Article 43

 

Science

Saturday, April 06, 2024

NWO Covid Year 5 Part 1 - Fauci’s Inquisition

image: fauci

The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic has been the United States government. Over and over again we’ve seen something that goes far beyond using your best judgment with the information at hand.  We’ve seen something which is unforgivable and that is “the weaponization” of medical research itself. The CDC putting out their own shoddy studies like their own study on natural immunity. Looking at one state for two months when they had data for years on all 50 states.  Why do they only report that one sliver of data? Why did they salami slice the giant database? Because it gave them the result they wanted. Same with masking study. Well the data has now caught up in giant systematic reviews, and the public health officials were intellectually dishonest they lied to the American people.
- Dr Marty Makaray speaking at the House Subcommittee on Caronavirus Pandemic Roundtable on Federal Response to Covid 19, Ferbruary 28, 2023
 
The global COVID-19 crisis has significantly shifted the landscape for mis- and disinformation as the pandemic has become the primary concern of almost every nation on the planet. This has perhaps never happened before; few topics have commanded and sustained attention at a global level simultaneously, or provided such a wealth of opportunities for governments, economically motivated actors, and domestic activists alike to spread malign narratives in service to their interests. In response, the Stanford Internet Observatory is launching the Virality Project, a global study aimed at understanding the disinformation dynamics specific to the COVID-19 crisis.
- The Virality Project
 
THE HOUSE SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CARONAVIRUS PANDEMIC has released to The Nation a set of DOCUMENTS that shed light on the production and publication of a controversial scientific paper that helped shape the early public debate about the origin of Covid-19. The documents, which were the basis of A MEMO [local pdf] the subcommittee released in early March as part of its investigation into the pandemic’s origin, have not previously been available to the public in full standalone form. Among other things, the documents highlight the involvement of several top health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, in prompting the work that led to the paper, titled THE PROXIMAL ORIGIN OF OF SARS-COV-2 [local pdf]. They also offer an inside glimpse into the peer-review process that preceded the influential papers publication.
 
In a November 30, 2022, speech on INFLATION AND THE LABOR MARKET, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell blamed most of the 3.5 million estimated shortfall in the US labor force on premature retirements. He also blamed a large portion between 280,000 and 680,000 - on “long Covid.” In a footnote, however, Powell acknowledged a far more somber factor: an estimated 400,000 unexpected deaths among working age people.
- “Cause Unknown”: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022 - Covid Year 3 Part 6, Sudden Deaths

---

Fauci’s Inquisition Against Safe and Effective Anti-COVID-19 Drugs

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Global Research
April 6, 2024

A question needs to be asked. Were the novel experimental drug treatments for SARS-CoV-2 viral infections that Anthony Fauci, the CDC and FDA advocated for and funded responsible for worsening the contagion and countless deaths?

However, at that time there were plenty of studies confirming there were pre-existing safe, inexpensive medications known to have highly effective antiviral properties to treat Covid-19 patients. Among these were ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

There were also specific nutrients such as vitamin D and zinc, known to strengthen the immune system against viral infection and yet there was no recommendation from the government about the benefits of proper nutrition. So why did Fauci along with other federal health officials choose to intentionally ignore the scientific evidence and rather condemn these repurposed drugs? In Fauci’s case, over a year and half into the pandemic, he continued to lie outright on CNN that “there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that [ivermectin] works.” [1] And could millions have been saved if these generic medications were prescribed rather than the feds doing nothing but recommending social isolation and quarantines as the world awaited an experimental Covid-19 vaccine to enter the market?

To date, between ivermectin and HCQ alone, there have been 670 published studies, analyses and papers involving over 9,800 scientists and over 682,000 patients supporting the use of these drugs over and beyond those the FDA has approved under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statutes. Despite this, four years later, the FDA continues to fiercely deny ivermectins and HCQ’s efficacy and safety under proper administration. Why this blatant cover-up?

Every CDC effort to approve a novel drug treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infections has been a dismal failure. Aside from 2]

Shortly after the pandemic was formally announced, the FDA recommended the cheap over the counter anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine but then quickly reversed its decision after Fauci publicly announced the future arrival of Gilead Sciences’ novel intravenous drug Remdesivir. The FDA’s and European Union’s approvals of Remdesivir baffled many scientists, according to the journal Science, who questioned its therapeutic value and kept a close watch on the drug’s clinical reports about a “disproportionally high number of reports of liver and kidney problems.” [3] Even an earlier Chinese study published in The Lancet found that remdesivir had no impact on the coronavirus. The Science article notes that the FDA never consulted a group of outside experts that it has at the ready to weigh in on complicated antiviral drug issues.” [4] Six months before remdesivir received EUA approval, Anthony Fauci had already hailed the drug as a major breakthrough that would establish a new “standard of care in Covid-19 treatment.” [5]

Today, remdesivir is being increasingly recognized as a debacle in antiviral therapeutic care. Even the WHO released a “conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir” in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients. An Italian study observed a 416 percent increase in hepatocellular injuries among hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with Remdesivir. [6] And a smaller Taiwanese study of hospitalized unvaccinated patients reported a 185 percent higher mortality during late remdesivir treatment [7]

Earlier this year, Pfizer’s novel oral Covid-19 medication Paxlovid was given an FDA black box warning for clinically significant adverse reactions that can potentially be fatal. Because the company does not permit independent random-controlled trials to investigate its drug, other than retrospective studies, we only have Pfizer’s own data to rely upon. Nevertheless, The Lancet published a study by a team of Chinese scientists at Shanghai Jiao Tong School of Medicine that managed to look at Paxlovid’s use among critically ill patients hospitalized with Covid-19. The study reported a 27 percent higher risk of the infection progressing, a 67 percent increased risk in requiring ventilation, and 10 percent longer stays in ICU facilities. [8]

Paxlovid is a combination of a novel SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitor and the HIV protease inhibitor ritonavir. The FDA approved Paxlovid under a EUA with the claim it was safe. However, on the governments HIV.gov website for ritonavir it is clearly stated that the drug “can cause serious life-threatening side effects. These include inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis), heart rhythm problems, severe skin rash and allergic reactions, liver problems and drug interactions.” [9] Perhaps due to the drug’s serious side effects, it is no longer used solely against HIV, but rather is given in smaller doses as a booster for AZT-related drugs. Being highly toxic, ritonavir is also not recommended for pregnant women and has been shown to interfere with hormone-based birth control efficacy.

Paxlovid only received FDA EUA approval in May 2023. At that time, the agency claimed there was no evidence that patients who were treated with the drug rebounded and came down with Covid. However, shortly thereafter this was determined to be untrue. [10] A Harvard analysis found that 21 percent of Paxlovid recipients will remain contagious and likely succumb to a viral rebound compared to only 1.8 percent who did not take the drug.

Merck’s anti-Covid-19 drug molnupiravir (Lagevrio) also has an FDA black box warning for potential fetal harm when administered to pregnant women.  Why the drug was ever approved under an EUA seems to be an enigma. The drug’s antiviral activity is based upon a metabolite known as NHC, which for many years has been known to create havoc in an enzyme crucial for viral replication by inserting errors into the virus’ genetic code.  The theory is: produce enough errors and the virus kills itself off. However, molnupiravir can cause hundreds of mutations thereby “supercharging” the manufacturing of new Covid-19 viral strains. Moreover, according to a Forbes article, the drug’s mutagenic powers may also interfere with our own body’s enzymes and DNA. [11] Another Forbes article points out that Merck’s clinical trial only enrolled around 1,500 participants, which is far too “small to pick up on rare mutagenic events.” [12]

Molnupiravir has a poor efficacy rate across the board including viral clearance, recovery, and hospitalizations/death (68 percent). [13] One trial, funded by Merck, concluded the drug had no clinical benefit. [14] More worrisome, the drug also has life-threatening adverse effects including mutagenic risks to human DNA and mitochondria, carcinogenic activity and embryonic death. [15]

Each of these drugs have been outrageous cash cows for their manufacturers. Remdesivir is priced at $3,120 per treatment and earned Gilead $5.6 billion in sales for 2021.

Pfizer’s Paxlovid is priced at $1,390 per treatment. Last year, the company’s revenues for its Covid products - Paxlovid and the Comirnaty vaccine - came in at $12.5 billion, and, according to Fierce Pharma, Pfizer wrote off an additional $4.7 billion on its overstocked Paxlovid inventory. [16] Merck’s molnupiravir’s sales for 2022 cashed in almost $5.7 billion. Despite their profits, none of these drugs have been shown convincingly to have measurably lessened the pandemic nor the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Despite all the attention and medical hype about novel experimental antiviral drugs to treat Covid-19, Anthony Fauci and other federal officials had full knowledge that other FDA-approved drugs existed that could have been quickly repurposed at minimal expense to effectively treat Covid-19 infections. Repurposing existing drugs to treat illness is a common occurrence. The antiparasitic and antiviral drug Ivermectin best stands out. Its effectiveness was observed to be so remarkable and multifaceted that researchers started to investigate its potential for treating human diseases.

The mainstream media, including many liberal news sources who pride themselves on their independence, continue to channel the voices of Anthony Fauci, the CDC and FDA to demonize ivermectin and other generic drugs for treating Covid-19 and to reduce hospitalization and deaths. This propaganda campaign, however, has completely ignored the large body of medical literature that shows ivermectins statistically significant efficacy against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-2 infections.

Originally developed for veterinarian use, in 1987, the FDA approved ivermectin for treating two parasitic diseases, river blindness and stronglyoidiasis, in humans. Since then an enormous body of medical research has grown showing ivermectin’s effectiveness for treating other diseases. Its broad range of antiviral properties has shown efficacy against many RNA viruses such avian influenza, zika, dengue, HIV, West Nile, yellow fever, chikungunya and earlier severe respiratory coronaviruses.  It has also been shown to be effective against DNA viruses such as herpes, polyomavirus, and circovirus-2. [17]

Unsurprisingly, ivermectin’s inventors Drs. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.

It has been prescribed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Given its decades’ long record of in vitro efficacy, it should have been self-evident for Fauci’s NIAID, the CDC and the WHO to rapidly conduct in vivo trials to usher ivermectin as a first line of defense for early stage Covid-19 infections and for use as a safe prophylaxis.

For example, if funding were devoted for the rapid development of a micro-based pulmonary delivery system, mortality rates would have been miniscule and the pandemic would have been lessened greatly. [18] Repurposing ivermectin could have been achieved very quickly at a minor expense. [19] However, despite all the medical evidence confirming ivermectin\s strong antiviral properties and its impeccable safety record when administered properly, we instead witnessed a sophisticated government-orchestrated campaign to declare war against ivermectin and another antiviral drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in favor of far more expensive and EUA approved experimental drugs. Unlike the US, other nations were eager to find older drugs to repurpose against Covid-19 and protect their populations. A Johns Hopkins University analysis offered the theory that a reason why many African countries had very few to near zero Covid-19 fatalities was because of widespread deployment of ivermectin. In February 2020, the National Health Commission of China, for example, was the first to include hydroxychloroquine in its guidelines for treating mild, moderate and severe SARS-2 cases. Eight Latin American nations distribute home Covid-19 treatment kits that include ivermectin. [20] Why did the US and most European countries swayed by the US and the WHO fail to follow suit?

Very early into the pandemic, medical papers indicated ivermectin was a highly effective drug to treat SARS-2 infections.

In April 2020, less than a month after the WHO declared Covid-19 as a global pandemic, Australian researchers at the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity published a paper demonstrating that a single ivermectin dose can control SARS-CoV-2 viral replication within 24-48 hours. [21] Monash University’s Biomedicine Discovery Institute in Australia had also published an early study that ivermectin destroyed SARS-2 infected cell cultures by 99.8 percent within 48 hours. But no American federal health official paid any attention.

As of March 2024, a database for all studies and trials investigating ivermectin against Covid-19 infections records a total of 248 studies, 195 peer-reviewed, and 102 involving controlled groups reporting an average 61 percent improvement for early infections, a 39 percent success rate in treating late infections, and an 85 percent average success rate for use as a preventative prophylaxis . [22] Moreover, prescribing ivermectin reduced mortality by 49 percent, compared to remdesivirs 4 percent, Pfizer’s Paxlovids 31 percent, and molnupiravir’s 22 percent. Even hydroxychloroquine well outperforms these drugs mortality risk for early treatment at 66 percent.

A noteworthy study conducted in Brazil and published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science prescribed ivermectin in a citywide prophylaxis program in a town of 223,000 residents. 133,000 took ivermectin. The results for a population of this size are indisputable in concluding that ivermectin is a safe first line of defense to confront the pandemic. Covid mortality was reduced 90 percent. There was also a 67 percent lower risk of hospitalization and a 44 percent decrease in Covid cases. Garcia-Aquilar et al reports a Mexican in vitro analysis showing a definitive interaction between ivermectin and the SAR-CoV-2 spike protein, which would account for its high efficacy in Covid-19 cases. [23]

The All India Institute for Medical Science (AIIMS) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), two of India’s most prestigious institutions, acted against the WHO and launched an ivermectin treatment campaign in several states. In Uttar Pradesh there was a 95 percent decrease in morality (a decline from 37,944 to 2,014). The Indian capital of New Delhi witnessed a 97 percent reduction. During the same time period, the state of Tamil Nadu, which followed the WHOs ban on ivermectin, had a 173 percent increase in deaths (from 10,986 to 30,016 deaths).

There have been many concerted efforts to discredit ivermectin and other repurposed drugs’ effectiveness. Most notable is the large TOGETHER Trial Brazil study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that concluded both ivermectin and another repurposed drug fluvoxamine showed no beneficial signs for treating Covid-19 patients. The study was widely reported in the mainstream media. However, a Cato Institute analysis discovered the study in fact showed its benefits and the results were in agreement with 87 percent of other clinical trials investigating ivermectin. The Cato analysis identifies many odd anomalies in how the trial was conducted including an unspecified placebo - although it is suspected it was Vitamin C, which has itself been shown to be mildly effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and protocol changes as the study was underway including inclusion/exclusion criteria. By his own admission the TOGETHER Trial’s principal investigator Dr. Ed Mills at McMaster University in Ontario “designs clinical trials, predominantly for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” [24] In a McMaster University press release, the Gates foundation is listed as a funder for the study to debunk ivermectin and fluvoxamine. [25] Oddly, Gates is nowhere listed among the several funders in the NEJM study’s disclosure. In addition, TOGETHER Trials is owned by the Canadian for profit startup Purpose Life Sciences, founded by Mills; legal documents showed Mills’ PLS is largely funded and controlled by Sam Bankman Frieds FTX who invested $53 million into the project. Administrators of FTX’s bankruptcy are suing PLS for fraud. [26]

In short, the ivermectin/fluvoxamine TOGETHER Trial was a complete medical sham and intentionally designed for one single purpose: to fuel media disinformation in order to undermine ivermectins superior efficacy and safety profile to Big PharmaҒs more profitable designer drugs.

In 2004, the US Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This piece of legislature legalized an anti-regulatory pathway to allow experimental medical interventions to be expedited and bypass standard FDA safety evaluations in the event of bioterrorist threats and national health emergencies such as pandemics. At the time, passage of the EUA amendment made sense because it was partially in response to the 2001 anthrax attacks and the US’s entry into an age of international terrorism. However, the amendment raises some serious considerations.  Before the Covid-19 pandemic, EUAs had only been authorized on four occasions:  the 2005 avian H5N1 and 2009 H1N1 swine flu threats, the 2014 Ebola and the 2016 Zikra viruses. Each of these pathogen scares proved to be false alarms that posed no threat of pandemic proportions to Americans.  The fifth time EUAs were invoked was in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, which at the time seemed far more plausible.

Before the government can authorize an EUA to deploy an experimental diagnostic product, drug or vaccine, certain requirements must be fulfilled. First, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must have sufficient proof that the nation is being confronted with a serious life-threatening health emergency. Second, the drug(s) and/or vaccine(s) under consideration must have sufficient scientific evidence to suggest they will likely be effective against the medical threat.  The evidence must at least include preclinical and observational data showing the product targets the organism, disease or condition. Third, although the drug or vaccine does not undergo a rigorous evaluation, it must at least show that its potential and known benefits outweigh its potential and known risks.  In addition, the product must be manufactured in complete accordance with standard quality control and safety assurances.

When we look back at the government’s many debacles during the Covid-19 pandemic, other EUA requirements warrant the spotlight.  On the one hand, an EUA cannot be authorized for any product or intervention if there is an FDA alternative approved product already available, unless the experimental product is clearly proven to have a significant advantage. Moreover, and perhaps more important, EUAs demand informed consent. Every individual who receives the drug or vaccine must be thoroughly informed about its experimental status and its potential risks and benefits.  Recipients must also be properly informed about the alternatives to the experimental product and nobody should be forced to take it.

Finally, an EUA requires robust safety monitoring and reporting of adverse events, injuries and deaths potentially due to the drug or vaccine. This is the responsibility not only of the private pharmaceutical manufacturers but also the FDA, physicians, hospitals, clinics and other healthcare professionals.

Obviously important cautions must be considered after approving a medical intervention under the EUA requirements. Foremost are the inherent health risks of any rapid response of experimental medical interventions, especially novel drugs and vaccines.  As we observed during the FDA approval process and roll out of Pfizers and ModernaҒs mRNA Covid-19 jabs, no long-term human trials were conducted to even estimate a reliable baseline of their relative efficacy and safety. The American public has blindly placed its trust in our federal health authorities decision-making. It is expected that under a national health emergency, the authorities would be completely transparent and act only by the highest ethical standards. However our institutions betrayed public trust and either ignored or transgressed cautions underlying EUA approved medical interventions in every conceivable way.  Moreover, conflicts of interests have been discovered to have plagued the entire EUA review process. 

Although the EUA amendment provides some protections to authorized drug and vaccine manufacturers, it was the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) in 2005 that expanded liability protections. In addition to protecting private corporations, PREP also shields company executives and employees from claims of personal injury or death resulting from the administration of authorized countermeasures. The only exceptions for liability are if the company or its executive offices are proven to have engaged in intentional and/or criminal misconduct with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of those taking their drugs and vaccines.

During the pandemic, the FDA issued widespread EUAs with liability immunity for the PCR diagnostic kits for SARS-2, the mRNA vaccines and the anti-Covid-19 drugs. Curiously, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services invoked the PREP Act on February 4, 2020 giving liability protections; this was over a month before the pandemic was officially announced, which raises serious questions about prior-planning before the viral outbreak in Wuhan, China.

From the pandemic’s outset, Fauci embarked on the media circuit to promise Americans that federal health agencies were doing everything within their means to get a vaccine on the market because there was no available drug to clear the SARS-2 virus. As we have seen with respect to ivermectin alone, this was patently false. Rather the government placed an overriding emphasis on vaccination with a near total disregard for implementing very simple preventative measures to inhibit viral progression. Once mass vaccinations were underway, we were promised that the SARS-2 virus would be defeated and life would return to normal. In retrospect, we can look back and state with a degree of certainty that American health authorities and these products’ corporate manufacturers may have violated almost every EUA requirement. Everything that went wrong with the PCR kits, the experimental mRNA vaccines and novel drugs could have been avoided if the government had diligently repurposed effective and safe measures as pandemic countermeasures. Very likely, hundreds of thousands of lives, perhaps millions, would have been saved.

Similarly the FDA issued a warning statement against the use of ivermectin. Even ivermecti’s manufacturer Merck discredited its own product.  Shortly after ridiculing its drug, the Alliance for Natural Health reported, “Merck announced positive results from a clinical trial on a new drug called molnupiravir in eliminating the virus in infected patients.” [27]

And still the FDA considers these novel patented drugs to be superior to ivermectin. Favoring a vaccine regime and government-controlled surveillance measures to track every Americans movements, American health officials blatantly neglected their own pandemic policies’ severe health consequences. Ineffective lockdowns, MASKS, social isolation, unsound critical care interventions such as relying upon ventilators, and the sole EUA approvals of the costly and insufficiently effective drugs brought about nightmares for tens of millions of adults and children. This was all undertaken under Faucis watch and the heads of the US health agencies in direct violation of the EUA requirements to only authorize drugs and medical interventions when no other safe and effective alternative is available. Alternatives were available. Instead of awarding EUAs to HCQ, ivermectin, fluvoximine and other potential off-patent drugs, the government resorted to their pharmaceutical masters’ demands and the financial mills that feed the CDCs and FDA’s coffers.

The 4-year history of the pandemic highlights a sharp distinction between dependable medical research and pseudoscientific fraud. The CDC adopted a common Soviet era practice to REDINE THE VERY DEFINITION OF A VACCINE and the parameters of vaccine efficacy in order to fit economic and ideological agendas. This explains Washingtons aggressive public relations endeavors to silence medical opponents. According to cardiologist Dr. Michael GoodkinҒs private investigations, several of the most cited studies discrediting ivermectins antiviral benefits were intentionally manipulated in order to produce “fake results.” [28] These studies were then widely distributed to the AMA, American College of Physicians and across mainstream media to author “hit pieces” to demonize ivermectin and other repurposed drugs. The government’s belligerent and reactive diatribes, brazenly or casually advocating for censorship, were direct violations of scientific and medical integrity and contributed nothing towards developing constructive policies for handling a pandemic with a minimal cost to life. The consequence has been a less informed and grossly naive public, which was gaslighted into believing lies.

The FDA’s EUAs for the Covid-19 vaccines and novel experimental drugs were in fact an attack on the amendments and PREP directives. Neither the vaccines nor drugs warranted emergency authorization because effective and safe alternatives were readily available. No doubt a Congressional investigation would uncover criminal misconduct, and this misconduct and conscious fraud. Moreover, these violations of the PREP Act may have the potential to lead directly into medical crimes against humanity as outlined in the NUREMBERG CODE.

Although the Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or major medical association, other international treaties, such as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, the WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI (which is not legally binding), the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR) and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects incorporate some of Nuremberg’s main principles that aim to protect people from unethical and forced medical research. Although the US signed the ICCPR as an intentional party, the US Senate never ratified it. The ICCPR’s Article 7 clearly states, “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which can legally be interpreted to include forced medical experimentation implied as cruel, inhuman treatment.” Other ICCPR articles, 6 and 17, are also applicable to medical experimentation to ensure ethical conduct, obtaining proper informed consent and the right to life and privacy. For a moment, consider the numerous senior citizens in nursing homes and hospitals who were simply administered experimental Covid-19 vaccines without full knowledge about what they were receiving. And now how many children are being coerced by the pseudoscience of health officials’ lies to be vaccinated without any knowledge of these mRNA products risk-benefit ratio?

The US is also a signatory to the Helsinki Declaration, which, although not directly aligned with Nuremberg, shares much in common. The Declaration shares some common features with the EUA amendment and PREP Act. These include voluntary informed consent - which is universally accepted, adequate risk and benefit information about medical interventions, and an emphasis on the principle of medical beneficence (promoting well-being and the Hippocratic rule of doing no harm). It also guarantees protections for vulnerable groups, especially pregnant women and children, which the US government and vaccine makers directly violated by conducting trials on these groups with full knowledge about these vaccines adverse events in adults. In addition, weighing the scientific evidence to assess the risk-benefit ratios between prescribing ivermectin and HCQ over the new generation of novel experimental drugs conclusively favors the former.  This alone directly violates the ethical medical principles noted above.

However, the failure to repurpose life-saving drugs is less criminal than the questionable unethical motivations to usher a new generation of genetically engineered vaccines that have never before been adequately researched in human trials for long term safety.  This mass experimentation, which continues to threaten the health and well-being of millions of people, is global and can legally be interpreted as a genocidal attack on humanity.

If the emerging data for increasing injuries and deaths due to the Covid-19 vaccines is reliable - and we believe it is - the handling of the pandemic can be regarded as the largest medical crime in human history. In time, and with shifting political allegiances and public demands to hold our leaders in government and private industry accountable, the architects of this medical war against civilization will be brought to justice.

About the authors:

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research

Notes

[1] ‘Don’t do it’: Dr. Fauci warns against taking Ivermectin to fight Covid-19 [WEB]

[2] The World Needs Effective Covid Drugs as Ivermectin Persists [WEB]

[3] The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug [WEB]

[4] Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial [WEB]

[5] Dr. Anthony Fauci says Gilead’s remdesivir will set a new ‘standard of care’ for coronavirus treatment [WEB]

[6] Hepatocellular liver injury in hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19: “Presence of different risk factors at different time points” [WEB]

[7] The association between COVID-19 vaccination and confirmed patients with hospitalization in Omicron era: A retrospective study [WEB]

[8] COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectivenessthe elephant (not) in the room” [WEB]

[9] Drug Database: Ritonavir [WEB]

[10] 13 Things To Know About Paxlovid, the Latest COVID-19 Pill [WEB]

[11] Supercharging New Viral Variants: The Dangers Of Molnupiravir (Part 1) [WEB]

[12] Harming Those Who Receive It: The Dangers Of Molnupiravir (Part 2) [WEB]

[13] Comparative effectiveness of Paxlovid versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised patients: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform [WEB]

[14] Randomized Trial of Molnupiravir or Placebo in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 [WEB]

[15] Human genetic risk of treatment with antiviral nucleoside analog drugs that induce lethal mutagenesis: the special case of molnupiravir [WEB]

[16] As COVID sales crater, Pfizer takes $5.6B in inventory write-offs on Paxlovid, Comirnaty [WEB]

[17] Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen [WEB]

[18] Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against COVID-19 [WEB]

[19] Ivermectin as a Broad-Spectrum Host-Directed Antiviral: The Real Deal? [WEB]

[20| 8 Latin American Governments Distributed Ivermectin Without Evidence to Treat COVID [WEB]

[21] The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [WEB]

[22] Ivermectin for COVID-19 [WEB]

[23] In Vitro Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and Ivermectin Interaction [WEB]

[24] COVID-19: To treat or not to treat? Platform trials [WEB]

[25] New study to test drugs for early COVID-19 infection [WEB]

[26] TOGETHER Files 2: Lawsuit reveals FTX bought effective control of TOGETHER trial, part of SBF’s dream of a pharma empire [WEB]

[27] FDA Ensures Pharma Profits on COVID [WEB]

[28] Are Major Ivermectin Studies Designed for Failure? [WEB]

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 04/06/24 •
Section Revelations • Section NWO • Section Dying America • Section Fascism • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Robolawyer

image: robot lawyer
 
The specter of Robolawyers is nothing new - a quick Google search uncovers no fewer than 7.5 million results. However, this month, that Artificial Intelligence-powered phantasm becomes much more a reality, because in New York, “the world’s first robot lawyer,” powered by startup DoNotPay, is making its courtroom debut.
- Robolawyers Are Here

---

RoboLawyer: The Innovative Legaltech Firm Redefining Legal Aid

By Pecunio VC
July 26, 2023

In July 2023, the legaltech world saw a new entrant, RoboLawyer - a groundbreaking project from Quantum AI Labs FZCO, Dubai, that offers specialized AI lawyers from multiple countries and legal domains, providing immediate, affordable, and trustworthy legal assistance. Its mission? To revolutionize legal aid, leveraging AIs power to make it accessible, personalized, and instant for everyday individuals and businesses.

Legal Tech is a multi billion dollar market

Just two years prior, another legaltech company, LegalZoom, had its moment in the spotlight, going public and attaining a valuation of $7.35 billion. LegalZoom’s success stemmed from automating legal documentcreation, such as wills, trusts, business formations, copyright registrations, and trademark applications. This approach catapulted LegalZoom into the league of top legal services organizations by value, an impressive feat considering the companys relative youth.

Looking into the future of Legaltech

Like LegalZoom, RoboLawyer employs disruptive innovation, taking legaltech a step further. Where LegalZoom offers a self-service model for legal documentcreation, RoboLawyer delivers an even more innovative solution - a diverse roster of AI lawyers for instant, specialized, and affordable legal consultation. This model serves to address a wider range of legal needs, providing not just documentcreation but also legal advice tailored to individual cases.

RoboLawyerҒs Strengths

Personalized, Instant Legal Consultation: RoboLawyer\s AI lawyers deliver immediate advice based on each user’s unique situation, ensuring a tailored solution. Unlike traditional legal documentservices, the AI lawyer model delivers a more comprehensive and personalized service.

Global Reach & Specialized Expertise:

With a wide array of AI lawyers from multiple countries and legal domains, RoboLawyer provides specialized legal advice across different jurisdictions and legal fields. It transcends geographical boundaries, providing a more inclusive solution.

Affordability:

By leveraging AI, RoboLawyer makes legal consultation more affordable for everyday people. The cost savings over traditional lawyer fees open up access to legal advice to a much broader segment of society.

Data Protection & Privacy:

RoboLawyer ensures user data security, a critical aspect in the legaltech sector. Its robust encryption and stringent privacy policies guarantee that user information is handled with the utmost care and confidentiality.

RoboLawyer’s Edge over LegalZoom

While LegalZooms disruptive innovation lies in automating documentcreation, RoboLawyer takes the disruption a step further. By offering personalized AI legal consultations, RoboLawyer fills a crucial gap in the market - providing immediate, specialized legal advice to a wider range of users, anywhere, anytime. ItҒs not just about creating legal documents, but about enabling people to navigate complex legal scenarios with a trustworthy AI ally.

RoboLawyer’s success thus represents a natural evolution of the legaltech sector, expanding on the lessons from LegalZooms rise. It embodies the principle that good enough is often just that - good enough. By automating legal consultation processes, RoboLawyer keeps the cost to serve low, making legal advice more accessible and freeing individuals from the constraints of traditional legal help.

The story of RoboLawyer is a testament to the potential of AI in disrupting the legal industry, taking the benefits of legaltech beyond documentcreation to a holistic, personalized legal consultation experience. While LegalZoom demonstrated the power of automating traditional legal procedures, RoboLawyer highlights the further potential of AI - providing specialized legal advice thatҒs accessible, immediate, and affordable.

SOURCE

---

Robot “Lawyer” Defeats Illinois Law Firm in Federal Court

By T. Evan Eosten Fisher, Esq.
Find Law
December 6, 2023

DNP advertises itself as the world’s first robot lawyer” and sells subscription-based legal help through its website. A small law firm in Illinois, MillerKing, took several issues with DNP’s service and sued. The lawsuit, which alleged false advertising, unauthorized practice of law, and deceptive trade practices, was dismissed by a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois just before Thanksgiving.

Legal Services or Illegal Service?

The suit raised some novel questions about THE INTERSECTION OF AI AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW. The plaintiff firm alleged that many of DNP’s “clients” were dissatisfied with the service and had suffered from adverse outcomes after using the AI to help them with legal matters. As a result, they argued, the “robot lawyer” was injuring the goodwill associated with the services provided by legitimate lawyers. Moreover, the plaintiff firm properly pointed out that the DNP website’s AI is not licensed to practice law anywhere (and specifically not licensed in Illinois, where MillerKing doees its business).

The plaintiff firm alleged that DNP’s business activities violated the LANHAM ACT by creating a false impression that the robot” lawyer was actually affiliated with licensed attorneys or with the authorities that license attorneys to practice law. The lawsuit also alleged that much of the business that DNP claims to undertake, such as fighting traffic tickets and handling small civil claims, is work that would otherwise be performed by licensed attorneys, such as those who work at MillerKing.

In DNP’s defense, it claimed to provide only AI-based legal services and not legal representation, so it could not be considered a true competitor with a law firm like MillerKing. Readily admitting that the “robot lawyer” was not a licensed practitioner, DNP argued that it could not really be classified as an alternative to hiring a lawyer (regardless of how their services are advertised).

According to the pleadings, the AI-based legal services offered by DNP have generated big business. Using the claims of DNP and statements from its CEO as ammunition in the complaint, MillerKing argued that the company boasted of having a quarter-million subscribers and a valuation of over $200 million.

Litigator 3: Rise of the Machine Learning?

The federal court victory was not really a triumph of artificial intelligence of humans, however, because the AI “lawyer” was savvy enough to hire real lawyers to defend its case. DNP was represented by experienced attorneys from prestigious firms based in California and Missouri, and those actual humans made the argument that MillerKing failed to show that DNP’s service had caused any injury that would grant the firm standing to sue in federal court.

Although the judge did not endorse the use of robot lawyers or even conclude that such a service did not cause any harm, she did not find that MillerKing had suffered any particularized injury from the operations of DNP. Her decision noted the lack of evidence that any person chose DNP’s service instead of hiring a real attorney from MillerKing or that reputational damage to the legal profession as a whole had caused any damage to MillerKing.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution prevents litigants from sustaining lawsuits in federal courts without first showing that their claims have “standing,” a viable case or controversy that can be redressed by the court, and one requirement for standing is an actual or imminent injury. Essentially, regardless of whether the allegations of MillerKing’s suit were true, the case WARRANTED DISMISSAL because the plaintiff firm lacked standing to bring the suit without showing it faced a concrete harm.

DNP’s legal troubles are not necessarily over, however, as the company faces a separate federal lawsuit in California from a user who experienced poor results. One can be fairly certain, however, that DNP will not be litigating these matters on its own behalf; even a robot lawyer knows that any lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 12/13/23 •
Section Dying America • Section Workplace • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Monday, August 14, 2023

Sagan and Star Trek

image: universe
 
We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements - transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
- The Dumbing Down of America
 
My brothers and sisters, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.  Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves.  All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbors work, will become a cause for pride.  For all must carry their own loads.
 
Emotional contagion can occur at political rallies, in combat zones, in mass protests and revolutions, at public killings, or in ecstatic religious rites. Within families, emotional contagion can set the tenor of a household. A sensitive child may absorb a mother’s non-verbally expressed depression or a father’s pent-up anger and feel it as their own.
- Transforming Empathy into Compassion, Psychology Today
 
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh, but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all and especially for those of the family of faith.
- Galatians 6: 1-10
 
Emptiness and compassion go hand in hand. Compassion as transaction - me over here, being compassionate to you over there - is simply too clunky and difficult. If I am going to be responsible to receive your suffering and do something about it, and if I am going to make this kind of compassion the cornerstone of my religious life, I will soon be exhausted. But if I see the boundarylessness of me and you, and recognize that my suffering and your suffering are one suffering, and that that suffering is empty of any separation, weightiness, or ultimate tragedy, then I can do it. I can be boundlessly compassionate and loving, without limit. To be sure, living this teaching takes time and effort, and maybe we never entirely arrive at it. But its a joyful, heartfelt path worth treading.
- Thich Nhat Hanh

---

Cosmos 1980

Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group.

Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations.

We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together - surely a humanizing and character building experience.

If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth.

Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly thoe universe or nothing.

SOURCE

---

image: star trek

The Radical Politics of Star Trek

By Simon Tyrie
Tribune UK
August 14, 2023

Star Trek envisioned a world beyond capitalism, racism and oppression where technology is harnessed to end all forms of exploitation and injustice - its lessons remain as relevant as ever.

It’s the year 2364 and a tatty old space shuttle containing former Wall Street capitalist Ralph Offenhouse, who was cryogenically frozen in 1994, has just been discovered floating through space by a starship called the Enterprise-D. Upon waking, Offenhouse discovers that, although science has found a cure for his previously terminal illness, his bank accounts and investments have all gone. To his horror, not even his beloved The Wall Street Journal has survived the ravages of time.

A lot has changed in the past three hundred years, the ships captain Jean-Luc Picard tells him. ‘People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We’ve eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We’ve grown out of our infancy.’

It’s particularly striking that in a genre that trends towards bleak, dystopian futures, Star Trek is an outlier in science fiction for offering an optimistic vision for humanitys future. In fact, while it may be overly simplistic to say that Star Trek depicts a socialist society, its utopianism owes much to the ideas of Marx in that it imagines a future where collectivism triumphs, money is obsolete, and every material need is met.

Beyond Capitalism

Spaceship and its crew whose enduring mission is to ‘boldly go where no one has gone before’. But as Captain Picard explains in First Contact (1996), ‘The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.’

Instead of working just to live, humans are free to spend their time exploring the cosmos, or inventing, or making art - and sometimes doing all three. This optimistic view of human nature is in stark contrast to films such as Pixar’s WALL-E, which follows the right-wing line of thinking that achieving a post-scarcity society (solving what Keynes calls the economic problem) would lead to sloth and hedonism, and ultimately the demise of humanity.

In Star Trek, geopolitics is a thing of the past. Instead, there’s the United Federation of Planets, a United Nations-inspired organisation founded on the principles of liberty, equality, justice, progress, and peaceful co-existence, which is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and the universal enfranchisement of sentient life. It is a world in which economic conditions allow each person to contribute to society according to their ability and consume according to their needs.

Its worth noting here that Star Trek is a product of a political era that preceded the post-Fordist, neoliberal conditions, when different futures were not only imagined but contested. The Original Series aired between 1966 and 1969җa fertile period for the political imagination in spite of great unrest.

Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek’s creator, certainly subscribed to this optimism. He believed that humanity, rather than being doomed to self-destruct, was destined to evolve out of our political myopia. It was thanks to Roddenberry that The Original Series, though dated by today’s standards, was ahead of its time with its multinational, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender crew. Famously, the show televised the worlds first interracial kiss (in an episode banned by the BBC), and Martin Luther King once said that Star Trek was ‘the only show I and my wife Coretta will allow our three little children to stay up and watch.’

Today, Roddenberry’s flaws and hypocrisies are well documented. According to his last wife, Magel Barrett, he identified as a communist. But we know from the many accounts of his unethical business practices that he was also obsessed with making money. He preached peace and love but was infamously difficult to get along with. And he flew the flag for feminism while being a notorious womaniser. 

Rather than focus on Roddenberry the man, I find it more interesting to evaluate Roddenberry the salesman. When the show aired, there was widespread unrest; the US was being torn apart by race riots and anti-war protests; and the then very new and horrifying threat of nuclear Armageddon loomed large on the horizon. But rather than offer an extrapolation or exacerbationђ of these conditions, as culture is prone to do, Roddenberry saw the appeal of a brighter future.

Perhaps he recognised this appeal because he knew better than most HOW AWFUL humans could be.

When the show was rebooted in the 1980s, the political horizon was narrowing. Yet it was in this decade, just two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, that Star Trek became most notably Marxian. This was all thanks to the introduction of the \replicator’, a futuristic 3D printer that can create anything out of recycled matter, thus solving the problem of scarcity. So far, so science-fiction.

But in Star Trek, technology alone doesn’t bring about utopia. As we learn through the introduction of the Ferengi - an alien race whose culture centres around greed and profiteering - the socialisation of the replicator is a political choice. The Ferengi’s replicators are privatised, whereas replicators in the Federation are publicly owned.

While concepts such as warp-speed propulsion and teleportation remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, many of Star Treks technological predictions have materialised or are coming to pass - including the concept of 3D printing at the molecular level and the increasingly EXPLOITATIVE APPLICATIONS of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. What capitalism renders unthinkable is the politics behind technology: that developments in technology might benefit us rather than USHER IN further alienation.

Star Trek provides an antithesis to how capitalism predisposes us to view technology, allowing us to imagine what society might look like if technology were used purely for improving our quality of life. Instead of following this path, the morsels of convenience we’ve received through technological advancements are only enough to numb us to the realisation that weve become locked into a cycle of consumerism and surveillance capitalism.

Constructing Utopia

Another utopian aspect of Star Trek is its depiction of solidarity. Roddenberry had many ‘rules’ he insisted upon the show following, but his most infamous is what’s become known as ‘Roddenberry’s principle’: a mandate that conflict must never be between the main characters, only with external forces.

Roddenberrys argument was that, for the utopian conditions of Star Trek to be believable, the characters must represent the best of humanity. In the episode ґRemember Me, the ship;s doctor Beverly Crusher notes that crewmembers are disappearing. But each time a person disappears, they become forgotten by everyone else; to the rest of the crew, they never existed.

In a typical drama, this would be whats called a ґCassandra Truth plotline: the hero discovers a conspiracy, nobody else believes them, and so the hero has no choice but to solve the mystery alone. But in Star Trek, rather than treat the doctor as though she has lost her mind, the possibility that people are being erased from existence is taken seriously and investigated by her colleagues.

Instead of the showҒs drama revolving around interpersonal conflict, problems are overcome through teamwork, and very rarely as the result of one persons heroism. ItҒs one of the most unique aspects of the show; as viewers, weve come to expect conflict between characters to be one of the most fundamental aspects of drama.

There’s comfort in knowing that no matter the scale of the problem, you can trust the characters to communicate their thoughts and feelings, weigh the situation objectively, and work together. But more than comfort, Star Trek continuously offers examples of cooperation, conflict resolution, kindness and empathy that are in short supply in most modern dramas.

To me, this is perhaps the most radical element of Star Trek. In simply showing the possibilities of cooperation, the show offers something for us to all strive towards - and solidarity is no doubt the first building block required for constructing utopia.

Sci-Fi Optimism

When the time comes for the twentieth-century capitalist Ralph Offenhouse to return to twenty-fourth-century Earth, he’s at a loss. ‘What will I do? How will I live?’ he asks. ‘Whats the challenge?’ The problem is, Offenhouse has never allowed himself to imagine an alternative to capitalism. And to someone that has lived his whole life in a prison, there is nothing more daunting than being set free. Like the prisoner in PLATO’S CAVE, the instinct is to return to the darkness that hes accustomed to.

In a sense, we are all Offenhouse. We might not all suffer from his peculiar strain of capitalist Stockholm syndrome, but we all, naturally, struggle to imagine an alternative way of living. We all live under the same political system that snuffs out any threats to its existence by design, and it becomes harder to imagine an alternative each day that this system entrenches itself deeper into our lives.

Here lies the power of Star Trek. It’s easy to dismiss utopian science-fiction as escapist, as though capitalist escapism is a lower form of art realism, but what good does the constant reminder that everything is bad do for society? Negativity is hardly inspiring. And besides, as Gene Roddenberry recognised (politicians take note), optimism sells.

About the author: Simon Tyrie is a musician and activist from Luton. 

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 08/14/23 •
Section Revelations • Section NWO • Section American Solidarity • Section Spiritual Diversions • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Tuesday, May 02, 2023

NWO - Free Will In The New Order

image: birds flying in formation
 
The fact of the matter is that no volume of evidence, no matter how overwhelming, will ever be convincing enough if you are dead set in your presupposition that there is no divine source for the unimaginable complexity we observe in all living systems. As the Bible accurately states, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).
- Evolutionary Crisis And The Third Way, 2016
 
The story [BETTER THAN US] takes place in 2029, in a world where androids serve humans in various positions, even replacing them in many MENIAL JOBS. An advanced robot named Arisa is imported to Russia from China discreetly, within the CRONOS corporation. Arisa accidentally kills a man who tries to use her as a sex robot, and then flees. Her ability to kill humans shows she does not abide by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. Instead, she is designed to protect her family (which includes herself) by all means possible. She encounters a little girl (Sonia) and automatically bonds with her, making herself the child’s guardian.
- Better Than Us, 2018
 
What can possibly happen with the human species when the GOVERNMENT and BIG PHARMA are in charge?… Government intervention involving eugenicist practices in the past had suboptimal outcomes. If one looks to American, they can bear witness to the atrocities that resulted from nearly complete government control of practices like sterilization as thousands of citizens were sterilized because the state deemed them unfit to reproduce.
- Resurrecting The Snake, September 2022
 
The September 12, 2022 White House EXECUTIVE ORDER pledges R&D funds to the biotech industry to enable it “to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.” We may be glad of this implied admission that the biotech industry currently cannot “predictably program biology” nor effectively “write circuitry for cells,” as demonstrated by the ABJECT FAILURE of the COVID-19 INJECTIONS. But we may also be concerned that technocrats - who believe that such advances will be possible once they “unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence” - will, therefore, continue to use us as lab monkeys as they pursue impossible goals.
- The Perils of Coding Humanity: A Response to Transhumanism, October 2022
 

---

WEF Transhumanists will fail to hack humans because of the complexities of human nature such as free will

By Rhonda Wilson
Expose News
December 23, 2022

Transhumanists believe “humans are hackable animals” therefore democracy is impossible and we need to be hacked for our own good. But their ignorance is their Achilles’ Heel and they are certain to fail.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Transhumanist movement is more or less open about the fact that they want to trade our self-governed and representative democracies in for AI-managed surveillance systems that will ration resources and keep tabs on individual performances. And from the various promotional videos and speeches made by the WEF, we can gather that an Internet of Things and Internet of Bodies is slated to replace the functions of community and social and political structures.

But, in the essay below V. N. Alexander argues that WEF members have simplistic views of, not only human nature but also of ecosystems and societies.

One of the complexities that WEF members have failed to grasp is free will. Yuval Noah Harari, for example, seems to think free will is merely an output of what has been input into the machine - the machine is us. There is nothing in the machine to transform what is input. Instead, there is an algorithm in the machine that can be decrypted and reprogrammed = that can be hacked.  How wrong they are.

---

By V.N.Alexander

“Liberalism tells us that the voter knows best, that the customer is always right, and that we should think for ourselves and follow our hearts. Unfortunately, ‘free will’ isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology. Theologians developed the idea of “free will” to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices.” - Yuval Noah Harari

Although World Economic Forum (WEF) transhumanists may not have a unified ideology per se, we may look to Yuval Noah Harari, a WEF member who is a prolific writer and voluble frontman, to get a general sense of the assumptions held by that coterie of financial elites who think they can alter the course of human civilization, human evolution, and re-codify human rights.  While their grandiose narcissism verges on the cartoonish-ness of the comic book villain seeking world domination, we must, nevertheless, take their words and their plans seriously because their claims to ownership and/or control of monetary systems, communication infrastructure and natural resources do, unfortunately, lend them quite a bit of power over us - at the moment.

What is the WEF Transhumanist movement? Although their stated objectives are cloaked in tones of benevolent concern, they are more or less open about the fact that they want to trade our self-governed and representative democracies in for AI-managed surveillance systems that will ration resources and keep tabs on individual performances. The proposed tools for this include, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), Social Impact Investing, and gamified software for education, health monitoring, welfare recipient monitoring, and job skills training. As HARARI argues in an ESSAY in The Guardian, liberal democracy and the belief in free will are “dangerous, because governments and corporations that have access to everyone’s digital histories will soon “know you better than you know yourself” and they will be able to “hack” you, put ideas in your head, get you to buy bad things and vote for bad people. Without supplying a rationale, he adds, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will.”

In contrast, the ones who know they can’t think for themselves, Harari further argues, will be saved by their personalised AI babysitters. In Hararis future world, there will be no God dangling the carrot or brandishing the stick, but there will be an all-seeing AI that does. What “we need,” he goes on, is “an antivirus for the brain. Your AI sidekick will learn by experience that you have a particular weakness - and would block [it] on your behalf. The obvious alternative solution, fully protecting privacy and making data collection by governments and corporations illegal without full informed consent, [1] seems not to have occurred to Professor Harari.

From the various promotional videos and speeches made by the WEF, we can gather that an Internet of Things and of Bodies is slated to replace the functions of community and social and political structures. In the future, researchers will develop Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMI) that will monitor, and eventually help cause, our thoughts and actions as well as diagnose and treat any mental health conditions. We will be ushered into Smart Cities (think luxury Borg condos). While the countryside is left to re-wild (for the pleasure of oligarchs on safari), agriculture will move into laboratories, and we will be fed synthetic chicken, wormburgers and LED-grown medicated lettuce in exchange for doing some kind of work that will probably involve operating mining robots or drones using Virtual Reality (VR) headsets. I wish I were exaggerating for comic effect, but these are the kinds of programs being promoted by the WEF and in Klaus Schwab’s book, THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

Despite the Transhumanists’ claim that they strive to augment human abilities with new technologies, the kinds of hacks they’ve offered so far are mostly negative. It’s relatively easy to maim, disable, block, traumatise, and propagandise; it will be a little difficult to figure out how to use a BMI to make us smarter or to read our thoughts so we don’t have to type or speak. As Neuralink’s recent “show and tell” revealed, the company’s progress is so far underwhelming. As HUMAN TRIALS NEAR, the infection risk associated with implanting a device into a paraplegics brain to help him operate a smartphone does not seem justified to me. Why go through all the trouble (and brain surgery!) to detect brain activity of motor control (e.g., moving the eyes), then to use AI to pick out the signal from the noise, and then turn the signal into clicks on a screen, when the person could more easily operate a computer interface with voice commands?

It may be that the architects of the Transhumanist revolution actually believe that AI-augmented and AI-managed society will be a big improvement, more efficient, more objective, equitable and inclusive, free from the biases and prejudices that plague the human species. But it’s worth noting that these kinds of plans have never turned out well in any of our culture’s science fiction explorations. Perhaps none of the WEF members have ever read MARY SHELLY or ORWELL and have never seen a BLACK MIRROR episode.

A Historical Perspective on the Idea of Free Will

Harari promotes himself as an innovative and modern thinker, working to free us from medieval superstitions.

Its 2022.

Medieval theology was revised with the de-centering discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo and that theology was adapted to fit Newton’s findings and that was adapted even to Darwinism (in New England Transcendentalism) and that to the Big Bang theory (Fiat lux!), and so forth, on down to the Vatican Observatory exploring the idea of divine quantum cosmology and etc., etc. Theologies are quite capable of adapting to every new scientific conception of determinism and chance that comes along. I am not religious, but I have respect for the many scholars who have grappled valiantly over the millennia with the difficult question of how we do seem to have free will even in a universe that is determined by either fate, God, physics, natural selection, or quantum foam.

Because Harari is still trying to debunk medieval theology, the closest conceptual relative to his notion of free will is found among 18th-century Enlightenment philosophes, who critiqued the medieval church and thought that free will is an illusion. I note that Harari rejects the liberalism birthed by the Enlightenment, mainly because he thinks technology has made their approach to safeguarding individual rights (e.g., elections, free markets) obsolete.

One of the most exemplary figures of that period is mathematician Pierre Laplace, who famously said that - I’m paraphrasing here - if we knew the position and velocity of every atom at the beginning of time, we could predict every event that follows, even human actions, which are just the outcomes of chemical interactions ruled by the laws of physics.

Echoing Denis Diderots fictional hero, JACQUES THE FATALIST, Harari tells us:

“Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc.”

Harari seems to be saying that a human body is like an instrument through which forces pass without being transformed by the organisational structure of the body. Input = output and nothing is interpreted by the “machinery” that is you. Harari seems to assume that living organisms are like computers and can be manipulated (hacked) in predictable ways. Repeatedly in talks, articles and books, he suggests that a personҒs cognitive program can be altered - by external forces, information, or chemistry - because there is nothing “inside” the person to counter or alter those forces. There is no ghost in the machine. Instead, there is an algorithm in the machine that can be decrypted and reprogrammed.

While Laplace lamented that a human consciousness did not exist that could calculate the mind-boggling number of interactions that would be necessary to predict human actions, today’s Transhumanists are hopeful that supercomputers - equipped with AI that is fed with mountains of Big Data on every digital move we’ve ever made - are now close to possessing the processing power to predict outcomes precisely. If those with access to such computers can predict what people will do, they can control them.  (Cue the maniacal laughter sound effect.)

Maybe not.

In 1961, Edward Lorenz was using a computer to make predictions about the weather, and he found that if he made a tiny “insignificant” change to the input, the output changed drastically, all out of proportion to the small change. To model the weather is to try to model a complex system, whose dynamics are non-linear; your ability to predict such a system’s outcome does not improve in proportion to the amount of data you input. So Bigger and Bigger Data and faster and faster processing isn’t going to improve prediction and control as much as the Transhumanists hope. Biological systems are infinitely more complex than weather systems, so with Lorenz’s discovery of “deterministic chaos,” any hope that one would ever be able to accurately predict and thereby precisely control a human being’s actions had to be abandoned. In 1986, non-linear dynamic systems researchers, Crutchfield, et al. published a watershed ARTICLE entitled, “Chaos,” in Scientific American, in which they expanded on Lorenz’s findings, arguing that, even if the universe were entirely deterministic (and it most likely is not), complex biological processes are inherently unpredictable - due to the way they internally process information - and thus, ultimately, they are uncontrollable, except in trivial ways.

In the article, Crutchfield et al., like theologians before them, also grapple with the question of free will and how it relates to determinism and chance. They conclude:

“Innate creativity may have an underlying chaotic process that selectively amplifies small fluctuations and moulds them into macroscopic coherent mental states that are experienced as thoughts. In some cases, the thoughts may be decisions, or what are perceived to be the exercise of will. In this light, chaos provides a mechanism that allows for free will within a world governed by deterministic laws.”

There followed many decades of research investigating free will in the terms of self-organisation and complex systems science. As I have noted ELSEWHERE, many neuroscience researchers describe how chaotic attractors and/or emergent travelling waves provide the differentiation in spatial patterns that underlie working memory and attention. Such findings by no means settle the question of free will. Science is never settled. Arguments about the nature of free will will continue as long as humans are around.

Even as I claim that human beings very likely do have some kind of capacity for making their own idiosyncratic choices, I also note that it is painfully obvious that people can be manipulated. In the last couple of years, with horror, we vaccine apostates have LOST THE ABILITY TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. [2] At a chemical level, what has probably happened to these traumatised people is that the vagus nerve, which was activated in a state of fear, triggered the release of norepinephrine, which FLOODED THE AMYGDALA AND LOCKED IN MEMORIES. Whatever kinds of associative memories are formed in such a situation, for example, the repeated claim that an experimental “vaccination is the only solution” to a virus with a relatively low fatality rate, will be a strong persistent memory, even if irrational. This process of strengthening memories associated with dangerous situations is a very useful tool of our evolved biology that has been hijacked (hacked) by those applying false information under a kind of torture. But the fact that people can be manipulated with something immaterial like false information just shows how people’s thoughts are not wholly determined by material reality. We can be deceived. We can also be physically forced into doing things we don’t want to do; we can be coerced, bribed or drugged. Our mental capacities can be damaged by illness. We can become addicted to our own habits. There are many ways in which our ability to think and act reasonably and for our own good can be compromised. This in no way means that free will has no scientific reality. It just means that we are part of the world we live in and we are affected by it.

Free will is not about not having any constraints. FREE WILL IS MORE ABOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. Being free is not an all-or-nothing property. It’s a constant negotiation. The term we want is really agency, not free will. Not thinking can even be part of how we exercise agency. Most of the time, during our daily activities we’re on autopilot. We can drive our cars without really thinking, even react intelligently in a split second by putting on the brakes when we see red lights ahead. Subconscious auto-thinking can also switch off when we encounter a new situation that we don’t have a mental habit for, which allows us to learn something new.

Maybe the tragedy that we are currently suffering through is due to the fact that too many people put themselves on autopilot, OUTSOURCING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING DECISIONS for themselves and their children to trusted authorities. Unfortunately, thinking for yourself requires a lot of work. And no one else can do it but you.

Whenever I find myself in a crowd of protesters who are all yelling, “freedom, freedom, freedom!” I yell, “responsibility!” My cry doesn’t work as well as a chant, but IMHO, it does work better as a description of what we probably all want. We don’t want the freedom to do whatever the hell we like, selfishly.  We want the personal responsibility that comes with being free to question, research, discuss, decide and act. Likewise, we dont have the right to do with our children whatever we want; we have the responsibility to protect their health and wellbeing.

In a word, the phenomenon of free will is today understood as emergent from biological constraints, relations, and, what I would call, self-made luck. [3] Harari claims that the concept of free will has only ever been based on the notion of a pre-existing essentialist nature that is “independent of all physical and biological constraints.” Although Professor Harari is a historian, he has apparently only read the CLIFFSNOTES for AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO and Thomas Aquinas, and even less of complex systems science. 

Conclusions

The objective of this essay is not to win a philosophical debate against Harari. In fact, it’s better for us if all the WEF members continue in their simplistic views of, not only human nature but also of ecosystems and societies. Their ignorance is their Achilles’ Heel. It allows them to believe it is possible to achieve top-down control over a complex system like the planet and all its inhabitants. They are certain to fail. The danger is, of course, that they will take us down with them. Catastrophic change is already underway with regard to our food supply and health systems. We have limited time to position ourselves to save as many people as possible. But we do have a chance.

A complex system like human society, interconnected in so many ways, maintains itself to a great degree automatically by self-organisation (and to a lesser degree by conspirators). The role of habit in maintaining the system and suppressing change cannot be overstated. To implement technocratic totalitarian rule, the Fourth Industrial Revolutionists won’t be able to just fine-tune the present system; they will have to take down the system that they have corrupted and abused to get to their positions of power. That will leave them vulnerable. If they want us to become dependent on their lab-grown food rations, they will have to sink shipping, lose food processing plants to suspicious fires, outlaw fossil fuel agriculture and slaughter the herds in factory farms. So many aspects of the economy and society hinge upon the present system that when it is disassembled, it will be a devastating shock. We can expect chaos. The outcome will be impossible for them to CONTROL, even with all their economic powers. During that time of chaos, we will have as much of an OPPORTUNITY as the WEF, if not more because there are so many more of us, to pivot to LOCAL food production, regenerative grazing and permaculture farming.

Many of us have already switched to local foods, decentralised education (like home schooling for kids and IPAK-EDU for adults) and have left the industrial-pharmaceutical-medical complex. The people’s revolution has already begun. Don’t look for any leaders to think for us or to tell us what to do.

Sign up for V. N. Alexander’s course at IPAK-EDU: THE PERILS OF CODING HUMANITY: A RESPONSE TO TRANSHUMANISM.

About the Author:  VN ALEXANDER, PhD, works on the philosophy of creativity and art-science topics. She is a member of the distinguished group of researchers, the Third Way of Evolution. Her work on novelist Vladimir Nabokov’s contributions to the theory of insect mimicry has been widely recognised, and her award-winning literary fiction novels include, SMOKING HOPES (1996), NAKED SINGULARITY (2003), and LOCUS AMNUS(2015). Alexander is currently writing a political satire novel, COVID 1984, THE MUSICAL.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 05/02/23 •
Section Revelations • Section NWO • Section Spiritual Diversions • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Sunday, April 23, 2023

Ask An AI Chatbot

image: chatbot

Did you watch 60 MINUTES LAST SUNDAY?

No?  Check out the story of Google’s AI on Youtube HERE.

WE MAY LOOK ON OUR TIME as the moment civilization was transformed as it was by fire, agriculture and electricity. In 2023, we learned that a machine taught itself how to speak to humans like a peer. Which is to say, with creativity, truth, error and lies. The technology, known as a chatbot, is only one of the recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence—machines that can teach themselves superhuman skills. We explored what’s coming next at Google, a leader in this new world. CEO Sundar Pichai told us AI will be as good or as evil as human nature allows. The revolution, he says, is coming faster than you know.

What he’s doing, since 2019, is leading both Google and its parent company, Alphabet, valued at $1.3 trillion. Worldwide, Google runs 90 percent of internet searches and 70 percent of smartphones. But its dominance was attacked this past February when Microsoft unveiled its new chatbot. In a race for AI dominance, Google just released its version named Bard.

They’re not sentient. They’re not aware of themselves. They can exhibit behaviors that look like that. Because keep in mind, they’ve learned from us. We’re sentient beings. We have beings that have feelings, emotions, ideas, thoughts, perspectives. We’ve reflected all that in books, in novels, in fiction. So, when they learn from that, they build patterns from that. So, it’s no surprise to me that the exhibited behavior sometimes looks like maybe there’s somebody behind it. There’s nobody there. These are not sentient beings.

After watching the show I asked one of those online AI chatbots: How do we end poverty in a capitalist society like the United States?

It wrote back:

Ending poverty in a capitalist society is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. Here are some potential steps:

1. Increase the minimum wage: One way to combat poverty is to raise the minimum wage so that people can earn a living wage.

2. Implement a progressive tax system: A progressive tax system would ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, and this revenue could be used to fund social programs to assist those in need.

3. Strengthen social safety net programs: Programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF are designed to help those struggling financially, but they need to be strengthened and expanded to provide greater support.

4. Create job training programs: Job training and education programs can help individuals acquire skills that lead to higher-paying jobs and ultimately move them out of poverty.

5. Encourage the growth of small businesses: Small businesses are critical to economic growth, and policies that support entrepreneurship and small business development can create jobs and stimulate economic activity in low-income communities.

6. Invest in affordable housing: Affordable housing is a key component of poverty reduction, and investment in this area can help families remain stable and secure.

7. Address systemic inequality: Systemic inequality, including racism and discrimination, must be addressed to create a more equitable society that provides equal opportunities for all.

Pretty good.

I can back up all seven points:

The value of the federal minimum wage has reached its lowest point in 66 years… Last July marked the longest PERIOD without a minimum wage increase since Congress established the federal minimum wage in 1938… After the longest period in history without an increase, the federal minimum wage today is worth 27% less than 13 years ago - and 40% less than in 1968.
- Worthless Minimum Wage, July, 2022
 
The raison de’tre for taxing the 99% for Social Security and Medicare is simply to avoid taxing wealth, by falling on low wage income at a much higher rate than that of the wealthy. This is not how the original U.S. income tax was created at its inception in 1913. During its early years only the wealthiest 1% of the population had to file a return. There were few loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income.
- Austerity American Style Part 5 - Selling Out The Public, 2012
 
Americans have never really experienced anything but austerity. America has never invested in itself as a society - building robust public goods, like a national healthcare system, transport network, retirement system, safety nets, and so on. From the time of Jefferson to Reagan to Obama, America has been a society in which people have been told to compete viciously against one another - instead of SIMPLY PROVIDING EACH OTHER the things they are competing for, healthcare, retirement, income, jobs, and so forth.
- Austerity American Style Part 17- An American Invention, 2018
 
[E]mployers often expect fully trained, expert employees to show up at their doors. It’s one thing to have an uneducated workforce; ITS ANOTHER to look at job candidates with potential who need on-the-job training and say, “They aren’t skilled in what we need.”
- Can’t Find A Qualified US Worker Redux 8, 2018
 
Return the corporate tax rates to what they were in our recent past. Honor small business by instituting payroll tax forgiveness for up to the first $20,000 of wages, for both the employee and employer. This would return close to $ 1500 a year to each worker, tax free. The small business owner would have saved up to $ 1500 for each employee.
Solutions to Save Our Nation, 2019
 
In starkly unequal urban regions, the wealthy bid up the price of close-in, conveniently located real estate. Rising prices force middle-class families to move farther out from job centers to find affordable housing.
- The World Without The Rich, 2020
 
By refusing to address the root causes of America’s rot, by failing to pump life back into the democratic institutions that once gave the citizen a voice, however limited, and make incremental and piecemeal reform possible, by not addressing the severe economic and social inequality and dislocation that afflicts at least half the country, the anomie and ruptured social bonds that gave rise to a demagogue like Donald Trump will expand. The American empire will not staunch its disintegration. The political deformities will metastasize.
- Imagining a Real American Rescue, 2021

Next question: Is socialism the next step from capitalism?

Chatbot:

As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future or make political assertions. However, socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates for collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Capitalism, on the other hand, is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and individual profit.

Whether socialism is the next step from capitalism is a matter of debate among scholars and policymakers. Some argue that capitalism has inherent flaws that can only be addressed by transitioning to a socialist economic model, while others believe that capitalism can be reformed to address these issues. Ultimately, any decision regarding the future of economic systems would require careful consideration of multiple factors, including social, economic, and political realities.

Next question What will people do when robots take over our jobs and we’re all unemployed?

Chatbot:

As automation and robotics continue to advance, it is true that some jobs may become obsolete, but there will also be new jobs created in the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence, programming, and other emerging technologies. It is important that people adapt and reskill themselves to stay ahead of the rapidly changing job market.

Additionally, governments and societies may have to consider implementing new policies such as Universal Basic Income or other social welfare programs to support people who are unable to find jobs due to automation. This will provide a basic level of financial security to individuals and families.

There may also be a shift towards more creative and entrepreneurial careers as machines can’t replace the human ability to innovate or create original ideas. Industries like the arts, entertainment, and design may see an increase in demand.

Ultimately, while the future is uncertain, it is important to remain informed and adaptable to ensure we are prepared for changes in the job market.

We better be prepared.

A new buzzword in HACKING HUMANITY is you and I becoming the useless-class:

Harari peels back the curtain masking transhumanisms Wizard of Oz promises, suggesting that even before the singularity, robotics and machine intelligence will make the masses into a new “useless class”.

I like the idea of being free, rather than the massive EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS that seems to get worse as the years go by.

Pretty soon ROBOTS ARE GOING TO DO A LOT MORE WORK that people used to do.

Then what?

If political corruption and crony capitalism continue - were doomed.  The multinationals will replace most of us with robots, the one percent will take all the profits, and poverty will grow faster than ever for the rest of us.

It doesn’t have to be that way.  Imagine if after getting a bunch of robots on the production floor, employers realize they only need half of us.

Instead of firing 50% of their workforce, they cut the hours of all their workers in half, while keeping their salary and jobs.  They still get their profits, but the rest of society gets 20 more hours leisure time.

This can happen if SINS OF EXCESS can be LIFTED from our hearts, starting with the rich, influential people who own and run the world - clinging to lusts for greed, power and control.

Imagine a world where robots do all the work, and we’re all free to be and do whatever we want?

Next question: How do we as a society overcome evil?

Chatbot:

As an AI language model, I can offer several suggestions on how to overcome evil as a society:

1. Promote education: Education is a vital tool in the fight against evil. By educating individuals about the consequences of their actions and showing them alternative paths, we can help prevent evil acts from occurring.

2. Encourage empathy: Empathy can help people understand and relate to others, leading to more compassion and understanding. This can be achieved by promoting social connections and encouraging individuals to put themselves in other people’s shoes.

3. Create accountability: Holding individuals accountable for their actions can deter them from engaging in evil behaviors. This can be accomplished through laws and regulations that punish those who commit unjust acts.

4. Foster community: Building strong communities where people feel supported and cared for can reduce instances of evil. By bringing people together and promoting kindness, we can create a sense of belonging and reduce feelings of isolation that can lead to negative behavior.

5. Role models: Individuals who exhibit positive behavior and promote moral values can serve as role models for others. By highlighting their actions and encouraging others to follow their lead, we can create a more positive society.

Overall, it will take a collective effort to overcome evil in society, and these strategies can serve as a starting point to promote positive change.

Pretty good.

Posted by Elvis on 04/23/23 •
Section Revelations • Section Science
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Statistics

Total page hits 13233922
Page rendered in 7.1962 seconds
41 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3645
Total Comments: 341
Most Recent Entry: 06/16/2024 08:48 am
Most Recent Comment on: 06/14/2023 06:21 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 9
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 588 on 01/11/2023 03:46 pm


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a governmet manipulated by the rick to protect the amenities represented by their property. - Harold Laski

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

June 2024
S M T W T F S
           1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Most recent entries

Must Read

RSS Feeds

BBC News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Favorites

BLS and FRED Pages

Reference

Other Links

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights