Is the mass hysteria of social distancing based on science?

One of the main demands put on general public these days: stay six feet away from one another.

It’s called social distancing.

But why six feet? Because graves have been dug traditionally to that depth?

Can’t be. Because those who insist on the six feet here in Canada make it equal to two meters, which is wrong: six feet equals 1.8288 metres, almost 13 centimetres less than two metres. For those keen on Imperial values, that would equal more than five inches.

So, what the heck is the reason?

Elementary, as Sherlock Holmes used to tell his sidekick, Dr. Watson. It’s insufficient identifying abilities of today’s face recognition technologies that has brought the six feet to the forefront. Faces closer to one another less than six feet get blurred.

Why is it important? Because governments use face recognition technologies much more than they used to.

Yes, governments: police and intelligence agencies are run by government. Not that these agencies are owned by government. On paper, in democracy, we (meaning: we the people) own them. Governments only operate them on our behalf.

And, oh, by the way, these technologies tend to be racist and sexist, too: they have frightful difficulty identifying people of darker skin colour, and, for whatever reasons of their own, female faces.

But that’s another topic, for another day. Suffice it to say that face recognition technology is still reliably in its diapers. And yet, it’s used not only for unlocking telephones and sundry such activities, but also for government-led and controlled surveillance on unsuspecting people.

Which brings us back full circle to social distancing, one of the features of the mass hysteria provoked by fears of a virus. And the real danger to our basic freedoms, meanwhile, remains in the background. Those who had never experienced dictatorship echo the government’s idiotic slogan that claims that we’re all in this together, walking around in face masks that are much more dangerous to their health than any flu-like disease.

Those who did experience dictatorship are trying to object, only to be dismissed using the moronic label of conspiracy theorists.

Oh, by the way, a theory requires proof. So those who dismiss the objectors are basically confirming that they do have a case. Except: they dismiss it.

To put it bluntly: what we are experiencing these days is a thoroughly programmed and executed attempt to return us all into serfdom. And if you think this is too dramatic a statement, you may as well start thinking again.

Sequence of events

It all begins with news that a dangerous virus has somehow escaped a Level 4 laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan, and that is has been killing all and sundry. We get to see dramatic footage, taken from a vehicle driving frantically fast through dark streets of what we are told is Wuhan, showing lines of persons in all kinds of safety clothing, with canisters filled with unspecified fluids on their backs, spraying the place like nobody’s business. There are piles of something covered in black on the sidewalks: these, we are told, are bodies of the hapless Wuhan residents who didn’t manage to run away fast enough.

One minor issue with that: television reporting during the next few days uses the same footage. The sequence changes from time to time, but still: these are the same pictures we had seen in the beginning.

Reminds one of the times when television crews, especially those from Western Europe and the U.S., found a street in Lebanon’s Bekka Valley, and began using it as background for their reporting. It was during the 1983 Lebanon conflict with Israel. The street was indeed in ruins: it used to house the various command posts of the many terrorist groups that used to attack Israel. The Israelis used to call the place TV Alley, and when asked why they didn’t do anything about this blatant misrepresentation of facts the western television had been conveying to their unsuspecting audiences, they would only shrug: we’re not into censorship.

Back to China: the World Health Organization originally proclaimed this was a local matter for local authorities to handle.

A few days later it would become a pandemic, so far as the WHO was concerned.

Playing it by the ear?

Except: the WHO had changed its criteria for evaluating the spread of dangerous health risks about a dozen years ago. It removed the two most important ones: increased morbidity (number of ill people compared to number of citizens in a given territory in a given period of time) and increased mortality (number of fatalities compared to number of citizens i

n a given territory in a given period of time), leaving only the third one: it suffices now that a virus spreads continually across more continents than one. But that, says Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, happens with most cases of influenza or herpes virus.

Dr. Who? Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. A German specialist in internal medicine, concentrating on pneumology (lung diseases), as well as having worked in the field of epidemiology at the world-famous Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore, he knows the other side of the coin, too: he represented the German social-democratic party (SPD) in the country’s Parliament (Bundestag) for 15 years, as well as heading the health committee of the Europe Council (Consilium Europa). That is a collective body that defines the European Union’s overall political direction and priorities. The Europe Council consists of all heads of state or government of European Union member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

It was during Dr. Wodarg’s time at EU when he discovered the change in the WHO definition and the reasons that had led to it.

Dr. Wodarg led the EU health committee during the bird flu (Avian influenza, caused by the H1N1 virus, 2009) and swine flu (also H1N1 virus, 2009-2010) periods, and it was his job to find out how these cases could develop.

The investigation led to shocking results, Dr. Wodarg testified then, and does so to this day.

Here’s one of the 2010 stories in the British newspaper, Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html). You can continue reading on here, with the summary that extends to 10 years later, that is, to today.

