#pathogen

EU commissioned pandemic comic book scarily accurate

Infected

In 2012, the EU commissioned and published a comic book titled ‘Infected‘. It tells the tale of the magic of unelected globalists saving the world from a pandemic. It is eerily close to what we are experiencing today, apart from the fact that unelected globalists have bungled the response as evidenced by the resignation of the EU’s top scientist who criticised Brussel’s response to the Covid-19.

On page 3, the comic starts out inside a lab in China experimenting with deadly pathogens which have no cure. We are assured in the following pages as to the security, safety and surveillance measures in place to avoid any outbreak of a virus.

On page 5, a time traveller goes back to warn them of the catastrophe in the future caused by a pandemic. He seems to be wearing a suicide vest which actually holds vials of the vaccine which can save the planet.

On page 11, evil capitalists look at ways of exploiting the virus to profit from a pandemic. One individual working with an underworld group wants to sell the vaccine to the highest bidder among pharmaceutical manufacturers. He guns down the armed escort holding the captured time traveller (who was time warped inside the secure lab) to get hold of a test tube so they can sell it for mass manufacture.

On page 20, the comic sets the scene of an interview with the UN Special Envoy on Influenza, Pandemics, Food Security and MOI, Mr De La Mancha in a wet market in Asia. He tells a group of reporters that we can trace the origin of most pandemics back to animals which are then spread unknowingly by people jet-setting around the world.

Our fearless UN envoy is suddenly attacked by a monkey who scratches  his skin and infects him. Hours later he starts seeing the effects of the virus from his hotel room. De La Mancha knows he must ‘self-isolate.’ Unfortunately, before he could do so so it spread to the camera crew and journalists who flew home.

On page 35 our time traveller tells de la Mancha’s assistant, Chang Wenling, about the future where the media reports that the international health organisations failed to act quickly enough to prevent the spread.

On page 37 the comic book tells of how self-isolation led to depression and that after years of lockdown people started to break the law and meet up with each other.

Chang and the time traveller fly to Asia to find de la Mancha to give him the vaccine and he is saved. He reports back to the globalist bodies to convince them of his recovery. The globalists at the EU and UN then pat themselves on the back and talk of ‘One Health’ and the importance of it.

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy says to the journalists assembled,

One Health belongs to its actors and builds upon existing capabilities and resources: key political actors, UN technical agencies, the World Organisation for Animal Health, regional bodies, academia, development partners and others. Its success will depend on flexible networking…

One journalist questions the additional burden on the EU taxpayer. She replies,

One Health is not about adding an additional layer of external actions – which would indeed require additional funding. It is basically about working for health in a more integrated way and thinking differently at the policy-making and planning stage.

The comic ends with virologist Chang falling in love with the time traveller. She is heartbroken with the prospect that he must return back to where he came from soon only to learn that it was a one-way journey and that he’ll die before he was born. They embrace and kiss.

How strange that fiction in 2012 has turned out to be so real. Had the EU commissioned this comic in 2018, we can be assured the comic wouldn’t have been approved unless the time traveller had been non-binary asylum seeker instead of a a blonde haired, blue-eyed white hetero toxic male. Don’t scoff. Marvel Comics has already headed down the path of identity politics with its latest characters, Safespace and Snowflake.

Experts inside YouTube ride roughshod over medical opinion

Erickson

The video of Bakersfield-based microbiology experts, Drs Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, discussing a contrarian view on COVID19 that YouTube took down is still available on this link.

In what world are we living where a video channel prioritises a groupthink generated political opinion that overrides medical experts who have based their findings on available hard data, not wildly inaccurate models? The video was taken down for a ‘violation of community standards.’ You can read the YouTube statement here.

We would understand this if the doctors had no medical training and were pushing wild conspiracy theories. They simply weren’t. All that happened was a sensible presentation of data coupled with opinions based on their background as microbiologists. They think the fears have been overblown.

If you listen to the dialogue, the hard data confirms what we had been saying about the statistics of the pandemic. The doctors compared the data of an open Sweden vs a closed Norway and concluded the data discrepancies of COVID19 were statistically insignificant.

