Trigger Warning: This is not a safe space; you may learn new and useful information that could upset your current worldview. Scroll down at your own peril.
Leonardo da Vinci famously said: “There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see.” I’m hoping you’ll either be in the first or second class; if not the first, definitely the second.
Yes, the title of this entry was intended as a pun. Great song, great band, but an incredibly untrustworthy organization. We might not be in this mess if it weren’t for their collusion with the Communist Party of China (CPC). In this blog entry, I will examine a number of interrelated aspects related to the COVID-19 world crisis and related events. This is the first installment of a series of blog entries. There are many dimensions to this crisis that will not be revealed to you by governments or the mainstream media. It will require looking at alternative media and thinking for oneself. I will attempt to make sense of what is truly going on. There are many elements to consider in order to get a full picture of what is transpiring before our eyes. So, bear with me as I systematically reflect on the dire situation we find ourselves in. I will provide many links and videos to solidify my case, but it’s up to you to think about it and decide for yourselves what is true. I’m not telling you what to think but merely offering an alternative that you may not have considered. You may also want to go through the material in various sittings. Feel free to write civil comments and/or questions below.
The WHO, CPC and The Liberal Party of Canada's Interwoven Corruption
The world has literally been on its knees because of the misinformation provided by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CPC. This has had devastating consequences for the world economy and the health and lives of countless millions around the globe. Unfortunately, news networks like CNN have chosen to focus their attention on identity politics rather than on China’s reckless behaviour. This pandering to a communist enemy unleashing a viral threat against the western world is unacceptable; this just further exemplifies where the mainstream media’s priorities lie. Let us not forget the great missteps within Canada to mitigate the entry of COVID-19. Conservative Finance Critic Pierre Poilievre rightfully criticized Trudeau and the Liberal Government for their negligence in allowing 2,000 people to enter Canada from Hubei, China, after January 22. This was subsequent to receiving information from military intelligence that the spread of the coronavirus was extensive and dangerous. Conveniently, the CBC never wanted Canadians to see the video of Poilievre grilling the Liberals. Unfortunately, as is the case in so many instances, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the members of the Liberal Party (in this video, Chrystia Freeland) offer evasive responses to specific questions because they are obviously hiding information from the public.
Let us also not forget that Ottawa is helping fund a COVID-19 research project with the Wuhan Lab. This is a terrible thing since the evidence points persuasively towards the virus being manipulated within this lab in order to infect humans. The virus could not have jumped so quickly from a bat to a human (more on this in the second blog entry). Vaccine trials have been approved by Health Canada; this vaccine candidate has been developed by the Chinese company CanSino Biologics. Trudeau has signed a contract for 37 million syringes with Becton Dickinson. This should raise red flags since by the end of March, according to authorities in Spain, Turkey, and the Netherlands, thousands of testing kits and other medical equipment, including medical masks provided by China, were found to be defective. In a recent report, we have strong reasons to believe that the testing for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic was wholly inaccurate because numerous of the kits created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were contaminated. Moreover, thousands of contaminated test kits were provided to New Brunswick. So, not only did they unleash this virus onto the world, which has crippled the world economy for the past 4 months, they have also provided defective testing kits and equipment. Instead of distancing financial relations with China, Trudeau’s government doubles down on them. Time and time again, he has demonstrated he cannot be trusted as the leader of Canada. But, instead, the media, even in Canada, will focus its attention on criticisms of President Donald Trump.
A Period of Mass Confusion
So how do we know what to believe these days with so much contradictory information? Can we trust the WHO, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other organizations? the mainstream media, or even alternative media? It is true that everyone has their own agenda, but the fundamental question is: does it line up with the truth? In other words, does it correspond with reality and how things actually are? These are not things easily discerned in periods of opacity. This is why it is crucial to think for yourself. That means you’ll have to sift through and reflect on what is true in terms of what is being told by governments, experts, and alternative sources. Don’t let them spoon-feed and tell you exactly what you have to believe. I know that everyone is busy with their day-to-day routines, but I can’t stress how vital it is that we work together as a human race to unravel the truth and live in harmony.