Dr. Wodarg found that the WHO definition changed very shortly before the first 2009 pandemic declaration. According to him, the swine flu was one of the mildest flu waves then known to humanity. He initiated official hearings during which his committee demanded that the WHO explain its steps, one by one. The main question: why did WHO declare a pandemic when there was none?

The findings were shocking: a horrifyingly overwhelming (Dr. Wodarg’s own description) number of medical professors serving as advisers to the WHO had (and still have) an unbelievable conflict of interest. They acted and still do under the pressure of pharmaceutical companies.

Obviously, there is not much need to elaborate on the pharmaceutical companies’ reasons: money smells like roses no matter how earned.

Dr. Wodarg offered his findings on today’s coronavirus pandemic to leading German newspapers, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or the Süddeutsche Zeitung, in an attempt to reduce the growing general panic.

Both newspapers rejected his offers, saying such publication would be inappropriate, improper, even.

Now what?

Bill Gates became rich off the sales of disc operating systems created for the almighty IBM and all of the clones of its personal computing devices.

How he had become an expert in public health, virology and epidemiology has never been stated.

Where he first encountered Thomas Robert Malthus’s theories is also a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Malthus was, first and foremost, an English cleric. A priest who rose all the way to the office of a curate, that is. His thinking has always been along the lines of ideology. He decided to try his hand in the field of economics. So far as he was concerned, the only valid part of the science of economics was what we now call political economy. The only issue here: economics is not about ideology. But nobody told Malthus that he was about to enter a slippery slope.

Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. A frightfully static theory: more food results in more people, and more people means less food for everybody concerned (per capita, that is, to use importantly sounding foreign words).

But, and here comes a shock, Malthus never said the Earth was over-populated.

People who came after him, including Bill Gates, did.

A number of hypotheses would follow this post-Malthusian would-be discovery, including such humanitarian movements like eugenics (killing people whose mental, physical or racial qualities did not meet the standard, whatever that standard was supposed to mean).

Bill Gates is on record as agreeing with this train of thought, so successfully implemented by Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Of course, he does not say that Hitler was correct. It may very well be that he is not even aware that he is quoting from Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws.

Dreadful silence

The most frightening thing here is that none of this is making mainstream media headlines. And when someone dares mention that vaccination as such has been and still remains a rather questionable method of achieving immunity against sundry diseases, today’s so-called social media platforms are quick to label such daring people as quacks, illiterate morons, conspiracy theorists. With those noble words, they censor anyone who has the gall to suggest that so-called accepted science means nothing. After all, the notion that the Sun circles around the Earth used to be accepted science, too, and cost quite a few who dared to differ their lives.

Another gag order

A theory (not so new, by the way) seems to prove beyond any doubt that the modern communications systems that help spread so-called cellular telephony are a present danger to pedestrians and traffic. There used to be headlines about, for example, real estate agents who would spend days on end with their cell phones close to their ears all the time while they were awake: the number of brain tumours in this particular group had grown beyond acceptable levels.

That is nothing when compared to today’s systems. The newest one, so-called Generation Five (G5), its inventors claim, can do everything. Ever heard the expression: Internet of Things? Basically, all kinds of tools and things we use in our everyday lives no longer need us. They can operate without human involvement. People would only slow it down.

That it is used to spy on us all is one thing. That the G5 use of frequencies can cause and does cause some diseases compared to which all viruses are kindergarten games, is another.

Where are the headlines demanding at least an explanation, if not removal of this anti-human technology outright?

Simple: nowhere.

What is important

There have been stories circulating around the world about the viruses and the scandals surrounding them. Some more outrageous than others. Some more revealing than others.

For example: several intelligence agencies have reported that the Wuhan Lab went dark for two weeks right after Oct. 6, 2019. Apparently there were no phone calls coming in or going out, and nobody would bat an eye. A few weeks later, stories about a virus coming from the wet market, killing hundreds of thousands, ruining most of the world’s economies, becomes the main headline grabbers.

But: where are the headlines about China People’s Republic imposing a new sedition and subversion legislation on Hong Kong? It would enable its feared state security police to operate in the city that had been promised it would be allowed to continue living under its traditional freedoms under the 1997 handover to China.

Where are the headlines about the new war heating up in Libya?

And, most importantly, where are the headlines about governments stealing our rights and freedoms with impunity, telling us they are acting in our interest?

And the final question: why do we let them get away with it?

Tagged: , , , , , , ,

2 thoughts on “Is the mass hysteria of social distancing based on science?

  1. […] via Is the mass hysteria of social distancing based on science? […]

  2. […] But: facts remain facts. Such as: the World Health Organization (WHO) changed the standards used to determine spreading of diseases ab…. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: