 it was legal to patent a naturally-occurring DNA sequence that you isolated. In fact, I am co-inventor on a patent of just such a sequence from my graduate school days in the 1990s, a patent that presumably is no longer valid since 2013, when the Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring nucleotide sequences can’t be patented. Here’s the story:

SARS was first reported in Asia in 2003, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The virus is believed to have spread from bats to civet cats to humans, according to Nature.

Per the Wall Street Journal, the CDC applied for a patent covering both the coronavirus that causes SARS and its genome in 2003. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as researchers in Canada and Hong Kong, also filed SARS-related patent applications, NBC News reported. The CDC was granted its patent in 2007 but, contrary to what Martin suggests, the CDC holding the patent isn’t evidence SARS is “manufactured.”

While patents on genetic material have been granted in the past, current law no longer allows DNA in its natural form to be patented, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The CDC applied and received its SARS-related patent prior to that ruling.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, the then-CDC director, said in a 2003 media briefing that the public health organization pursued the patent to “get information about SARS and the SARS genome and the SARS coronavirus into the public domain as quickly as we possibly can.”

“The concern that the federal government is looking at right now is that we could be locked out of this opportunity to work with this virus if it’s patented by someone else,” Gerberding said. “By initiating steps to secure patent rights, we assure that we will be able to continue to make the virus and the products from the virus available in the public domain, and that we can continue to promote the rapid technological transfer of this biomedical information into tools and products that are useful to patients.”

“The CDC does hold some patents on life forms, but it generally does this for the common good, so a commercial company can’t come along and patent it,” David Sanders, an associate professor of biological sciences at Purdue University, told Newsmax Health in 2014 regarding an Ebola virus strain patent held by the CDC. “The CDC lets researchers work with the strain without fees.”

Truly, I facepalmed epically when I first watched Martin make this claim, and this was before later in the movie, when the same old claims of vaccines as “population control” were trotted out, along with invocation of the specter of the use of black people as “guinea pigs” for a new coronavirus vaccine.

Godzilla facepalm

Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo

When Plandemic 2 hit the web three days ago, I was all hyped to take it down. However, given that it was a 75 minute movie and I was fairly busy at work this week, a couple of days went by before I could watch the whole thing, and I noticed something. What I noticed is that this movie didn’t go anywhere near as viral as Plandemic did, almost to the point where I said, “The hell with it!” and didn’t bother to do a post on it. This is likely because it’s really, really hard to get lightning to strike twice in the same place, but also likely because social media companies were more ready to prevent the spread of this disinformation on their platforms than they were in May, when Plandemic first went viral

Ultimately, the sunk cost of having watched the damned thing led me to finish my post early this morning and to realize that conspiracy movies like Plandemic 2 are all depressingly the same. They link together disparate events in a misleading manner to imply an overarching conspiracy and then finish, as Plandemic 2 does, on a hopeful note, with The People becoming aware and rising up. In fact, Plandemic 2 is very explicit about “that moment when the hero rises from defeat,” with the narrator hopefully intoning that the “story is not over” and the “climax has yet to come” over images from a variety of movies showing just that: Heroes at the moment they rise from seeming defeat. There are sports heroes too, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and John F. Kennedy, and Black Lives Matter protesters, all before a fade to black and a screen of text defining “plandemic.”

Subtle, this movie ain’t. Nor is it honest. It’s deceptive in the extreme, pure disinformation. The good thing is that it’s nowhere near as influential as its predecessor.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

239 replies on “Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo, or: How Mikki Willis doubled down on COVID-19 conspiracy theories”

“first thing to note here is that Mr. Oliver opens with commentary about conspiracy theories that are completely unrelated to coronavirus,”

Completely unrelated? Is she sure? That’s that they want you to believe. It’s all connected, man. (goes fetch his A-qnon map of all things connected)

Actually, I’m afraid I’m not joking. Pretty sure I saw moon landing in the corner of one such chart.

One of my non-scientist coworker is dabbing into covid-related CT stuff. Engineered virus, CO2 stuck in mask, Oh, and non-related, the alcaline diet. I have to remember to tread lightly.

“One of my non-scientist coworker is dabbing into covid-related CT stuff. Engineered virus, CO2 stuck in mask, Oh, and non-related, the alcaline diet.”

You have the patient of a saint .. or the naivete of a fool ;-).
I don’t want to work with nutcases, I’d either quit (if I’m not in charge) or fire the idiot (because they’re an idiot).

This is the sort of person that advises their companion “It’s no problem walking across these tracks. The 3rd rail is only hot when a train is passing by”. They then encourage their gullible friend to cross ahead of them, “while I look out for the train”.

You have the patient of a saint .. or the naivete of a fool 😉

More of the latter, if I am honest with myself.
Although, being not in charge of the lab and not very interested in going hunting for a new job right now, there isn’t much I can do.
From a distance, it’s actually an interesting conundrum. When is it too much?
This person is otherwise doing their job correctly, and is generally kind and polite. I mean, they are not a raving loon on a soapbox with a tinfoil hat.
Quitting or having them fired seems overacting.
Also, no certitude their replacement will be as good at the job. Or conspiracy-free.

@ Athaic

“This person is otherwise doing their job correctly, and is generally kind and polite. I mean, they are not a raving loon on a soapbox with a tinfoil hat.”

My personal ethos would be that this is professional behaviour, and if he has conspiracy theories that does not impact on work, then it’s his freedom of conscience. Whether I like or not.

Of course, I’m not in your shoes…

( The Bolen Report)
Kent Heckenlively wonders how much screen time he received in this film ( but his new book with Judy book on masks is out).. I think I’ll pass checking it out: Q Anon is enough for the week,
Also, his latest hero cosplay involves The Last Samurai ( What no Stars Wars or LOTR?)

Null links to the film on PRN- they say to label it as something else so it won’t be censored when you share or post it.

We can trace its path of infection as though we were contact tracers.

Actually, I don’t recall seeing Kent at all in the film, which suggests that I either had tuned out by then or his appearance was so short that I blinked and missed it…

I tried to watch the video at PRN.fm but it was “refused” – there must be a plot to keep sceptics off of their case.
BUT I recalled that the hoary old woo-meister featured a great chunk of the film’s audio on his show yesterday so I listened: ( starts at about 14 minutes to 55 minutes). I just skimmed because it was even more atrocious than the usual fare at PRN** HOWEVER I heard ( at 29 minutes in) ranting against Wikipedia and how untrustworthy it is.

Wikipedia and sceptics are getting under their skins. I imagine that information about how alties operate cuts into their profit margin ( Null has admitted that business is off
50% and the “cesspool” of UWS Manhattan is now an enclave for the homeless, a Skid Row, and he may have to close his health food store for lack of customers.***)

** for a sample, he offers his counselling tapes ( 38 of them) and video bios as a free service to followers.
*** for an idea of the ‘great poverty’ that exists there see Zillow NY UpperWestSide for prices of homes and rents. Everyone is leaving and you may now acquire a nice condo or townhouse for a pittance.

Are you implying that these antivax quack lunatics are ruining sci-fi fandom and cosplay as well? Screw those antivax quack grifters! They should keep their stinking mitts off science fiction fandom!

Sci Fi fan fiction remains safe… for now. I was just laughing at him.
.
Kent Heckenlively ONLY takes on role playing when he writes about his own heroism as an anti-vax warrior** ( at theBolen Report blog).. Orac wrote about his Aragorn stylings in a post here. ( ‘.I will accept your surrender’ may be in the title.)

** He was banned from Australia..

@ Orac

“Then there’s Luc Montagnier, sufferer of the Nobel Disease, who believes in homeopathy, has become antivaccine to the core, and of late has been peddling conspiracy theories that coronavirus was made in a Wuhan lab.”

Seems like this Wuhan lab theory is being peddled quite a lot in my corner of the world. Someone pointed me to Alexandra Henrion-Caude. Pure BS about the Wuhan lab. She used to work at the INSERM as a geneticist. Quite stunning to see how easily people make a shift to credential-based nonsense.

Are you familiar with Quackwatch?

There’s an article under ‘Quackery’ called Why Health Professionals Become Quacks
.
AND followers can cite their guru’s credentials to bolster their own belief.
AND woo-meisters can mime/ invent their own credentials

A connection to the Wuhan lab may not be a crazy conspiracy theory.

Recently unearthed Chinese research links the virus to the Mojiang mine in Yunnan, which was heavily contaminated with … nightmare bio-stuff which I don’t care to detail at this hour. That not-wonderful cavern hosted a pathogen which creates a human illness much like Covid-19, which sickened each of six miners sent to clean/prep the place. Tests for known pathogens came up negative, so tissue samples were sent to a lab in China the WIV. The pathogen turned out to be a coronavirus related to SARS-1 and remarkably similar to SARS-2.

I’ve scanned through the article at the link below (mm, not sure what links are allowed here). The authors seem opinionated rather than sterile, but I didn’t sense anything conspiratorial or obsessive. Unfortunately I not qualified to evaluate their biological theory, but it appears quite plausible.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

If true, the thesis proves that the real cause of the pandemic is the world’s failure to heed the timeless wisdom of Adam West:
“Stay out of the Bat Cave”

Joke’s on us.

Whoa. I’ve encountered Jonathan Latham before. He’s a total anti-GMO crank. Allison Wilson also gives me that vibe. As for the article, it’s a hell of a lot of speculation without much in the way of evidence.

@F68.10

That was my first visit to the site in question, and I didn’t look into who owns it etc. Regarding news and public events, there appear to be +/s zero sites without a bias, only sites having gradations of it. Some, of course, are all partisan with news pasted on.

Anyways, bias or not, it cites work by a Chinese author and a documented event (novel type infections in 6 mine workers). Sometimes a source with an agenda and a partisan bias will publicize news others ignore. I’d give a GMO activist 0 science cred, but they may be seizing on a bit of valid data that co-incidentally fits their worldview. It’s quite possible to stumble upon valid information via invalid motives.

Whether the paper regarding those mine infections provides good evidence of a link, I have no idea. It does strike me as needing a look into.

@ Spectator

“Sometimes a source with an agenda and a partisan bias will publicize news others ignore. I’d give a GMO activist 0 science cred, but they may be seizing on a bit of valid data that co-incidentally fits their worldview. It’s quite possible to stumble upon valid information via invalid motives.”

I thought like you. Once upon a time… Nowadays, I’ve just seen so much people wanting to believe just what they feel like it, even using valid data, that I just do not bother any more.

Even if and when I should…

I have nothing against GMO activists. As long as they do not bullshit me with “science”… If people want “natural” food, whatever that means, I’m fine with it. If people want to push back against industrialisation and standardisation of food, I’m quite fine with it too. Just ate blood sausage recently. Stark reminder of how food has changed and been standardised since I was a kid, and I’m honestly not happy with it. I want blood sausages, beef brain, beef tripe, cheese with rot in them in my dishes. I want a vibrant countryside and people proud to grow food. If they feel better doing away with GMO, let them do as they see fit. They just do not need to bullshit me with “science” for me to take their wishes into account.

The Yunnan origin was raised more seriously months ago at virological.org. The only thing missing is getting it to Wuhan.

Jonathan Latham has a penchant for conspiracy theories and most of his writings contain at least one.

Indeed this piece seems to be more of the same along with some motivated joining the dots. An example is the following:

“All of this begs the question of why the Shi lab, which has no interest in fungi but a great interest in SARS-like bat coronaviruses, also searched the Mojiang mine for bat viruses on four separate occasions between August 2012 and July 2013, even though the mine is a 1,000 Km from Wuhan”

The simple answer is because the mine contained bats. If you are interested in studying bat coronaviruses, you have to start off with some bats. Such a simple and obvious explanation is not good enough for Latham. Because 3 people had died of pneumonia in the mine months before, Latham adds up 2 and 2 to make 11.

Oh yes and 2009 H1N1 swine flu was actually caused by an improperly attenuated vaccine strain. Cue much eye-rolling.

@ F68.10,

Do you think there is no chance that this covid fiasco may have started with an accident at the Wuhan lab?

Or just think that theory is currently unsubstantiated?

I feel like the increasing amount of concern from those credentialed people could indicate something more negative about the lab then the people who are becoming skeptical.

My definition of skeptical is more the traditional one; “a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions”, versus the way it is used here, which is literally the opposite.

@ Christine Kincaid

“Or just think that theory is currently unsubstantiated?”

To put it politely, yes.

I also think some people are enjoying frightening themselves and others on this topic, and some have ulterior motives to do. Alexandra Henrion-Caude seems to me to be one of them.

If ever something like a security issue in such a lab existed, then it should be treated as such a security issue. Now, please tell me: are people peddling the Wuhan lab theory all that concerned by the technicalities and politics of biosafety level 4 labs?

Unlikely.

Considering the possibility of an unintentional event does not sound like a conspiracy theory to me. Accidents are common to nearly all endeavors undertaken by humans, and China runs on a rapidly expanding and modernizing economy which, like others in that phase, tolerates a fair amount of shortcuts and accidents.

Further, there is at least one case of a lab employee selling post-use animals from a 3-4 BSL-rated lab in China (there are only 2 we know of) rather than euthanizing & incinerating the poor things.
How do we know? One case went so far that the – or at least a – culprit was caught, convicted, sentenced and the case made public. Enough animals were sold that the employee pocketed (if I recall correctly) the equivalent of over $100,000.

In an authoritarian, centrally controlled system most such events are non-public. If there was one such case …

The argument I have heard made is that RaTG13 was found in the cave by researchers from WIV and brought back there for study. Some of the research at WIV included gain of function. The theory goes they they were doing GoF on RaTG13 and turned it into the present pandemic strain and that it got loose or infected someone in the lab who then infected others.

I would have to argue that, yes, this is not outside of the realm of possibility. Is it likely? Well, I suppose that depends on your geopolitical leanings and world view. The problem, as I see it, is that we still know so little about the actual etiology of this thing to refute claims like these.

“the people who are becoming skeptical”

You misspelled “septic”. As in “tank”. Because they’re full of it.

Oh, Christine is back. Talking about what she “feels” instead of actually discussing facts. I mean, I feel like if she claims the sky is blue, it’s worth double checking given how many stories she’s been caught in.

@ Spectator

“Considering the possibility of an unintentional event does not sound like a conspiracy theory to me.”

Per se, it is not. But even if people did not assert intentionality, the willingness to believe and misestimate the likelihood of such an event is patent. It’s not necessarily reptilian-level bonkers, but its also people playing with their own fears.

“Accidents are common to nearly all endeavors undertaken by humans, and China runs on a rapidly expanding and modernizing economy which, like others in that phase, tolerates a fair amount of shortcuts and accidents.”

Oh yeah… “Tolerates”…

“In an authoritarian, centrally controlled system most such events are non-public. If there was one such case …”

Of course. Doesn’t change the fact that evidence to support this theory seems insufficient. One may speculate all one wants, for the moment, it won’t help much. That people look for evidence, I’m fine with it. That they market these “evidence” of the cognitive marketplace that is the Internet is an entirely different matter, given the level of credulity that is rampant.

Well, in the absence of hard evidence, we’re left either with speculation or wait and wait for decent evidence to be found and made public. If the interesting stuff is hazardous to the career or health of some Party official, we may never be privvy to it other than by leaks.

@Narad, re how would the virus travel from Yunan to Wuhan: The rather questionable source I read stated that it caused an illness both serious and novel enough that it needed further examination. Tissue samples were sent to one or more government labs with the ability to detect and describe previously unknown virus. Supposedly, the two most prominent such labs are in Hubai, similar to our main CDC facility. Thus, a possible path from Yunan to Wuhan.

From this distance I can’t say how much or little credence to give to this line of evidence. But there seem to be holes in attributing the Wuhan wet market as the original source, so we’re left with speculation. Someone knows more, that someone isn’t us.

@ Spectator

“Well, in the absence of hard evidence, we’re left either with speculation or wait and wait for decent evidence to be found and made public.”

This is a false equivalence. It is not X or Y as in Boolean logic. It is establishing a critical preference between X > Y and X < Y. And this can, and should, be performed on the grounds of available evidence, no matter how slim it is.

“If the interesting stuff is hazardous to the career or health of some Party official, we may never be privvy to it other than by leaks.”

From X < Y and X < Z, you cannot deduce that Y < Z. Otherwise < would axiomatise a partial equivalence relation.

In other words, it is not because party politics in a dictatorship lower the quality of evidence that this is enough to tip the balance in favor of a conspiracy theory.

Of course, there is a transparency issue with China. Doesn’t change the fact that this does not justify reaching for conspiracy theories. Moreover, peddling conspiracy theories also plays in the hands of a dictatorship…

I see that you’re a fellow aficionado of comedic cinema. Nice to make your acquaintance. I drool in anticipation of the third film of the trilogy. I bet you do, too. Or perhaps it’s that you habitually drool.

I also enjoy that kind of humour where you can’t quite tell if they’re joking. Some time ago a British comedian dropped one of his characters because certain people didn’t realise it was satire, I think Mr Willis should do the same.

“First, though, let me point out that in 2003 it was legal to patent a naturally-occurring DNA sequence that you isolated. In fact, I am co-inventor on a patent of just such a sequence from my graduate school days in the 1990s”

a-HA!

Taken out of context, that admission should be grist for the conspiracy mill for years to come. Something to do with creating vaccine-related neuropathology so Orac and Big Pharma can then collaborate on a faux vaccine to prevent autism, perhaps.

“In fact, Plandemic 2 is very explicit about “that moment when the hero rises from defeat”

But will he/she accept our surrender?

What has he read?’ Mary asks in the recording, to which Maryanne replies: ‘No. He doesn’t read.’

In a separate conversation, Maryanne is also heard mocking her brother’s lack of interest in reading, along with his reliance on Fox News and apparent confusion over what she does with her time if she is not watching the channel.

She recalls in the call with Mary that her brother kept asking if she watched Fox – which Trump has a strong relationship with – to which she replied she didn’t.

When she told him she doesn’t watch much television at all, Maryanne says her brother was shocked asking: ‘What do you do?’

She tells Mary she told him she read, to which he had further questions.

‘What do you read?’ the president said.

‘Books,’ Maryanne says she replied, to which Trump asked again: ‘You don’t watch Fox?’

“What channel is ‘Books’ “?? — D. Jenious Trump

@ Tim

to which Trump asked again: ‘You don’t watch Fox?’

I can almost hear:
“But you are missing great stuff! They are talking about me all the time!”

Genuinely surprised more folks haven’t yet made the connection, but this whole “pedophile cabal” thing is just old-school Blood Libel updated and expanded for the 21st century. Current king bête-noire Bill Gates may not be technically Jewish, but as wealthy outsider and generally squirrely-looking dude fits neatly into the Soros/Rothschilds role.

Say what you want about the tenets of Antivax-Antimask-QAnon cryptofascism, as least it’s an inclusive ethos.

@ has:

That’s food for thought. I wonder…

Generally, amongst those I survey, the powers-that-be include the government, corporations, the Establishment, universities and the media which are tightly knit cabals that manage information, control MONEY and keep Truth from the People. Currently, the alties despise FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter, Google and Wikipedia- Big Business- who have started blocking avenues for disseminating alt med and anti-vax,

Currently, I notice two phenomena occurring: alties are fighting Wikipedia** because it requires reliable sources for inclusion NOT their own AND scoffers at RI dispute consensus information that Orac or his minions provide because it doesn’t support their woo- in other words- they accept dodgier sources and more loosely associated connections than the standard which is suspicious to them. Authorities are illegitimate, criminal and seek power over the People: a constant theme.

** I am only indirectly involved with WP.

They should thank those companies (other than Wikipedia with their early and ongoing disdain for bs) for providing a frictionless path to their marks for many years and enabling uncountable (or unaccounted for) millions of profit. Now that the grifters are flush with cash they can communicate with their marks using their own funds. The free ride is over.

“Currently, the alties despise FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter, Google and Wikipedia”

They flamin’ nuts, but they got that right.
Gossip, ickyness of was chiseled into stone tablets for good cause

@ has

this whole “pedophile cabal” thing is just old-school Blood Libel

When i was following the news over pizzagate, I noticed that, too. Plenty of elements were reeking of déjà vu

The Guardian has an article, Explaining Q Anon about anti-semitism today.

Rather than respond to persistent trolls piecemeal, it might be worthwhile to look at where CTs originated and how they spread. Orac – and others ( ahem!) who have followed pseudoscience for many years can trace the pathways of BS ( although computers have been used recently to map social media spread more granularly). Thus I seek the leaders not the followers.

‘Purity’ and “Nature” are constant themes appearing in anti-vax that have ancient religious origins but are resurrected in new guises over the years. Throughout the 20th Century alone, there were sporadic movements that advised people to go “Back to Nature”
and various proselytisers advocated and profited off these endeavors; the woo-meisters we see now are their direct descendants.

Orac, who has written over 1000 posts about vaccines and autism, addresses “ritual purity” and motifs straight out of Frazer. Ideas like these powerfully sway people emotionally as they have for millennia, sometimes so well that their foothold in the modern world of data and facts is shaken. Vulnerable people can be argued into belief when they are told that children are endangered by evil, dirty vaccines, corrupt entrepreneurs hellbent on destruction or BOTH. The internet allows for more rapid evolution of myths and legends.

Personally, I track how a specific news item, often fictitious, moves around a set of alt med and anti-vax websites over the course of a few days. On one level, we have those who create sites or pages and those who perpetrate and share the material; leaders and followers. Followers often attempt to grow to the next level by writing books, giving lectures and hosting their own internet meet ups.- we see these phenomenon frequently amongst anti-vaxxers: they become a name in the movement that is recognised by other followers a step up the ladder. out of obscurity.

@has writes, “generally squirrely-looking dude”. Yep. Agreed. I’ll add he does a lot of weird hand and arm movements. The rocking during his deposition made him look seriously disturbed…not someone I’ll take medical advice from. Wonder if he still rocks like that in times of distress? His face and slouchy, sitting posture remind me of Stephen Hawking. Dude needs lessons in body language and public speaking. In fact, he is so awkward with strained cadence/swallowing, I can barely stand to watch or listen to him and his kermit-the-frog voice…let alone trust him. LOL!

Cartoon Bill tells the truth, more truth than Shillbill, the Philanthrocapitalist, Gates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRyd2A5-XLs

@ Natalie White

“Dude needs lessons in body language and public speaking.”

I do not expect people who are supposed to bring some contribution to society through their intellect to be judged on their looks and body language.

I recall some women voting in France for Bernard Tapie back In the 90s. On the grounds that he did look handsome. Not that I despise the man, but voting for someone on looks is beyond me.

You should try to look beyond good and bad looks. That may help you get closer to the truth.

has, what else could you expect from a sadistic child hater who loves to see kids get sick with high fevers, seizures, and a real chance of permanent disability.

I do not expect people who are supposed to bring some contribution to society through their intellect to be judged on their looks and body language.

I was going to try to provide some defenses for the position, but then I was gripped by memories of The Thing with Two Heads.

You should not, indeed, take medical advice from Bill Gates. He himself takes his medical advice from a qualified person.

1) Wow, that’s incredibly ableist. Are you this cruel to everyone?

2) So you’re saying we should only trust charismatic people? If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past 4 years it’s never, ever trust a really charismatic person, because they will ruin you. (See: Theranos, the Fyre festival guy, every cult leader ever)

3) While I have not met BillG in person, I know people who have and their unanimous description of him is that he is really, really smart.

has writes,

“@Natalie White: How about you just go fuck yourself, you piece of shit bigot.”

@ Orac,

There “has” to be consequences for using such language here at RI. It’s hate speech triggered by insensitive RI from Natalie White.

Q. Can you punish “has” e.g., invitation to write a guest post for RI.

@MJD: Go take your attack of the vapors elsewhere, insipid fool. Ms White is wholly capable of mocking spectrum behaviors all by herself and doesn’t need you white knighting from the rear.

I am not surprised. This “pedophile cabal” conspiracy theory has all the hallmarks of a moral panic equivalent to the urban legends of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the false accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse at day care centers.

I recommend reading books and scholarly articles on Urban Legends, blood libel myths, and moral panics. I recommend reading the book “Satanic Panic” and the various books written by Jan Harold Brunvand.

A. Thank you for doing this. It actually explained some claims I’ve been hearing in the past few days.

B. That segment by John Oliver was really excellent.

C. Dr. Nass was also very active in the Maine battle to remove non-medical exemptions. She’s Ms. Ginger Tailor’s medical source of choice.

D. I thunk another reason it didn’t go as far – mentioned by Renee DiResta on twitter – is that the first round was much better edited and tight. Twenty tight minutes of conspiracy claim after conspiracy claim may be easier on viewers than an unfocused film that’s over an hour. Especially on the non-committed.

I am indeed curious as to whether you’ve seen the documentary or are just reading this interpretation of it. If you haven’t, I always recommend seeing the source of contention before reading the complaints. Reading a complaint first primes the psyche and this author is obviously biased. So, a biased primer. This is not to say I agree with the documentary, but the author doesn’t actually debunk it. They pick pieces from it that are easily spun or made to seem more grandiose by using exaggerated language. That’s no way to debunk anything. Not only that, the author uses mostly character assassination tactics rather than debunk what the person said. The only debunking of the experts in the documentary were the ones who did not give reasons.

The documentary definitely can have the feel of being all over the place. However, this was because of the flack received from the first documentary. The second required back story and reasoning. Despite what this author claims, I’d say that everything in the documentary was actually COVID related. Not the virus itself, but the impact and proposed setup of it. The author just simply wants to gouge at it in any way possible. I’m not in agreement with the documentary but watching this attempt at a debunking was a little cringeworthy when seeing which parts were chosen to talk about and which weren’t. The only problem with the film being over an hour is that our attention spans are much shorter as a culture. Keep in my that on the Plandemic site, they list the sources so that anyone can delve further should they have actual inquiries. That too was not talked about.

Now, I’ll just wait here for the trolls to fire insults and their attempts at character assassination. It’s really the only method of trying to silence people these days instead of have difficult conversation.

“Willis does his best to paint a portrait of “The Man” trying to “suppress” this study and concludes by bragging how it still exists on the NIH website, as if this represents “victory” for “The Truth.” Actually, it exists in the PubMed database, which is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which is part of the NIH.”
I love it when someone thinks Pubmed is a government database with governement approved studies ; it is a great way to demonstrate you don’t even know the basics of medical research ; not necessarily an immediate deal-breaker to me, but oh boy will it be difficult for me to take the rest of their speech seriously.

Danbury CT’s mayor is pissed off at John Oliver for dissing the city, so he announced a new sewage treatment plant is being named for Oliver because he’s, uh, full of sewage.

Oliver is probably cackling at this. He might remind viewers it’s an honor to be recognized for cleaning up Danbury’s bullshit.*

*if memory serves, composer Charles Ives was from Danbury, the only noteworthy thing about the place as far as I know.

Eh, a good sewage treatment plant is about the only thing on Earth able to take garbage in and throw not-garbage out.

As pointed by a book I just finished (1), water getting out of a treatment plant is actually getting dirtier once it goes back to the general water streams.

(1) The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why It Matters, by Rose George.

@ Athaic

“As pointed by a book I just finished (1), water getting out of a treatment plant is actually getting dirtier once it goes back to the general water streams.”

What do you mean by that?

@ F68.10

Oh, the engineer quoted in that book basically meant that the water going out of the processing plant is of a higher quality (or should be, if regulations, protocols/etc are followed) than the water found in the river the former is being dumped into.
The water coming out is supposedly free of germs, parasites, and of most pollutants (although it can be better, on the latter part).
River water and underground water are not. As Terry Pratchett put it, people have believed for hundreds of years that newts in a well mean that the water’s fresh and drinkable, and in all that time never asked themselves whether the newts got out to go to the lavatory.
As the saying goes, sh!t happens. Literally.
And since we humans went into the industrial age, we have outdone ourselves in contaminating all the freshwater around us with all our by-products, natural or not. We are using rivers as sewage carriers. When not dumping our wastes into the sea just in front of our shores.

The engineer from the book was arguing for a more direct recycling of water – from the processing plant, directly back into the circuit of drinkable water.
Bit like the water on the ISS.

@ Athaic

“The engineer from the book was arguing for a more direct recycling of water – from the processing plant, directly back into the circuit of drinkable water. Bit like the water on the ISS.”

Makes sense. Any, there is a dire worldwide need for drinkable water. To me, these are much more urgent matters than, say, statins. Mightily annoyed that our economic system is not directed at relieving the poorest. Achieving such goals, such as water accessibility, should be much more financially rewarded than it is today.

I just read a fantasy story in which one character says that even if there is a forest out there waiting to fall in love with her [it makes sense in contex] she will keep her boyfriend. Someone else said “better than some trees, that’s a low bar” and boyfriend explains, seriously, that forests are great, and why, so better than that might be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about him.

I had a friend staying with me on and off back when I had a domicile who was a great Ives fan, to the point that he annoyed a mutual friend. I really wish there were a recording of The Gong on the Hook & Ladder.

He’s racked up a Koala Chlamydia ward and a sewage plant…knowing Oliver he will find a hilarious way to top both!

The use of the “…2: Electric Boogaloo” trope is ill-advised, at least unless/until the Plandemic CT unites with heavily-armed Hawaiian-shirt wearing white supremacists trying to start a race war in the US. [Which I suppose could happen if they both get pulled into QAnon.].

“…Drank blood like a vampire without warning.. hide your kids, grab your wife, better get outta sight!”

NSFW:
https://youtu.be/XxWEPbIfSs0?t=1

{shirts not required}

Seriously, though. Q was a 4-chan troll trolling trumptards. Then said trumptards did not get the joke, lached onto the LoLs*, and got Q booted to 8-chan…not here, yo… mfw What kinda troll gets deplatformed from 8-chan?? Now it is a total Q bukkake on all friends, relatives, strangers on the street, …, everybody that is not me’s kitchen…

*I guess comic book fan-fict series regular installments really can be mentally harmful.

I don’t just find the use of “boogaloo” ill-advised, but as someone whose family is likely to be targeted if brought to the attention of white supremacist assholes, I find it disquieting.
I also find it irritating that the word “boogaloo” is said to be derived from the name Bou Jeloud, a Pan-like goat god of traditional North African belief, and that it has associations with African American music, but that like barbarians everywhere, they piss all over anything beyond the comprehension of their tiny twisted minds.

<

blockquote>You’ve seen us on your tv screens and your twitter feeds; You know that we’re not the kind of people who back down, nether (siq) is Donald Trump……… In a community where your children can play in a back yard without fear, worship in a church without shame, and express your beliefs without retribution**…. When we don’t have basic safety and security in our communities… That’s what’s at stake in this election. God bless you, God bless the president, and God bless these united states.

**Oh God, Oh fuck! Niggers are’a’comin’ to the suburbs!

What? Unlike a guy who uses a child’s birthday party as an excuse to take their blood? Or who deliberately castes doubt on a public safety measure because he was paid to by lawyers and parents looking to sue? That kind of fraud and sicko? Or like all the liars spouting rubbish about the safety of face masks for political ends? Those kinds of frauds and sickos?

Mad, no; revolted, yes. But then, like Chris says, what should I expect from a sick cult that tag-teams with nazis and abuses autistic kids?

So, today Peter Navarro argued a COVID vaccine should go right to the public without phase 3 trials at all. “Donald Trump is the Right To Try President!” he proclaimed. Yee haw!
Am I wrong, or wouldn’t a vaccine for anything, much less a viral infection, be outside the existing defn. of “Right to Try”? As bad as that is already, isn’t Navarro expanding it rhetorically by orders of magnitude?

Trump would like to have the vaccine just before the election, so he can say there is one and any side effects appear after the election. Side effects would be a deep state plot, of course.

Isn’t there also a BSL4 lab on Galveston Island? (Why anyone would put a BSL4 on a sand bar in a hurricane zone beats me.)

My uncle lives in a town near Houston and he’s evacuating again and likely going to have to gut and re-do his house again, even though they still don’t have a kitchen yet from the last time this happened. (He wants to move but my aunt won’t hear of it.)

Oof. Maybe it goes 30 stories down below bedrock??

That area seems to have dodged this buzz saw. They may see gusts close to hurricane force but those winds will be offshore so no surge/flooding. Eastern winds as it comes in could raise some surge points north but I’d be peachy anywhere 20 miles west of Louisiana, at this point (last minute wibbly wobbly aside). Sux to be Lake Charles and whatever that bay west of Morgan City is called, though.

I read a news story a couple of days ago about a guy who’s been shouting about the petrochemical industry/Houston/hurricanes for ages. He thinks a direct hit will turn the surrounds into a deadly contaminated swamp because the protections aren’t good enough.

@ JustaTech writes:

1) “Wow, that’s incredibly ableist. Are you this cruel to everyone?”

So, are you saying Shillbill, the Philanthropist, Gates has a disability? No, I’m not cruel. I’m rude and disrespectful.

2)” So you’re saying we should only trust charismatic people? If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past 4 years it’s never, ever trust a really charismatic person, because they will ruin you. (See: Theranos, the Fyre festival guy, every cult leader ever)”

Quite a leap you made…did I say to trust only charismatic people? No. I said dude needs lessons in body language and public speaking, BECAUSE HE COMES OFF AS UNTRUSTWORTHY. His inappropriate smiling/laughing is disturbing….some call it “Dupers Delight” *. Elizabeth Holmes looked nuts from the get-go. It’s in the eyes. I’m not familiar with the Fyre guy and don’t care to know more.

3) “While I have not met BillG in person, I know people who have and their unanimous description of him is that he is really, really smart.”

Yeah….he comes off as smart, a smart manipulator. He stole the operating system for MS. His momma set him up with one of her business contacts to get him started in his business. He screwed over Paul Allen. His dad is a known eugenicist. Bill knows how to hide his money through his various foundations, etc… Philanthrocaptialism on steroids. He’s a fraud.

Dupers delight – Noun. duping delight (uncountable) The pleasure of being able to manipulate someone, often made visible to others by flashing a smile at an inappropriate moment.

Good day.

To educate you about MSDOS history: IBM contacted Gates for operating system. He told them to contact Digital Research, which did have an operating system for microcomputers, CPM. Digital demanded to much from IBM, and it contacted Gates again. He did not refuse twice.

Another piece of education: Paul Allen was always in Forbes billionaires list.
Do you really think that opinions about eugenics are heritable ?

” Do you really think that opinions about eugenics are heritable ?”

If this is so, we only need to discourage eugenics enthusiasts from breeding, and eventually the belief-system will die out.

No. I said dude needs lessons in body language and public speaking,

So Gates is a born manipulator, but he needs lessons in being an efficient manipulator.

His inappropriate smiling/laughing is disturbing….some call it “Dupers Delight” *

You are projecting.
You assign evil intent to Gates and then decipher his body language in a way which suits your preconceived beliefs.

It’s a variation on the Genius Fool conspiracy theory.

Bill Gates has vast billions of dollars, an influential foundation, friends in the highest places and infinite capacity to manipulate people and world events. But he’s never bothered to hire p.r. people to pilot his every move and stage his facial expressions, so amateur Internet detectives have managed to expose his Evil plans.

But Bacon…
I’ll tell you how he does it:
he, Melinda and Warren pledge to GIVE AWAY** more than half of their wealth to charity AND recruit other billionaires to do the same, accumulating more than 200 donors all over the world and a vast, unimaginable fortune.

Now they look like decent, caring people: thus, acquiring this trust they incorporate their Plan to manipulate the world by conquering disease and providing education for millions in the poorest countries, including by VACCINATING children!!!!***
Absolute evil, I’m sure.

** The Giving Pledge.
*** Dr Novella at SBM wild:polio is eliminated in Africa

@ Dangerous Bacon

amateur Internet detectives

Unless Natalie is AZ congressman dentist Paul Gosar (1, 2), a Bene Gesserit sister, or an exile from Dosadi, I won’t put much trust in her abilities in reading body language.

(1) from House Oversight and Judiciary hearing of FBI agent Peter Strzok, in 2018.
(2) when I read a news with “dentist” and “body language” in the same sentence, you bet I am going to remember the tooth.

It’s a pity, really. We do need people being mistrustful of uber-rich wannabe philanthropists. Or just of uber-rich people, generally. These people are concentrating in their person way too much power.
But it’s like people fighting GMOs. No sense of nuance, no distinction between the business model and the products, and a dangerous lack of accuracy, both in the discourse and the targets they chose to burn down

“His momma set him up with one of her business contacts to get him started in his business. ”
You seem to be completely unaware of how people build inter-generational wealth. By supporting their children’s business ventures. This isn’t something shameful or secret or anything. It’s just, a thing.

But how does Bill Gates having gotten a hand up on his first business have anything to do with the quality of the work by the Gates Foundation?

Does it also negate the charitable and world-forwarding work of Paul Allen and his foundations? Why is the Gates Foundation’s work on vaccines bad, but the Allen Institute’s on vaccine coolers good?

@ JustaTech – Hey. If you want to admire, Bill, the Philanthrocapitalist, Gates, GO FOR IT! He’s got the money and it really is all about the funding.

Another “charitable” person (monster) was Jeffrey Epstein. Many knew what he was up to and turned a blind eye. He had a lot of $$$$ too.

Oh, did I mention Bill, the Philanthrocapitalist, Gates initially lied about his association with Epstein? Then when it was impossible to lie anymore,
he downplayed the relationship.

BG is not a doc, not a scientist and not a public health professional. His only familiarity with viruses are the ones that are rife in “his” DOS – Dirty Operating System.

Again, admire who you want. Dig a little deeper into BG history, not just the public relations crap on Netflix, etc. You may change your mind.

Good day.

@Natalie White It is you that need to dig deeper into history. You obviously do not know anything about it. But I am waiting your great exposes.
Bill Gates, of course, do not have anything to do with US vaccine policy. So his credentials do not count (I certainly not take medical advice from him, and neither should anybody else).Trump, you know, mjsmanages it. It is him who invented “Warp Speed” and pushes any number of quack remedies. I seriously worry that he starts to vaccinate at October, without waiting clinicalktrials
Epstein seemed to know everybody and his cousin. He thought that this was safety net, we know now.

Natalie, I assume then you are viewing this web page on a computer you built yourself running Linux? Because if you’re running Windows you’d be a giant hypocrite.

And again: why is Gate = Bad, but Allen = Good?

Frankly, I’m amazed at how ignorant you are of how charitable foundations work. It’s not one guy throwing money. They have boards. And the actual day-to-day work is done by program offices, people with decades of experience in the field. IE, not Bill. People with MDs, PhDs, MPHs, and plain old experience.

You’ve got some weird fixations.

Third piece of education: IBM did not contact Gates because of his mommy. It was because he had BASIC computer language for microcomputers.

@ F68.10,

If ever something like a security issue in such a lab existed, then it should be treated as such a security issue. Now, please tell me: are people peddling the Wuhan lab theory all that
concerned by the technicalities and politics of biosafety level 4 labs?

Well they should be. I think many of those people actually believe it was intentional but are using the ‘accidental’ tweak to get their foot in the door. It seems like science is taking a back seat right now out of a fear for … something. Not sure what

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=NGMT_USG_JC01_GL_Nature

Just one guy talking here but I don’t think those demands are “Heinous.” We need all the information we can get. If we are paying for some of the research we certainly have a right to oversight. Again, just my $0.02.

@ christine Kincaid

“I think many of those people actually believe it was intentional but are using the ‘accidental’ tweak to get their foot in the door.”

Precisely. That is the biggest issue. Even more than a hypothetical accident, as real concerns would be drowned in the noise of hysteria.

The article does not list all NIH demands. But I do think that Chinese would not allow FBI sniffing around. Thus ‘heinous’,

I get where you’re coming from Aarno. It’s easy for me, an American who was in the intelligence services of our military, to overlook those kinds of concerns. May I’m ok with it, maybe not, maybe they put stuff like that in to deal it away and get the other things they want in a compromise? I’m not sure, anymore…

Howerton believes it’s no accident that QAnon has taken hold among evangelicals now: they are facing tremendous cognitive dissonance. “I was raised evangelical Christian Republican. There is nothing that makes sense for Trump with any of the values that I was raised with,” she says. “There’s a part of me that thinks that this is a very elaborate false narrative to explain their continued loyalty to Trump.”
.
.
“I feel like a failure,” Frailey, the Oklahoma pastor, says. “We weren’t able to provide a good enough community in this time of separation. We weren’t able to provide what was needed. The technology wasn’t good enough.” Carter echoes him: “I’ve talked to a lot of pastors who assume I know what to do. And I definitely don’t.”
.
.
“I’m just trying to keep a line out here to say, ‘Hey, if you fall into this, you can come back,’” he says. So far, though, “there haven’t been any saves.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals/

By attempting to raise suspicion about the motives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, antivaxers are inadvertently spotlighting their own charitable record, or the lack of it.

What percentage of their payments for speaking engagements, books, consultations and supplement sales goes to fund useful health care initiatives? Have Wakefield, Mercola, Adams etc. ever bankrolled quality research into any of their alleged causes? A slew of antivax books are on the market; I’m unaware of any authors who’ve donated their royalties for autism research, as Paul Offit did for “Autism’s False Prophets”.

On a small scale, I’ve regularly donated money to legitimate autism research. Wonder how many of our resident “Vaccines bad!” shouters have done the same.

That’s the modern protester is general. Highly privileged people, all privileged with ample spare time, some with spare money, adorning themselves with a self-made declaration of moral superiority over the people they live among.
Each protest is a sort of open air Church of their movement, a reality escape and traveling party town, visible by its printed banners, trash and, in some denominations, random assaults and arson.

Studies on Autism, and its link to vaccine ingredients(specifically the Aluminum), has been done… Just not in the states. I too would love to see more studies done here. I’ll offer what I’ve come across; links that would send the author of this blog into a tizzy, lol

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Non-linear-dose-response-of-aluminium-hydroxide-adjuvant-particles-Selective-low-dose-neurotoxicity.pdf

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Biopersistence-and-brain-translocation-of-aluminum-adjuvants-of-vaccines.pdf

https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Neuroprotective-Effect-of-Nanodiamond-in-Alzheimers-Disease-Rat-Model.pdf (this last one deals with the effects of IL-6, a Cytokine)

https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Brain-IL-6-elevation-causes-neuronal-circuitry-imbalances-and-mediates-autism-like-behaviors.pdf

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/BCGhepB-vaccines.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/mi201378.pdf

And what difference would Merkinanian studies make? The rest of us are quite capable of doing science and medicine without the permission or approval of you lot, thank you very much!

And if those links are the standard of study you want to see, definitley leave the rest of us out of it.

“On a small scale, I’ve regularly donated money to legitimate autism research.”

Props. And I would bet (excepting penury) all of RI’s non-malignant residents do the same. Because we care about people other than ourself. I might not be a great fan of how Bill Gates made his money, but I take my hat off to him for making that money do good in the world now.

“Wonder how many of our resident “Vaccines bad!” shouters have done the same.”

Yeah, I won’t be taking that one for $10, Alex.

Just to add some numerical perspective: I sent $6K in royalties to MSF after the Haiti earthquake, and have put around $20K into other medical, homeless, and overseas aid charities in the last 20 years. And I’m not wealthy or financially stable, so that’s a significant percentage of income for me. So I defy Kinkaid, White, and the rest of Wakefield’s psychophantic shit-sniffers to declare their own charitable donations here, and then we’ll see who really puts their money where their mouth is and who is just full of it.

Oh, and while they’re at it, they might want to check how Dear Leader spends their donations—on himself.

In 2010 Wakefield founded the Strategic Autism Initiative to “undertake research” and drew in loads of money. Over the five years it was running, 41% of the income, $316,667, was used to pay Wakefield’s salary.

Antivax/Altmed/QAnon scumbuckets. We know them by their words and actions.

If anyone’s wondering why there hasn’t been a post this week so far, the reason is simple. A family member had surgery this week. Everything went fine, but I’ve been distracted and haven’t been able to put the time into writing that I normally do. Hopefully, the Insolence will recommence on Friday or Monday.

In other news…

Two alt med proselytisers showed their political stripes well today:

— PRN posts a video of a mass protest in Ireland featuring a researcher who recommends hydroxychloroquine as a great treatment for Covid so there’s no need for a shutdown. Accompanying audio ( the daily GN Show) notes that it was filmed in MARCH!

— Natural News describes a teenager who shot three people- killing two- with an AR rifle as a “HERO”. Adams continues to support ‘patriots’ taking up arms to stop protest and looting ..

Both of them promote pseudoscientific medical and psychological advice ( without any standard educational background in those areas) AND investment and political ideas that are probably just as harmful. Naive people put their trust in entrepreneurs who seek followers and adulation as well as profit by attacking SBM because they present an illusory measure of control in an unpredictable world: be a vegan and never suffer from cancer, stop vaccines and end autism, buy gold and never lose your investment, live in the country to be safe or vote like me for a better life.

So often, I read or hear their advice and later read scoffers echo the very same ideas. HOWEVER none of these guys are original because alt med and woo are hardly new ideas.- they go back decades- or centuries- with minor variation. Critics of their material are called ‘the Inquisition’ or ‘the Gulag’ because they fear followers learning about their background and tactics.. . ,.

In more other news, JFKjr and CHD sue FB for filtering their nonsense.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200826/17175945190/robert-f-kennedy-jrs-insanely-stupid-lawsuit-against-facebook.shtml

It’s a long long article, almost Oracian in length. I liked this bit:

“Honestly, so much of this 115 page lawsuit is like a legalistic version of the utter nonsense that shows up in our comments any time we call out anti-vax nonsense. Idiots with way too much free time on their hands and way too little understanding of evidence, statistics, data, and science, who spew utter nonsense with links they don’t understand, studies they haven’t read, and medical mumbo jumbo they do not grasp.”

I looked over the lawsuit, rs. I do hope their honour has a soft desktop….. He/she will be slamming their head into it multiple times to overcome the painfulness of their reading material. (yes, I only skimmed the lawsuit……in-depth reading would have been hazardous to my logic circuits!)

Well, do they actually expect that they’ll win OR is it more a PR campaign to make their nonsense better known to the public and to rally their followers? Anti-vaxxers and woo-meisters who have repeatedly sued critics and journalists ( Andy, Null) haven’t won but can show their followers how they were persecuted and judged unfairly by the System.

I notice that SLAPP might be considered..

California has an anti-SLAPP law, but I suspect this is headed into either the sewer or federal court. I don’t have real Internet yet.

Having a roof over your head is one thing, but having it with a somewhat delusional (and I mean that seriously) cat collector who brings in more than she can place is another matter.

“Anti-vaxxers and woo-meisters who have repeatedly sued critics and journalists ( Andy, Null) haven’t won but can show their followers how they were persecuted and judged unfairly by the System.”

And solicit yet more “donations” off the back of it, of course.

It’s all theatre played to a complicit audience perpetually gagging for more.

Even once they’re busted, it still works. Because the rubes want to believe, and belief is what they’re being sold.

Honestly, I don’t blame the psychopaths, because they are just animals behaving according to their nature. I do blame their millions of enthusiastic enablers though, for sucking in others to the multi-level grift, poisoning and perverting society as a whole.

Here’s more “mumbo jumbo” from scientists around the world talking more “nonsense” about how aluminum adjuvents may be leading to cytokine storms within the neural network of brains they studied. Hope they understand evidence, statistics, data and science… otherwise their proven link to autism may be in question.

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Non-linear-dose-response-of-aluminium-hydroxide-adjuvant-particles-Selective-low-dose-neurotoxicity.pdf

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Biopersistence-and-brain-translocation-of-aluminum-adjuvants-of-vaccines.pdf

https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Neuroprotective-Effect-of-Nanodiamond-in-Alzheimers-Disease-Rat-Model.pdf (this last one deals with the effects of IL-6, a Cytokine)

https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Brain-IL-6-elevation-causes-neuronal-circuitry-imbalances-and-mediates-autism-like-behaviors.pdf

http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/BCGhepB-vaccines.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/mi201378.pdf

You’re citing Vaccine Papers?😂😂😂

You do know, don’t you, that we’re familiar with that blog, which is a font of pseudoscience and disinformation.🙄🤦🏻‍♂️

Nature paper tells that 1.5 mg/kg/day of aluminium did not have an effect. This would be about 100mg per day for an average person. This is consistent with other results.
Problem happened after rectal injection of trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid.
Speaking about vaccine papers, non linear response mentioned in first link was that more aluminium caused less effect. If this were true, just drinking lots of aluminium would solve the problem. This shows quality of material of this website.

I wish YouTube would filter CHD’s nonsense too. Just the other day a CHD video popped up on my “suggested” feed and I could not figure out how to report it without launching the video and giving it more views.
Ugh.
I had to watch a half dozen archaeology and sewing shows before it got that crap off my home page.

I was hoping to see a true debunking of the Plandemic documentary, but this left me feeling like this was just some personal vendetta against whoever puts out anything conspiratorial. There was more character assassination then there were actual facts and rebuttals. I don’t fully agree with the documentary and its claims but not talking about how the Event 201 simulation was paralleled almost exactly with the rhetoric and problems that we face now, making it look like a rehearsal rather than a simulation was a little concerning. I appreciated the debunking of the patenting debacle but you, the author, completely side-stepped the documentation pointing to the relocation of the Gain of Function studies. That would’ve been much more important to debunk than whether or not the CDC holds the patents. Further, you attempt to smear Luc Montagnier simply by saying he believes in homeopathy and then bringing the obviously emotionally charged and psychologically manipulative word/phrase “Anti-vax”. Come on now.. The man has a nobel prize because of his work in virology. If you’re going to try to belittle and discredit him and his opinion… on a virus, mind you… at least put a little effort in. There were much more pressing data points than what you’ve outlined and it leaves me in a state of wonder. The only place I see this much character assassination and smear campaigning is in the mainstream media, politics and counter-intelligence protocols. The cherry picking of talking points gives me more pause than relief.

Where does your funding come from? I’ve seen your bashing of those who truly wish for safer vaccines and suggest you research the effects of the Aluminum adjuvent. The studies are out there and I’ve placed them here.. somewhere.. up there. I’ve placed a couple comments on here with the links, though, fear that if I post them again, I’ll be flagged as spam, so I won’t do that.

And… it’s the pharma shill gambit. How predictable.

My funding comes from nowhere but me. This is my hobby. I pay for all website expenses with my own money and write this on my free time.🙄

I don’t outright think you’re a shill. I actually believe you’re very intelligent and likely(I haven’t done much looking into your past) spent a good deal of time in the fields, or fields adjacent, to what you talk about. I ask just to check my bases and to potentially discern your intentions. I’ve seen a lot of the same verbiage from trolls and shills so if I didn’t ask, I’d always wonder.

Indeed I was. Debunking articles, videos, commentaries is where you get the real science, the real discussion….though, you probably wouldn’t know much about that judging by your comment.

If somebody really planned to start an epidemic, why would he tell everybody before that we will do it. A burglar would not tell you before that he is going to break into your house.. Nobody would be that stupid. Instead, it was a prediction, based on the fact that there had been many zoonotic influenzas before.
You need not get money to call bullshit bullshit. It is kinda responsibility.

I could give an answer that I know to be true, but it is doubtful that there is enough context amongst the people here to call it anything other than quackery or woo-something or another(not as familiar with your labels just yet), so I’ll just save everyone the time and fruitless digression. I will say that it’s not always about the money.

Reisa,

Orac is not “cherry-picking” or “character assassinating” in this piece. Respectful Insolence has been dealing with all of the content in Plandemic for YEARS.

There wasn’t anything really new in either film that hasn’t been dealt with in detail here in the past, often multiple times! The arguments in the films have been made, often many times, over the years and have been thoroughly refuted many times with high quality science.

Most of those papers you linked to have been published in journal that are set up so few or no submissions get rejected. They have had trouble with retraction of articles as well. Retraction Watch refers to the publisher as one with “a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions”. Don’t believe us? Use the blog’s search function (top right corner of the webpage) to see. Luc Montagnier’s work has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed many times- several times as THE topic of a post.

Orac doesn’t like repeating himself ad nauseum……. his already long blog articles would be all that more daunting in length if he did. CDC patents have been referenced in 28 articles….. wake up and do some reading, you’ll find your answers!

Thank you for taking the time to explain the history of this blog. As I’ve stated in a previous message, articles and commentaries looking to debunk material is where I go to to really look into the science of things because nobody likes to share more data than those who are looking to debunk a conspiracy theory. In that vein, I was indeed disappointed, but I concede to the understanding that this has been an ongoing topic for the author. I will cross reference my questions with the blog posts. I suppose when you try to debunk something that’s new, it might be a good thing to say what you might have or have not discussed already so that there is no confusion. Otherwise, this post just looks like a rant to all of the people looking to do what I have done, which is engage in conversation with those looking into these topics.

I can understand the reticence to accept work from a journal such as that. I do know that getting your study seen can be a not so forthcoming process so going to a journal that won’t dismiss your work simply for political reasons might be advantageous. As I’ve stated before, I had very little care about the ownership of the patents. I was more concerned with the relocation of gain of function studies after a moratorium was implemented. That’s one of the things I’m trying to get to the bottom of. Patenting, while intriguing, doesn’t answer how this came to be.

“Further, you attempt to smear Luc Montagnier simply by saying he believes in homeopathy and then bringing the obviously emotionally charged and psychologically manipulative word/phrase “Anti-vax”. Come on now.. The man has a nobel prize because of his work in virology. If you’re going to try to belittle and discredit him and his opinion… on a virus, mind you… at least put a little effort in.”
Pointing out that Dr Montagnier believes in homeopathy is not an ad hominem attack, since homeopathy is ascientific quackery that was debunked almost as soon as it was invented, and anyone who promotes it has pretty much forfeited the right to be taken seriously on any matter medical, biological, or scientific. It’s as if Albert Einstein had suddenly declared that the stars were made of ice and that the speed of light was thirty miles per hour. If (and I sincerely hope it’s to be never) you have a COVID-19 infection, go to your local homeopath and tell us how you make out, if you survive. While vaccines are such a horrible plot against humanity going back about three centuries now, I’ll bet that if you ever encounter a rabid animal that you will be begging for the rabies vaccine, and not running off to load up on vitamin C and homeopathic remedies.
“I’ve seen your bashing of those who truly wish for safer vaccines” Are you one of those? If so, please tell us your idea of what constitutes safer vaccines. With polio on the verge of global eradication, maybe you wish we’d waited for safer vaccines, so that more children, and adults too, would end up dead, paralyzed, or handicapped while waiting. I had polio, not diagnosed at the time, and the lingering effects helped to make the hellish parts of my childhood and young adulthood more hellish than they had to be.

I get that his character and choices outside of his work with viruses is questionable, but… how about his work and knowledge on viruses? I’m hearing that these topics have been discussed so I’m curious to see what type of critiques are there about his understanding of viruses. I’m not sure your Albert Einstein analogy actually translates that way, but I’m hearing you think homeopathy is absurd. If Einstein had a theory unrelated to the work he is most known and respected that was ridiculous, I’d simply look at the one aspect that is sound and distrust that which is absurd. To completely dismiss someone because their views are ridiculous is an attempt at character assassination or smear campaigning if you then speak publicly about this person to discredit them.

I have a pretty good immune system so I’ve encountered the virus and have had very mild symptoms. But, if the symptoms were more severe, I wouldn’t go to a homeopath. Maybe a naturopath, since my body responds well to it, but I’m not opposed to trying the “experimental hydroxychloroquine ever since the Lancet had to retract that study that attempted to say it would cause heart complications. THAT was an unprecedented retraction..

So, regarding what do I believe would make vaccines safer, I couldn’t be too sure…as I’m not a chemist or vaccine manufacturer. I’ve looked into the work of Romain Gherardi, Patterson, Shaw and Dr Exley and really think the aluminum adjuvents play a huge role; especially since they found that microphages carry the aluminum throughout the body when the aluminum is in smaller amounts. But, I’m getting the feeling that this crowd is the type to believe that if such a study was viable then the world would’ve changed already so I won’t waste anyone’s time going down that route. The past is the past. I’m not trying to tell anyone what they should have done. Sorry you dealt with polio but, if we can make things even a little safer for the next generations, I say it’s worth digging back into angles thought tried but approached from another angle. It’s already being done and I’m curious as to what Gherardi, Shaw and Patterson have found since. Thanks for the reply.

As I originally stated, I was less concerned with who owned the patents and was more curious about the transfer of Gain of Function studies after a moratorium was inacted.

As I mentioned before, I was less concerned with who owned the patents and more curious about the transfer of Gain of Function studies after a moratorium was enacted. This type of information is much more poignant to me.

I missed this, but it’s been a hard day:*

this left me feeling like this was just some personal vendetta against whoever puts out anything conspiratorial

Hence, Event 201. This crazed omission must have been disappointing indeed.

*Did I already note that yes, a roof over one’s head is a good thing even if the router is as fucked up as one’s host, but it sure would be nice if one could have a set of keys in order to freely go somewhere to shower?

^ Oh, and somebody mentioned the cats. They’re either in cages or confined to rooms in groups.

She works her ass of to place them (I spent weeks getting a Maine Coon to stop hiding in on a beam in a loft-style place at his new home), but everything else has gone to hell, and I ain’t going down with the ship.

I sometimes hang out the window in the rain. Not that I stink, I’ve been on a two year quest not to take a shower and nobody has told me I stink, even when I ask them to — I was inspired from a guy that has not taken a shower in 12 years and now markets a product called ‘dirt spray’ where ammonia eating bacteria makes one smell like they are farting christmas trees and lilacs; I just like to hang out the window in the rain.

Couldn’t one vertically integrate the cats by installing many tight-weaved carpeted shelves all up the walls to accomodate more cats? Like a high-rise.

“even if the router is as fucked up as one’s host”

Get your own cheap router and ‘double NAT’ it to that one. rEEEE! goes the landlord because she’s’a’lost’readin’ yur shit.

but not talking about how the Event 201 simulation was paralleled almost exactly with the rhetoric and problems that we face now, making it look like a rehearsal rather than a simulation

Oh my goodness! The eggheads got it right for once! They accurately predicted (to some extent) an incoming sanitary catastrophe!
They/we have only been warning people about the possibility since, oh, just about three decades at the very least. A pandemic is so a novel thing to happen to humankind.

Luc Montagnier […] has a nobel prize because of his work in virology.

And then my esteemed compatriot went on associating – and publishing – with homeopaths and energy healers and espoused some asinine view on viruses.

Yea, there’s one thing to get it right and another thing to say to have the simulation run like a rehearsal. But, I’m not wedded to trying to ascertain intent from people who were not there.

But was his work on viruses diminished, though?

OK to prevent you from resending: first one is plain silly (more aluminium causes less effect)
second link is about aluminium and CFS
third do not mention aluminium, autism or IL6
fourth do not mention aluminium
fifth TB vaccines do not contain aluminium
sixth is about aluminium and worsening of colitis

The first one, I believe it was the difference from the dosages that made the difference in the effects(of course). The finding was that with larger doses the muscles fibers succumbed to intense inflammation called granulomas which wall off a good deal of the adjuvent. Smaller doses don’t cause the granulomas, allowing microphages to come into play, taking the aluminum nanoparticulates passed the blood-brain barrier.

The second link was to bring into mind the biopersistence of aluminum in the body since the rhetoric is that it’s aluminum salts in the vaccines which are soluble. Showing that the aluminum is in fact biopersistent was key, I thought.

I’ve been looking through so many studies and links that I might’ve sent the wrong link for the third one. I’ll go back to see what I was attempting to bridge with that one. Though, I’m finding that Vaccine Papers is a frowned upon journal so I doubt it would be taken at all serious…so should I spend that time…?

The fourth one was to hiighlight the role of IL-6 in autism. If aluminum causes the production of IL-6, that connection would be good to reiterate, I assumed.

I’m fairly certain that the fifth link was about the HepB vax, which does have aluminum in it.

The 6th was definitely the wron g study and for that I apologize. Like I said, I had a lot of tstudies floating around my desktop and brain space. Plus it was late. I’d try to re-do my post, but I don’t really think people here care what I post.

First one states more aluminium has less effect. If you believe that,consume lots of aluminium.
You can, of course study persistence of aluminium. Like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0278691586900670
Just do not cherry pick
Every infection releases IL-6. So if you prevent infection, there are less of it around.
Studies show that vaccines prevent autism, and this may be the explanation.
Fifth link is about TB and HepB vaccines. One contains aluminium and other does not. So aluminium is not evaluated. You may want to actually read the paper
Sixth link states that 100 mg per day is not dangerous for average person. Care to comment that ?

@Aarno ….but, we don’t drink our vaccines… we inject them. This engages a very different process of elimination from the body, does it not? Haven’t had much time to read back through my list of studies to address the rest of the statements but will if you truly wish to engage this conversation.

Yep 1 % is absorbed. So 1mg, legal maximum in vaccines, is safe (though no vaccines has that much aluminium).

Belief in homeopathy is a pretty good sign that one’s grasp on science is slipping, making it a good shorthand for the plot being lost rather than a “smear”.

And, as I have pointed out here and elsewhere numerous times, if there was yer actual good evidence for something like aluminium being linked to autism the UK-ian (at the very least) CAMHS and paediatric clinicians would be all over it (ditto any of the other supposed “causes” of autism).

If you think “Antivax” is shocking term, you should read up on what the baby coffin shills call people who like to keep children alive and healthy.

I don’t personally think that the word is that shocking, but it’s a priming word. You say it and the mind begins to associate, draw connections where it might not have pre-primer. I research conspiracy theories for fun. I’m ot much shocked anymore, friend.

“Event 201” – What about all the previous rounds of this exercise that didn’t end up matching closely with real-world events soon thereafter?
And of course you’re going to pick something likely for your scenario; there’s no point in planning for an alien invasion.
That’s like claiming that the TV meteorologist makes it rain, rather than warning us of the rain.

Or do you think only arsonists do fire drills?

It’s one thing to pick something likely. It’s another to rehearse the rebuttals you’re going to give to conspiracy theorists and the understanding that you would have to censor information ahead of time. Not only that, the simulation spoke about not having enough masks and other materials. What’s the point of running a simulation if you’re not going to prepare for the exact shortcomings you’ve projected in your script. If I plan for an alien invasion but don’t actually secure the things I know will fall short…why did I do the simulation?

Maybe because politicians don’t follow the advice they are given? You carry out a simulation and point out the issues encountered. Whether you then get the money to rectify those issues is a totally different issue. Spend millions on a possibility in the future or spend it on getting re-elected now? How seriously do you think the preparations are going to plan for survival after a large asteroid strike?

You did not answer an obvious question: If somebody plans to start a pandemic, why he would tell everybody before that he is going to do it ? A criminal would not advertise his crime.

@ Reisa

“Further, you attempt to smear Luc Montagnier simply by saying he believes in homeopathy”

How is it “smearing” Montagnier to claim that he supports homeopathy? He spouts quite a lot of shit, homeopathy included. That’s a fact. And a pretty damning one. A “smear” is something else…

His role in the documentary wasn’t about homeopathy though. It was about his expertise on viruses. Faulting his character based on something unrelated to the work in question but about his personal beliefs actions outside the work is somewhat smeary. It’s discrediting by way of defaming rather than through direct discrediting of the positions expressed. However, I’ve been made aware that there are works by the author on Montagnier so I will do a little digging before making any further claims about the author.

His role in the documentary had nothing to do with Homeopathy. He was brought in based on his expertise on viruses. It is through this that he should be discredited. To fault him based on an unrelated topic is to attempt to bring in a personal flaw to discredit. This is smearing. However, I’ve been made aware that there are previous works by the author that address Montagnier’s efficacy as a Virologist, so I’ll do a little digging before making any further claims about the author.

@ Reisa

“His role in the documentary wasn’t about homeopathy though.”

I haven’t watched the bullshitumentary and couldn’t care less for the moment.

Just pointing out that what you called a smear cannot be decently called so.

“Faulting his character based on something unrelated to the work in question.”

He made the fault himself. I’m for nothing in this business. And I was essentially faulting you for calling a smear what is a fact.

“It’s discrediting by way of defaming.”

A fact is not defamation.

“rather than through direct discrediting of the positions expressed.”

OK. Here goes: homeopathy is bullshit.

Doesn’t allow for me to reply to you down there so I’ll do so up here. Thanks for the comedic rendition of everything that isn’t currently empirical mainstream science thrown into one skit. Of course it was made to seem ridiculous, seeing as how that’s really how any of those types of encounters goes, but you knew that before posting the video.

The interesting thing is that you still haven’t said anything about his knowledge as a virologist… when that’s the scientific expertise that he was called in for(I’m aware that the author has posted content on Montagnier). I’m hearing an awful lot about a field of study that never made it into the Documentary. This was the dilemma I was having with the original post and am now having here with you. Say something about his virological understanding or leave it be for me to read the author’s perspective on my own as no one, exactly zero, harbors any questions around whether or not Montagnier follows homeopathic ideologies. Bringing it up, in my opinion, was a detraction from discerning whether or not Montagnier has the capacity to discern whether a virus is or is not the product of manipulation and Gain of Function studies. That’s all I’m curious about regarding Montagnier. What he does in his free time is of little importance to me. To say he is homeopathic as a rebuttal, in hopes of utilizing that to justify or paint the character of person he ought to be to believe in such quackery is smearing because it doesn’t first address whether he holds the competency to discern the intricacies of viruses. THAT’s my point. I don’t care if he thinks he shits from his mouth and eats from his ass. If he’s an expert on viruses then I’ll look at that and go to someone else for GI expertise.

@ Reisa

“The interesting thing is that you still haven’t said anything about his knowledge as a virologist…”

Yeah. I do not care any more. The guy should be thrown out of academia and of any official position. There is too much of a mess with people fooling around with psychoanalysis and homeopathy in French universities for nonsense like Montagnier’s to go on unaddressed. This should be called to a halt. Only then will I consider whether or not we should be more lenient with what you call “not currently empirically mainstream medicine”. For the time being, people like Montagnier should be kicked in the ass down the staircase and out of academia.

I do not care anymore about double-speak as in that documentary.

Maybe in one or two weeks, when I’ll have my nerves a bit cooler given all the nonsense I’m dealing with on other blogs, maybe then I’ll have time to consider the contents of that bullshitomentary. This is not the week to annoy me with Montagnier. Find someone else to deal with that nonsense.

@F68.10
Ummm… you responded to me, friend. I merely showed the common courtesy to respectfully respond.

” you responded to me”

I’ll ‘respond’. I’m real ‘responsive’. ASL? (no, not like that!! (See how I cover my ass’s reputation? (it is not covered)) I just… I want to throw the dog a bone. And I am not a young man.

@ Reisa

“Ummm… you responded to me, friend. I merely showed the common courtesy to respectfully respond.”

Per se, that’s fine. But I’m no one’s friend, and I’m really grumpy now. So I may apologize for my somewhat rude answer, but will not apologize for my mood.

“the obviously emotionally charged and psychologically manipulative word/phrase “Anti-vax”

What term would Reisa prefer to describe those who continually spread misinformation in order to demonize vaccination and its supporters? I suppose we could describe them as “fiercely pro-science” (as RFK Jr. has termed himself), but that would be laughably dishonest.

You missed the context of that statement. The point was that this priming term was used instead of debunking his ability to understand viruses. I don’t care about the word itself ,other than the fact that it’s mostly used to create further division amongst people. But, I’m finding that most who frequent this blog are avid users of the term so not quite the unbiased crowd to begin with.

@ Reisa

“The point was that this priming term was used instead of debunking his ability to understand viruses.”

Well, it does show that he has some unrealistic views of some therapeutics concerning viruses.

“I don’t care about the word itself ,other than the fact that it’s mostly used to create further division amongst people.”

Well, don’t you think people who believe that these people are spouting shit should find a term to describe them? Or do you believe there should be no term, therefore stiffling criticism?

Or are you simply against criticism?

“But, I’m finding that most who frequent this blog are avid users of the term so not quite the unbiased crowd to begin with.”

Well, most people who frequent this blog indeed believe that vaccination is something that is overall for the public good. So they legitimately need to have a term for their opponents. This is common sense.

Should we also ban the usage of the word “pro-choice” because it is divisive? That wouldn’t exactly sound a smart move to me. Either for the “pro-choice” or “pro-life” crowd. They need words to carry on their fight. And they do want to fight over abortion.

Same for vaccines.

@F68.10

I think there are many claims out there regarding vaccines. The Term Anti-Vaxxer tends to dig up associations to people of the furthest polarized ideologies. Personally, I believe in order for it to be an actual safety trial, you need to have a placebo. No placebo, no safety trial. As far as I understand, none of the vaccines in our children’s schedule have been measured up against a placebo. I’d say that this is rather concerning. I’d be more inclined to take something that’s been proven safe by conducting an actual safety trial(I’m open to being incorrect on this understanding). This isn’t saying that vaccines haven’t stopped infections, but now that we’re out of a critical zone of deterring these infections, how about doing the safety trials? We know they have the money. I know for a fact that several of the pharmaceutical companies that make our vaccines have also been taken to criminal court for their other therapeutics and yet we give them full immunity for vaccines. This too is concerning. A safety trial and free market style liability would make things feel safer to take vaccines, but I’m not against them as a viable option for health. However, for holding these views, I am lumped into the Anti-Vax box with people who just go along with a crowd and like screaming at authorities. I am not that person. My inquiries are simply. Treat Vaccines like any other pharmaceutical and allow some liability to be had on the part of the manufacturers. Until then, I’ll treat them like any other company that stands to make a profit and who have no liability, and thus no pressure, to continually make their products safer.

This is from where my stance comes. Most of the world is not as read as you guys are and thus cheer just as blindly for vaccines as those who cheer against it. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two positions where things can, and should, be done to increase the safety of the vaccines. Immune therapies are an overall good, I agree. Now, let’s continue to improve that now that we are no longer diseased due to poor sanitation. Personally, I don’t believe there needs to be opponents. We all want what’s best for each other and the whole. However, if you want opponents then use whatever term you need to establish the us vs them.

@ Reisa

“I think there are many claims out there regarding vaccines.”

I thought so too at the beginning. But in the end, I have to confess that, no, the same old shit keeps popping up. The only item I’m willing to discuss is consent and the right to opt out. I’m not happy with doctors expecting the whole world to follow in their footsteps and blackmailing people into submission. But otherwise, no, the data seems to be sound, and antivaxxers keep spouting the same old shit.

“The Term Anti-Vaxxer tends to dig up associations to people of the furthest polarized ideologies.”

Oh yeah. It does. As I do not like up being locked up in psych wards, I indeed have a shitload of labels getting thrown up upon me. Scientologist being one of them. Antivaxxer seems to pop up at times in connections with opposition to coercion in psychiatry to defame us. Most of the time it’s ludicrous and makes people laugh out loud on the r/antispychiatry reddit. Not a smart move to make these kind of ludicrous connections when you’ve got the Psych Underground laughing at you for being more of a nutcase than they are. But yeah, using this kind of labels for purely derogatory purposes, that happens.

“Personally, I believe in order for it to be an actual safety trial, you need to have a placebo.”

And here you go… Typical antivaxx trope.

Case closed.

You’re a nutcase. Wield that label proudly. It’s been granted to you by one of Earth’s Most Incurable Mental Patient.

Sod off.

Judging by the direction of this particular conversation, I can see a potential reason for why the same things get spouted. If I say something like “I prefer for there to be a safety study involving a placebo,” you call me a nut-job, thus continuing the cycle you seem to deplore. Everything else gets placebo based, double blind studies. What about wanting that for vaccines makes me crazy? I’m sure measuring it up against other vaccines helped to discern the data they were looking for at the time, but it’s not out of order to ask for that when all other pharmaceuticals have that basis.

But, I’m glad we agree on consent.

@ Reisa

“If I say something like “I prefer for there to be a safety study involving a placebo,” you call me a nut-job, thus continuing the cycle you seem to deplore.”

There are some trials with placebo. In other situations, it’s not practical to use “placebo” as antivaxxers imagine that word to mean. And there also is an equipoise issue that prevents that from happening on ethical grounds.

This has been addressed many many times on this blog. Too tired to search for a link. Indeed: Too busy being called out a liar by a liar on another blog. Nonsense on the topic of Didier Raoult triggered this specific conversation I’m dealing with over there. So ask someone else for reference to placebo and antivaxx.

Heck! There’s a search box on the top right corner of this webpage. Typing “placebo” and “antivaxx” should yield results that may be profitable to you. If you’re genuinely interested In that matter.

And I do not mind calling people nut jobs any more. As a matter of fact, for the coming week, my state of mind is kind of wishing many many people like you would get locked up to get a taste of very painful pain. Very funny to hear them calling other people nut jobs in broad daylight and then complaining on blogs that that specific title is bestowed upon them. Wished they got tied, beaten, gaslighted and got their mind drugged out senseless. So please do not push my misanthropy too far.

Go to Google Scholar and type “”saline placebo” vaccine”. About 20000 hits. You really should not listen antivaxxers. They always lie.

@Reisa: You’re a two-faced liar and everything you said is maliciously wrong. You insult everyone here just by opening your mouth and you fool nobody here but yourself. Believe me, calling you anti-vaxxer is the locals being kind. You should take it and go.

Orac writes,

“Carry on until then.”

MJD says,

The nym “has” submitted several vile comments in this post, and there was no policing.

Q. Starting monday, will you please consider making an effort to control the has-been.

Sincerely,

MjD

Anti-vaxxers and woo-supporters are self-taught and only seek sources that validate their beliefs so we see the same material over and over. When someone studies formally they are forced to read the entire syllabus and understand the criticisms of experimental results as determined by experts NOT by their own proclivities. That’s why I often ask scoffers to show me one university that offers one course in whatever their cherished hypothesis purports. They can’t.

Usually they respond that the experts are wrong, corrupt and behind the times . Whenever I suggest studies that show vaccines’ lack of relation to autism, genetics, neonatal brain development or the early identification of ASDs, they are dismissed although these are important additions to the state of science THAT THEY AREN’T AWARE OF!
In other words, they dismiss the bulk of research accepted by consensus and focus upon one glaringly, shiny object that suits their fancy. Often, they need to support their claims with secret papers or privileged communications from insiders, all without any outside validation

Obviously ,this resembles methods of woo-meisters and anti-vax “thought leaders” which they have adopted as a means to deal with SB criticism. Thus, they ask us to disregard consensus from research all over the world and to accept retracted studies, studies funded by anti-vax groups and the work of research cheats as superior. Over the years, I hear the same ideas but definitive studies to prove their points never materialise. I wonder why that is. .

.

I would like to point out that, for me, it was cannabis (and other ‘certain substances’) prohibition that lead me into such thinking. “No studies to show” gets real tiring real fast when the ‘studies’ (and most still forbidden to this day) are not allowed to even be undertaken*, or can only be done to ‘prove’ harm, or the researchers are hamstrung by a uni-crop garbage strain out of Mississippi.

I dare say that, initially, the widespread adoption of this mindset has been in large part due to the promulgation of outright (and obvious) lies and oppression by governments (including incorporating and indoctrinating law enforcement), grade schools (with such scare bullshit such as DARE), universities, puritanical moral and spiritual peons, and medical institutions, the media (generations of Reefer Madness), and all the attending mouthpieces.

Just sayin’.

That’s why I often ask scoffers to show me one university that offers one course in whatever their cherished hypothesis purports. They can’t.

@ Tim

“I would like to point out that, for me, it was cannabis (and other ‘certain substances’) prohibition that lead me into such thinking. “No studies to show” gets real tiring real fast when the ‘studies’ (and most still forbidden to this day) are not allowed to even be undertaken*, or can only be done to ‘prove’ harm, or the researchers are hamstrung by a uni-crop garbage strain out of Mississippi.”

That’s a valid point. In France, a 1970 law prohibits discourse that says anything that be construed as positive when talking about illegal drugs. Not sure how it applies to research, but it sure does apply to pop culture. For this song.

@ NumberWang

Yeah. Well. Just watched your song. I believe that it would be illegal in France.

The following song also was threatened by that same law. Mushrooms singing “Eat me! Eat me!”…

I was aiming more towards replying to Tim’s points about research and attitudes. In this case, alcohol vs weed. I suspect there must be some similar rules in the UK. There’s definitely a history of hiding drug references in song anyway. 😁.

I think the mushroom song should come under ‘public service announcement ‘. Despite my appalling French, I’m sure part of it was useful mushroom identification information.

+10 guys 🤓

Yea, drunk I am. I promise I won’t batter ya. Being in USA, I doubt they would let me into ya’ll’s respective countries anyways — because of all our ‘winning’.

@ Tim:

Timmy, Timmy, that’s not what I mean! You’re talking about a legal prohibition against research on cannabis ( although I don’t know the lit well I think that there is research on the endocannabinoid system itself) Maybe that will change as laws change.**

I am discussing ideas that have already been eliminated through SB research and thus, there is not a continued focus- such as university courses- on them. You can’t study Wakefield’s hypotheses or autism as conceived by various anti-vaxxers. ( Al, Hg, Too many, too soon) BECAUSE research has shown those ideas to be unlikely: for example, I just read ( Spectrum News) that EEGs show brain wave differences in infants who will go on to have indicators of autism at 18 months at 3 MONTHS! ( UCLA) Earlier research with MRIs .Ozonoff shows early indicators of autism at 6 months. Other areas of research show data that points to genetic and prenatal influences, not vaccines.

People used to naively believe that SMI was caused by a B vitamin deficiency or that women who felt “unappreciated” by their families were more likely to develop breast cancer There are other outlandish theories about anti-oxidants, vitamin C and other nutrients. They may only be studied as bad examples.

** I have been to the Emerald Triangle before and after the law changing: there is a consortium of growers now where secretive growers used to exist in old barns ( Potter Valley,, Redwood Valley) they advertise on the net and have billboards. .I don’t partake myself but I like to learn about developing business.

@ Denice Walter @ Tim

“Timmy, Timmy, that’s not what I mean! You’re talking about a legal prohibition against research on cannabis”

Yes. Also about the prohibition of anything that might be construed as positive on the topic of illegal drugs as enshrined in the 1970 law; which, if it applies to research, means that only bad outcomes are allowed to be reported.

And also about people having peculiar ideas at the top of the hierarchy of expertise in France. Here’s a willful deformation of the study by David Nutt, placing alcool as least dangerous (the study states the opposite, to put it simply) by a website which is an anonymous propaganda frontend for the Cult around Jean Costentin, member of the Académie de Médecine et Pharmacie. A state-linked official body of expertise.

Every time I made a comment on Costentin in French blogs owned by medical doctors, it has been systematically suppressed.

First scientific experiment on patients concerning cannabis in France has been approved by the National Assembly in 2019 for an experiment in 2020. Unsurprisingly, Jean Costentin is against any movement in this direction. Rationale: a plant cannot be a drug because it’s not a pill. I’m not joking. That’s what it means being pro-science in France: refusing to make a pill out of a plant so that you can claim it’s not a pill, so that you can claim that experiments can’t work because the dose is not uniform in plants as opposed to pill.

In a nutshell: being pro-science means refusing to do experiments.

Moreover, there’s one thing these oh-so-smart people fail to understand: pot smokers do not give a fuck whether or not pot “cures cancer”. But as you can only say bad things legally about illegal drugs, it means the only discourse that is allowed is a negative medical one. So the only item that can be discussed in public is medical aspects of illegal drugs. And the only one who have a right to speak on the matter are medical doctors, because they are pro-science and the rest of the world simply are a bunch of dumb shit who cannot add 2 and 2.

The nerve is outstanding.

You have encompassed it F68.10.

That’s more what I was trying to say. That because of my recognizing the lies (let alone any admitted merit for ‘harm reduction’) after being indoctrinated with them my whole previous life from kindergarden on, waking up (so to speak), and saw such harm put into maintaining them I became paranoid and applied the ‘Hemp repression model’* to all things authority, oil, medicine, and war. I became obsessed with it — Anti-vax was only a passing phase that stemmed from that perceived overarching wrongness of an imposed, false truth and punishment.

*Pharma consipiracy also — when drug companies took out billions of dollars in superbowl advertising to proclaim “We’re drug companies, doing good things” (really, no particular one but as a collective); What was I supposed to think they were advertising against? Oatmeal and apples?

@ F68.10:

I think that things will change. SOON.
11 states in the US- and DC- have legal recreational marijuana. 33 more have medical marijuana . It is decriminalised as well in most of these places. In 2020, many of the medical states will have legal marijuana on the ballot in November. States with medical usage often approve it for specific conditions that I assume are based on research ( MS, seizures, pain, loss of appetite, cancer etc).

IIRC Canada has already gone legal.
California and ( I think) Washington (state) may make psilocybin legal. Tim’s state is one of the few with no legal any way. Very conservative places like Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming. There are good maps 2020 legal marijuana/ medical marijuana US states.

@ Denice Walter

I’m not entirely for decriminalization. I’d rather have some kind of fine system, specifically for smoking weed in public. And a controlled distribution system like I believe Urugay tried to implement. But much more importantly, officials and experts need to stop lying and spout shit on the topic. And stop the indoctrination of mental health workers in that domain as believing one can and ought to force-feed bullshit into mental patient’s minds has proven to be disastrous in many cases I’ve witnessed. Free speech issues are also not a small issue in my eyes, and it’s true that when I see antivaxx being shut down, I do fear that there may be the same kind of phenomenon at work. While the antivaxx issue is rather clear-cut in terms of moral balance, the mental mechanics of shutting down speech on medical grounds bears quite some similarities.

But France has, aside from its rather conservative medical establishment on that topic (seems that this is changing somewhat as the Internet seems to have made criticism of, say, Didier Raoult by younger medical doctors possible — generational clash about the interplay of notions of eminence, medical authority and the notion of truth) we have a not entirely trivial situation on our hands in our poor suburbs where drug trafficking occurs. Moreover, as muslim population roughly is 6%, compared to 1% or 2% in the US, and could rise to 12% or even 20% by 2050 according to the Pew Research Center, the drug issue gets tied in people’s mind, if not reality, with topics such as muslim fundamentalism or separatism.

So all this doesn’t make it for an easy ride in public opinion. And French politicians have a tendency to decide everything on their own without popular input on such topics, so we have to wait and pray for them to make the smart moves like big boys who listen to no one else than themselves. Far right is lurking seriously on these issues, so there needs to be a tightening of policing for a variety reason, one of them being not giving too much of a leeway to the far right. Tightening of policing means that it is unclear how illegal drugs will fit in the picture. We are having our first instances of “decriminalization” in the sense that fines are being implemented in some select few suburbs (recent stuff by Darmanin, our interior minister). If it fails at bringing back some sense of authority by easing the work of the police, the far right will be lurking and will be pushing for more criminalisation of illegal drugs.

@ JustaTech – BG and his foundations have too much unchecked power and too much unchecked control. He wants to keep the world on lock down so he can make a HUGE profit on the global vaccine market.

People are fed up. Deb Birx recently said, “I’ve been so struck by the number of Americans across the country that have just had it,” she said.

“Mortality decreases” have also complicated matters, she said. “When people start to realize that 99 percent of us are going to be fine, it becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply, she said.

SHE SAID IT, 99% ARE GONNA BE FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to ShillBill.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/against-big-philanthropy?utm_source=pocket-newtab

https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php?fbclid=IwAR1TgyOS2bNaJntFX2CWwqlanaS9zIuNN8B74MQYIhz2RycN-hNCKFGaSfA

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation/

Gotta go and get some things done.

Good day.

A. You think Bill Gates makes money from vaccines?

B. You think Bill Gates needs money from vaccines?

Windows called and laughed down the phone at you.

@Natalie White I actually agree with you. She seems to dismiss 3 million deaths (1% of Americans). A bad case of motor mouth. But of course, HHS secretary is a former pharma lobbyist. A lots of red tape cutting are awaiting us. That is, lots of nonsensical EUAs.

To repeat: Gates do not set US vaccine policy. Trump does. It was him who invented “Warp Speed” and probably will force EUA for Covid vaccine before election.
Gates do not order lockdowns. State governors do.
Gates do not sell vaccines. He donates money to developing countries to allow them to buy vaccines.

@Natalie White The link was about Gates funding WHO. WHO does definitely not set USA health policy, Trump has made this very clear.
Media prominence does not mean actual power. I however think that Gates knows more about vaccines than other peoples I can mention.

But you see, Gates is a daemon. Those voices Trump hears inside his head are really messages sent via 5G towers from evil Bill. How else do you explain that he changed from anti-vaxx before his election to pro-vaxx and then removing regulatory barriers for pharma products to fight a minor ailment like COVID.

In international woo-fraught news….

RFK jr gave a press conference about anti-vax in Berlin prior to a rally of “a million” against pandemic restrictions; the moderator notes that RFK jr’s voice is not due to Covid infection .( Germany has done well in the pandemic compared to other places) There was another rally 4 weeks ago.
You can see videos at Children’s Health Defense and German language sites: he now has a European Chapter of CHD. Videos show maskless attendees..
BBC reports that about 18.000 participated.

“For one thing, knowing who’s already received a specific vaccine can protect that person from unnecessarily being advised to receive that vaccine again if there is uncertainty over whether he’s ever had it.”

That’s why we have medical record databases. Have these things suddenly become inoperable in the First World? A vaccine record doesn’t need to be embedded in your body, but if that’s your thing, have at it.

Medical record databases are notoriously incomplete and fragmented, except in a few countries. Also, antivaxxers ALSO paint databases keeping tract of children’s vaccination history as incipient fascism, as a horrible affront to freedom and privacy.

@ Orac

“Also, antivaxxers ALSO paint databases keeping tract of children’s vaccination history as incipient fascism, as a horrible affront to freedom and privacy.”

I tend to share that position, though I recognize their need when it comes to research.

Maybe sharing the keys to such data with some kind of representation of patients could be a worthwhile ideas. Feels less like fascism when patients are endowed with such power. Moreover, putting them in positions of responsibility kinda of forces them to take other perspectives than purely militant ones into account.

Is the United States one of those countries? My medical records are always accurate when I check in to see my doctor. I don’t need them injected under my skin so they can be scanned by a smartphone—though I have no objection to those who wish to exercise the freedom to do so.

Try moving to a different state and going to a hospital or healthcare facility that uses a different EHR than yours.🙄🤦🏻‍♂️

Slight hijack – but do any M.D.s ever look at those forms patients new to a practice are called on to fill out before the first visit (not to mention whether that data is ever entered into an EHR)?

It always turns out (for me, anyway) that the doc asks me for the history of the present complaint and other relevant data and never refers to the form I complete out in the waiting room.

Sometime I may be tempted to list a bunch of bogus maladies and medications on that form just to see if anyone is paying attention.*

*So far I’ve resisted the temptation to note in the physical examination section of an autopsy report, “Pupils are round, regular and reactive to light and accommodation”.

Most of the time the RN or tech puts that stuff into the EMR, which we review before coming into the exam room along with labs, blah, blah. I have had patients put crazy stuff on there and the tech usually brings it in and asks before putting it into the record. The review is usually done to make sure there is no misunderstanding. I’ve had patients check “no chronic medical conditions” or whatever then when I ask them if they’re taking any medications they start listing off CHF and diabetes medications.

#repost

Presidential elections are planned distractions
to divert attention from the action behind the scenes.

Like a game of chess when the house is a mess;
Or a petty money squabble when your marriage is in trouble;
Or a football game when there’s rioting in the streets.

https://youtu.be/BbT1PJsTVkU?t=1

This rocket is made right here in North Bamalam.. Yuge emphasis on drug testing. ‘Cost plus’, they are paid extra many millions each time they can’t get it up — Thx Richard Shelby… Jobs, jobs, jobs; Never mind his ‘Senate Launch System’. This thing costs hundreds of millions per launch, SLS will be billions but, hey, no pot smokers in the manufacture of God’s Rockets (that they know of). Others actually lose millions while this pig stuffs up the range.

[…] Actually, Osterholm is correct. Although we have considerable expertise in genetic engineering and splicing genes in and out of viruses, it takes a lot more than that. In order to engineer something like SARS-CoV-2, you have to know enough about how coronaviruses cause disease and how they are transmitted and then about what structural features are required in the virus’ proteins to achieve the desired virulence and contagiousness, and we just don’t. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out many times before, once the complete nucleotide sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was elucidated, it became very clear that the virus was of natural origin. It had no tell-tale signs of having been engineered, as documented in a study in Nature in March. There’s just a lot of evidence that the virus was not engineered, but that doesn’t stop this conspiracy theory from popping up again and again, such as in Plandemic, the film featuring disgraced scientist Judy Mikovits and its sequel Plandemic: Indoctornation, or, as I like to call it, Plandemic 2:Electric Boogaloo. […]

[…] Kao što sam već puno puta naglasio, nakon što je objavljena potpuna nukleotidna sekvenca SARS-CoV-2, postalo je sasvim jasno da je taj virus prirodnog podrijetla. Nema nikakvih znakova da je umjetno stvoren, što je dokumentirano u studiji objavljenoj u Natureuu ožujku. Jednostavno, postoji mnoštvo dokaza da virus nije umjetnog porijekla, ali to nije spriječilo da se ova teorija zavjere pojavljuje stalno iznova, kao npr. u Plandemicu, filmu u kojem se pojavljuje već otprije osramoćena znanstvenica Judy Mikovits—i njegovu nastavku Plandemic: Indoctornation, ili kako ga ja volim zvati, Plandemic 2: Electric Boogaloo. […]

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.