As you’ve heard time and time again, we are living in unprecedented times. Nothing of this nature has ever happened, and given our technological developments and population size, we are at a truly unique point in human history. I also think we are at a breaking point, with hopefully a brighter future for humans and the planet we inhabit. With the ease of information, you can consult many sources at your fingertips and make up your own mind, with the caveat that Google manipulates your searches (more on that below). Many of the things we are told, flip then flop, then spin, then flip and then flop again.
Human Corruption & Evil
I’m not closed to this possibility. This isn’t some loonie conspiracy theory; it is unravelling right before your eyes, but you have to be willing to see it and seek the truth. It is a matter of connecting the dots between each major event and the conspiring powers such as the technocrats, Hollywood elites, the Democrats, and world bankers. Why should anyone exclude this possibility? These people have vested interests in controlling the world economy and pushing their ideological agendas. The top 1 percent for years has owned 50% of the world’s wealth. In the USA alone, the top 1% own as much as the middle class.
If we’ve learned anything from history and human psychology, it is that the human heart is engulfed with darkness, pride, a lust for power, and greed. It is not to say that there isn’t good; there is, but darkness and corruption manifest themselves throughout the human race, and even more so when power becomes heavily concentrated in governments and special interest groups. We must always be vigilant over governments. The role of government is not to tell us what to do and what to think but to protect our civil rights and civil liberties. Unfortunately, governments throughout the world are focusing on the former. This is the path to tyranny, as we have witnessed time and time again, whether it be in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Mao’s China, Pol’s Cambodia, the CPC, or Canada right now.
What has been striking about this pandemic is how quickly we abandoned our civil liberties and behaved like automatons: keeping six feet apart, not seeing people outside of those you live with, wearing masks, staying away from parks, following arrows at essential stores, etc. And beware if you don’t follow these regulations; in some instances, you may be fined or, at the very least, ostracized by a holier-than-thou model citizen.
When governments and medical authorities instill fear, as has been the case with COVID-19, it is remarkable how compliant and credulous a population becomes without truly questioning what is going on.
The Nature and History of Science
Governments aren’t infallible, and neither are scientists or medical doctors—far from it, despite scientists becoming the high priests of modern society. What about science itself? Science as an enterprise is always in constant flux through learning, re-examining, observing, testing, analyzing, interpreting, and re-interpreting.
It is provisional in its nature and scope. Despite all of our progress, we know very little about physical reality. The more we explore the darkness of the universe and the exquisite molecular world, the more our ignorance confounds us. Anyone who has studied the history of science will realize that science is an ever-evolving endeavour. For instance, a certain theory may have explained the data quite well given the knowledge of the day but may require serious revisions in the future as new information from observation and rigorous analysis emerge. One can think of the Copernican Revolution and its replacement of the Ptolemaic understanding of the rotation of the planets and the sun; we shifted from a geocentric to a heliocentric understanding of the universe. We could also think about the scientific revolution that occurred in 1859 when Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace proposed their theory of natural selection, which came to supplant creationism, which argued for the fixity of species. This theory argued for the transmutation of species through natural selection and random variation to account for all living organisms and all of their distinct features.
Subsequently, this theory evolved into Neo-Darwinism, a theory that combined Mendelian genetics with the mechanism of natural selection. However, recent developments suggest that this isn’t the entire picture; the data today opens up the debate to other natural mechanisms and has even allowed for the design perspective to have a place at the table; the mechanisms at hand do not seem to explain the origin of species or the origin of novel structures as well as biologists had hoped. Some of the most remarkable scientific advancements have been the discoveries of modern physics from the 17th century onward: in 1687 Isaac Newton’s discovery of the laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation; in 1782 Antoine Lavoisier’s conservation of matter; in 1801 Thomas Young’s Wave theory of light; in 1803 John Dalton’s atomic theory of matter; in 1905 Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity and in 1913 the general theory of relativity; in 1925-1927 quantum mechanics; Georges Lemaître with the “primeval egg” (big bang); and in 1981 Alan Guth’s cosmic inflation; and in 2015 gravitational waves were observed. So, with all these theories and discoveries, we see great advancements, building on previous knowledge and/or even correcting and modifying certain aspects of theories while continuing to unravel what observational data shows through logical inference. The theoretical physicist Richard Feynman famously said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Nevertheless, Feynman was able to develop a pictorial scheme to provide mathematical expressions for subatomic particles, which came to be known as the Feynman diagrams. Indeed, a strong case for the mathematical rigour of quantum mechanics can be made. So, why did he say that about quantum mechanics? Well, part of the answer relates to the fact that there are at least nineteen competing interpretations of understanding quantum mechanics in its representation of “reality.” Undoubtedly, scientific advancement is never conclusive since our knowledge is finite and is constantly subject to revision, correction, interpretation, and replacement. Often enough, the facts of the present day could be regarded in the future as the missteps or errors of yesterday. That’s just how science works.
Unfortunately, the majority of laypersons are not aware of this and just take “scientific facts” as a “fait accompli.” This mode of thinking also works great for controlling people, i.e., the lack of questioning certain authorities, especially scientific or medical ones. This is one of the ways in which science can transform into scientism: the unsubstantiated claim that natural science is the only means by which we can ascertain “real” knowledge of the world.
The Fallibility of Medicine and Doctors
Medicine, just like the natural sciences, has undergone incredible developments over the past few centuries. But, even less than a century ago, from the 1930s to the 1950s, medical doctors promoted smoking for its alleged health benefits. The negative effects of smoking were not well known during this time period, but it should serve as a cautionary note regarding the reliability of certain medical claims. Healthy skepticism should not be discouraged.
If we consider misdiagnoses, this should warrant patients to be vigilant—I’m not encouraging complete mistrust of medical professionals because that is counter-productive, but to not take everything you’re told with a grain of salt. Deaths due to medical negligence tend to increase from year to year. On average, in the US, medical mistakes claim about 400, 000 lives. In Canada, thousands of people die in hospitals, and most of the population is unaware of this. Therefore, it is important that when we listen to governments and experts speak of certain treatments, vaccines, statistics, precautions, and other recommendations revolving around COVID-19, we question these claims. As has been iterated, science and medicine are evolving, but also many errors can be made due to either ignorance or negligence.
Wash Your Hands!
The only consistent thing we’ve been told throughout this pandemic is that we should wash our hands. Yes, you should always wash your hands! You should also try your best to keep your hands away from your face, especially after handling items in a grocery store, for instance. This is good general hygiene, and it prevents the spread of many germs.
The Second Wave Could be Worse than the First
Things are beginning to open in Ontario, Canada, again, including patios this weekend, at least temporarily. We will see how long this lasts before the next potential influx of COVID-19 comes to a mask near you. Some are considering a second wave in the fall, and it may be worse than the first. Is it possible that temporary openings will lead to a greater number of infections because of asymptomatic individuals, in order to justify a more severe lockdown in the future? On June 13, there was news that Beijing may have had another outbreak and that there may be a second lockdown. Only time will tell in which direction we are heading with respect to lockdowns.
Some Stories That Go Flip Flop
Let’s consider a few examples of the flip-flops and inconsistencies that we’ve encountered regarding COVID-19 and other recent events.
In the past few weeks, the World Health Organization has claimed that COVID-19 rarely spreads through asymptomatic people. A day later, in the face of backlash, the WHO retracted their statement. The truth is, we have no idea how many people are asymptomatic. This is a serious problem. Moreover, how do we distinguish between someone who carries the virus and is asymptomatic and someone who doesn’t carry the virus? Without being tested, it is virtually impossible to know. That’s also assuming that the testing is trustworthy (which often times it is not, as noted above). But, again, we have another reason to be skeptical of the WHO and other such organizations. It is difficult to know what is truly going on, not only because there are gaps in knowledge, the provisional nature of science and medicine, and also because of the dissemination of blatant misinformation.
What's the Dealio With Masks?
We were then told that wearing a mask is to protect you from others, but most recently, the idea is that its purpose is to prevent the spread of the virus in order to protect others. Initially, a top medical journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, suggested that masks are ineffective to stop the spread of COVID-19, claiming that “both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.” It then retracted the study. This is just one of a growing number of scientific and medical papers being retracted from reputable journals. One wonders if it’s solely because of the speed at which these papers are being published or if there is something else going on here that we are not being told (we will return to this later). It is also worth mentioning that masks have the potential of becoming contaminated as they are repeatedly adjusted. Moreover, according to some medical professionals such as Dr. Russell Blaylock, healthy people should not be wearing masks for the following adverse reason: “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves, and travel into the brain.” As the Mayo Clinic website states: “Some N95 masks, and even some cloth masks, have one-way valves that make them easier to breathe through. But because the valve releases unfiltered air when the wearer breathes out, this type of mask doesn’t prevent the wearer from spreading the virus. For this reason, some places have banned them.”
Dr. Michael Osterholme, director of the Center of Infectious Disease and Research Policy, has stated the following: “Never before in my 45-year career have I seen such a far-reaching public recommendation issued by any governmental agency without a single source of data or information to support it.” In an article written by an operating room nurse, Cindy Gough, titled, “Masked Threats? Studies Reveal NO Benefits to Global COVID-19 Facemasks-for-all Policy,” she dispels the myth surrounding the use of masks for preventing the spread of COVID-19.
Interestingly, several weeks ago, MSNBC reporter, Cal Perry (a former CNN reporter) was shaming people for not wearing masks, but he was quickly embarrassed by a passerby who filmed him and his crew, showing that half the crew was not wearing masks. This is just one of the many examples of how the mainstream media deceives the public. If you want to learn more about how the media deceives the public through fake news, I would recommend Mark Dice’s book The True Story of Fake News: How the Mainstream Media Manipulates Millions.
So, amidst the lockdown, throughout parts of North America and Europe, having an abortion (including non-emergency ones) is considered an essential service, but non-emergency and elective surgeries are not. This lacks consistency. If one is stopped, shouldn’t all such services be halted as well? As Davide Cooke, from the National Campaign Life Coalition, succinctly puts it: “Pregnancy is not a ‘disease’ that needs to be ‘cured.’ Abortion is an elective ‘choice’ for ‘pro-choice’ women who decide they no longer wish to be pregnant. It is not medically necessary, nor is it a prescribed treatment for any ailment.” It seems as though leftist ideologies such as abortion take precedence over consistency and fairness.
Treatment(s) for COVID-19 and the Surrounding Controversies
Recently, there was an enormous retraction from The Lancet, one of the most respected and established medical journals in the world. The article linked here seems to indirectly support, or at the very least leave the door open to, the independent work, claims, and results of scientists/medical doctors such as Dr. Didier Raoult, who has been cited 156, 179 times according to Google Scholar (an unprecedented number of citations), Dr. Zelenko, and others, regarding the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19’s treatment. In this video, Dr. Raoult explains the findings of his studies on hydroxychloroquine:
Let’s also not forget President Trump’s endorsement of the drug and the mainstream media’s denunciation of it. Given the current climate, one can’t help but be suspicious of what’s truly going on. Perhaps a little damage control? Perhaps an honest demonstration that science is a self-correcting process? Perhaps something else? Be that as it may, anyone with a modicum of understanding of the philosophy of science and the history of science (as we briefly discussed above) will know that peer review or whatever longstanding consensus all too often ensures orthodoxy over innovation. Scientists of high repute like Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the beloved Canadian Prime Minister, and all of those who have become overnight scientific revolutionaries/experts, please take note. The lesson here is to try to think for yourself and question things. Be skeptical, and try not to end your search for the truth after a page or two of Google search results. #QuestionEverything #TheWorldIsWatching.
In an article related to COVID-19, which I wrote in April and titled “Feminine, or Feminist, Response to COVID,” I stated the following regarding a treatment that has shown some success:
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has treated over 1,450 patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 with 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine twice a day for 5 days, 500 mg of azithromycin once a day for 5 days, and 220 mg of zinc sulfate (an ingredient often ignored by studies that are critical of the treatment) once a day for 5 days, producing a 99.9% success rate (only 2 deaths) so far.”
Listen to Dr. Zelenko’s comments regarding this retraction from Lancet and make up your own mind.
An hour after The Lancet’s retraction, The New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate study involving blood pressure medications in COVID-19, which had used data from the same company as the other article.
This should raise some eyebrows as to what is going on with these retractions and what sort of medical advice should be followed since everything is tentative and uncertain. Recall what was said earlier about the provisionality of science and medicine; this is displayed in full force with these examples.
Here is an interesting video with Dr. James Todaro where he explains the problems (at the 40:40 minute mark) with a number of the studies involving hydroxychloroquine (alongside azithromycin and zinc) as a treatment for COVID-19 in three different stages: prophylactic, early symptomatic stages, and late-stage treatments. Most of the studies that were eventually retracted focused on the late-stage treatment, but this was more misleading than anything since researchers ought to have known that the treatment wouldn’t have a positive effect based on prior knowledge. It is at the prophylactic stage and predominantly in the early symptomatic stage where the treatment will make its greatest impact. I mention this and the fact that the proper dosages must be taken to ensure successful treatment in the article that I quoted above. Many of these peer-reviewed studies do not address the true efficacy of the treatment but rather provide a false and misleading analysis. At least the authors of the article in The Lancet had enough sense to want its retraction. A final point worth mentioning is that hydroxychloroquine is a highly inexpensive treatment, so the incentive to make monetary gain is just not there, as Dr. Todaro explains. Developing a vaccine, on the other hand, can be highly profitable.
Professor Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., who is a researcher in epidemiologic methods at the Yale School of Public Health, spoke prudently but favourably about the hydroxychloroquine treatment in an interview. It seems as though the mainstream media does not want you to know about the efficacy of this treatment. Could it be related to the race to produce a vaccine for COVID-19 and related big pharmaceutical interests profiteering off of unsuspecting populations?
Even CNN recently admitted that hydroxychloroquine was effective in helping hospitalized COVID-19 patients survive, going against their prior false narrative.
Having said all that, one of the most alarming developments is what has been leaked from a recent meeting among directors of The Lancet and The New England Medical Journal of Medicine at the Chatham House Lectures (top-secret meetings with experts, which prohibit recordings). Whistleblower Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, explains in this two-minute video (with English subtitles) what happened in this meeting with respect to the stranglehold pharmaceutical companies have in the publication of papers with highly dubious and inaccurate conclusions, as was the case with retracted papers regarding hydroxychloroquine.
Tuberculosis vs COVID-19
I will leave you with one last thought that would never be examined by the mainstream media but is worth serious consideration. According to the WHO, “a total of 1.5 million people died from TB in 2018 (including 251 000 people with HIV).” Worldwide, TB is one of the top 10 causes of death and the leading cause from a single infectious agent (above HIV/AIDS).” Moreover, the WHO also stated that “TB is spread from person to person through the air. When people with lung TB cough, sneeze or spit, they propel the TB germs into the air. A person needs to inhale only a few of these germs to become infected.” So, it is just as communicable as COVID-19 or perhaps even more. This inevitably leads one to ask, “Why weren’t we or aren’t we urged to wear masks?” Why have there been no lockdowns in 2018 or even now, causing world economic destruction? Why has this not been widely and incessantly reported by any media outlets? What makes COVID-19 so much more worrisome than tuberculosis, given this information?