Many of our readers know we are contrarians by nature. We are more curious about what we might be missing rather than just accepting what is commonly reported. When opinions support the data, it isn’t an exercise in confirmation bias. We are genuinely interested as to whether the arguments sound convincing enough to validate them. We are even more concerned when the other side of the debate seek to shut it down rather than expose the flaws in Erickson and Massihi’s thinking.

Is the dissenting view more widespread than the media given credit for? After all the data is a moving feast. We are learning about COVID19 on a daily basis so sticking to the thinking of 2 months ago may not be relevant if the course shifts. Why are governments setting fixed future dates? Why not open up when the data supports it? Hardly any science in politically driven decision making.

An ER doctor in Wisconsin confirmed Drs Erickson and Massihi’s view that it isn’t about science. He wondered why someone in a hazmat suit was taking his temperature when there were next to no patients inside, something that is borne out by the data with so many beds available. Should we fear politics more than the pandemic?

Are governments following a herd mentality which uses poorly interpreted data as opposed to considering herd immunity based on medical science? The economic fallout will likely be way worse than any impacts of the virus itself. As we wrote earlier this week, governments carry zero responsibility for their actions because they can hide behind telling us it was for our own good. We bear the lot in terms of consequences. A terrible equation.

We believe that groupthink is the more dangerous pathogen in society. Whether financial crises or topics such as climate change, dissenting voices have repeatedly been terminated, especially by media outlets. Surely if the data sits with the prevailing sentiment, why not pick the bones out of Erickson and Massihi’s statement and debunk it with more prescient facts? In what world does it help to suppress information? Defeat data with data. This is why we remain contrarians.

The medical discussion surrounding the live clinical data of Erickson and Massihi makes plausible sense. We have all grown up learning that a baby gnawing a dog lead helps its body work out how to fight future infections. The doctors argue that keeping people locked down decreases one’s immunity to fight against COVID19.

The Bakersfield doctors believe that preventing the body from being able to combat coronavirus by not being exposed to it could have the opposite of the intended effect when people start to mingle again. Many people may not even know they have it. So when those people who caught it in a supermarket could restart the process. Does the government return to lockdown again and restart the negative loop?

These doctors claimed to have done the majority of testing for Kern County, California. The data backs up what is being experienced around the world positive test rates for infection are far higher than what is being reported but the death rates are way lower. Having said that, these two owners of seven clinics noted (some might argue somewhat selfishly) that the amount of people getting tested is way lower than their installed capacity. Irrational fear has been keeping people away. Then we are surprised when the natives get restless?

The two doctors recommend putting kids back into school. Slowly reopen other businesses and eventually sporting venues. The doctors questioned how it is OK to go to Costco but not a small cafe. It is reverse logic. There is a far higher exposure in a large business than a local cafe.

The adverse economic impacts don’t match the behaviour of the coronavirus in their opinion. Until a vaccine is found, the human body has the best chance of defeating it. Erickson and Massihi argued that 94% of the people recorded as dying from coronavirus had comorbidities – heart failure, immunodeficiencies, HIV etc. The death toll related to COVID19 alone is a speck.

The doctors added that there has been a sharp rise in domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, depression or mental health issues during the stay home orders. The campaign of fear exacerbated by the media is viewed as a far bigger problem than the coronavirus itself. Massihi suggested that people are becoming afraid to see the doctor for completely non-virus related reasons for fear of catching COVID19 by going to seek medical help. He argued that someone with symptoms of appendicitis avoiding the doctor for fear of contracting coronavirus may die of sepsis.

We don’t pretend to be doctors for a second. We offer no medical opinions here. We merely question why a social media channel decides it knows better than medical experts?

We understand a private business has the freedom to act in ways it sees as best for shareholders, but this seems far more sinister –  using its power to shut down free speech. Perhaps the doctors should sue YouTube for violating their first amendment rights. If there was ever a need for control over media censorship, this makes a great test case.