Granny-
Engineering management is said to be primarily about herding cats. And - I’ve done engineering management. And I’ve been an engineer that has definitely required a fair amount of herding. I required so much herding that my boss decided to make me a manager. So I’ve seen both sides of the coin.
google “herding cats engineering management”. It really is a thing.
https://herdingcats.sevdrag.com/2019/02/21/engineering-management/
I am not an herbalist, just know a little. Oriental herbs are rarely taken alone, usually combined in complex formulas depending on oriental diagnosis. This virus has different expressions in different people, so the formula has to match the condition expressed at that time. As the condition changes, hopefully towards healing, the formula changes. It is a lifetime study. More complex than western herbology. Functional, holistic not anatomical medicine, a different paradigm. I do not know of any books, but plumdragonherbs.com. may be able to help you.
I took a look at the website and the burrito article as well. I like the person/s’ mission statement but couldn’t find anything about their credentials.
It sounds like you did (“…One section of a VERY well written article by an expert.”)–can you advise what their credentials are and please point out where you found them on the blog?
What’s with the “if you have a question or a different opinion, you must be a troll” folks? Is the goal for this forum to become an echo chamber, where everyone has to toe a/the party line?
Academics are used to handling comments and criticisms of their work, that’s how science works. Admittedly it’s supposed to be peer review, at least in journals, but those academics who write for the general public surely also expect some questions? Some "what about"s, or “have you thought about it this way?”, or seen that article? That’s not trolling, that’s how debate and discussion, learning and advancement of knowledge (especially in science), work. If someone asks a question, they are keen to hear an answer, and academics (or teachers) are usually pleased, keen to explain further and to point out parts of their argument that might need further clarification or emphasis. And finally, perhaps, agree to disagree.
Sadly, I’ve recently seen people who asked a question here being told to leave!
Dear Chris Martenson,
some weeks ago I stumbled over one of your YouTube Videos covering Covid-19 pandemic. Since then I’m looking your videos on a regular basis. I’m working as an IT admin, so I’m not an expert on virology or pandemics. It’s only the common sense and lots of information what can help me to find the right way. Just I’m reading an article from the german Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg, an internist and pulmonary physician, specialist for hygiene and environmental medicine as well as for public health and social medicine. He is one of the people who say that Covid-19 is not more than a flu. But wait, his arguments are noteworthy. So he can explain why there are these hotspots of high Covid-19 death rates like NewYork, England/Wales or Italy. His explanations would rehabilitate some of the critics and alerters in the ranks of cardiologists regarding Hydrochloroquine. As this drug could be deadly for people with G6PD deficiency. Please have a look at his article and I’m curious about your assessment.
Here you’ll find the article:
https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives
Please excuse my poor english.
Kind regards
Michael
Hey Confuzia and SteCool101:
I read carefully through the posts you two provided on this subject: “Was Covid-19 Human Made”. What a waste of my time. You didn’t cite a single piece of evidence or even reasoning to support the idea that this virus was produced by nature. You just cast aspersions on the evidence provided by Chris and his motivations without engaging with the evidence at all.
My career experience in scientific and engineering research and as an expert witness tell me that you two can’t cite any evidence because you don’t have any evidence.
As the lawyers like to say: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”
You two did a lot of table-pounding.
If you have any evidence to back up the idea that this virus came from nature, please post it. I for one would like to believe that this is something Gaia did to us, not something that we did to ourselves through our own arrogance and stupidity. So far, it looks like arrogance and stupidity have the weight of the evidence on their side.
TROLL ALERT!
Glad you liked this video Les. I did too. 20 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIW3TQpVJYs
In the above video, a neuro-biologist J. J. Couey (J.C.), U of Pittsburgh, does an informal style review of the evidence Chris talks about in his above podcast of May 2. Most of JC podcast is video recorded point of view while he rides his bike across town. He includes links.
Most specifically, JC focuses on the fallacy (strawman argument) given by Michael Olsterholm (a famous virologist/academic) when interviewed on the Joe Rogan show. (“If our computer model didn’t come up with the new binding site motif then it can only be a naturally evolved virus.”) Just like Chris does, he points out that there are multiple ways to nudge nature into a more lethal, more transmissible and new-species-adapted virus. He gives examples and includes the papers. It is 100% clear that an academic virologist will also know of these other ways. Hence, I am certain that Olsterholm is lying.
Another case where finding the cover-up reveals the lie underneath it.
JC is a colleague and friend of the author of the author of “No monkey ever reheated a frozen burrito” paper from Harvard2TheBigHouse mentioned above.
It seems this is very murky water. On the one hand there are those saying it was manipulated and on the other those saying natural. The circumstantial evidence certainly points to manipulation. On the other hand lots of virologists are saying it is natural.
I am not a scientist so I have to rely on the best evidence available.
My question is how do we arrive at clear unequivocal proof one way or the other?
Supposedly the genome was mapped and published from China so that everyone could see it. Is it possible to tell from that info if it was monkeyed around or not? There was a video of a Dr. Petrova from the Czech Republic in which she said she had studied it said it was a “mess”. It was something she had not seen before in nature. She could not say one way or the other.
I think the info Chris posted in the comments that were not in the video were very good. It certainly appears the case for manipulation is pretty strong.
Perhaps it is time to get a video happening with a few virologists to discuss this in a detailed way.
The video is by Susan Weiss a virologist with 40 years experience studying coronavirus. She gives a very good presentation but actually leaves a lot of questions unanswered. She says there is no evidence this came from the lab, but does not say it didn’t. She does get into the furin cleavage issue which is pretty interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlnUt9vK3-Q&feature=youtu.be
SP-
That was an utterly compelling video by a really smart guy who knows how to do a scholarly takedown.
Worth 20 minutes. People in the field knew in 2011 this was a baaaaad idea. And yet - NIH continued to fund it. In China, no less.
And as you said, by the subject matter expert deciding not to mention this common-for-them technique of modifying viruses, that’s a coverup. If there had been no crime, then there would be no need for a coverup. They’re all in on it. The field is just that small.
It was all fun and games, until a million people lost an eye.
A follow-on thought. If we can get these people to testify before Congress, then it is possible that this wasn’t a plot. If these guys start to have weightlifting or light plane accidents and/or committing suicide, then we can probably conclude this was something much more nefarious.
As interested bystanders in Hamilton, Canada, we spent our Saturday night going through Deigin’s very long original article and very long update. His conclusion is either or. His best suggestion to us amateurs is for independent investigators to sequence the 2013 Yunan bat virus samples cited by the Wuhan IV, with a view to determining the integrity of its reporting from that point. https://medium.com/@yurideigin/ab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
Two thumbs up for your Covid19 reports.
George Vance, PhD
Sonerous said,
Sadly, I’ve recently seen people who asked a question here being told to leave!That refers to me, and that is not what I said. What I said was this;
So, stop with the drama. As emphasized well in later post by Dr. Bruce Dale... what SteCool and others are offering is not argument but rather contentless drivel. Trollish behavior. Chris pointed out that his message is under attack on different fronts, which most of us understand to mean that he is getting close over the target. If you can't distinguish real content, real arguments, from trollish efforts to disrupt, then you are not going to be much help in the crowd-sourced search for truth that PP.com represents. Now to ML346. Although his comment could be construed as counter to the pro-HCQ agenda that I push so hard here... I do not consider his comment as necessarily the work of a troll. I will assume he/she is a genuine character who is seeking to understand some flack being thrown out against HCQ regarding G6PD deficiency. I will therefore engage with ML346 and we can have a good ole' PP.com dialogue. Here it comes... ready? Remember we are talking about some theoretical chance of a bad reaction vs. a well proven 95% reduction in death rate for the elderly as well as younger people with obesity and those being treated for hypertension. Bottom line, G6PD is a nothing burger;SteCool.. add something of value to the conversation, or leave.
https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/hydroxychloroquine-is-not-associated-with-hemolytic-anemia-in-glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase-g6pd-deficient-patients/ABSTRACT NUMBER: 741
Hydroxychloroquine Is Not Associated with Hemolytic Anemia in Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G6PD) Deficient Patients
Samya Mohammad, Megan E. B. Clowse, Amanda Eudy and Lisa Criscione-Schreiber, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
Meeting: 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual MeetingDate of first publication: September 28, 2016
Keywords: Hydroxychloroquine Background/Purpose: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is frequently used to treat autoimmune diseases. The HCQ package insert and online drug information resources report an increased risk of hemolytic anemia in patients with G6PD deficiency. However, no published studies quantify this potential risk, and the genetic forms of severe G6PD enzyme deficiency are very rare in the United States. A single abstract reported a 170 chart review, finding one G6PD deficient patient on HCQ with no adverse event. Through a retrospective chart review, we aimed to quantify the percentage of G6PD deficient patients with clinically significant hemolysis attributed to HCQ. Methods: The Duke Medicine IRB granted approval for this study. We used a clinical search engine (Duke Enterprise Data Unified Content Explorer [DEDUCE]) to identify all patients who had a clinical visit with Duke Rheumatology, HCQ usage, and a G6PD level checked at Duke Health since 1996. A retrospective chart review was performed on all identified patients, recording demographics, G6PD levels, laboratory values consistent with hemolysis, etiology of hemolysis, and outcome of HCQ use. Data were analyzed using simple statistics. Results: Two hundred seventy five patients met inclusion criteria by having a prior G6PD level and a prescription for HCQ. Our study population included 232 (84%) females and 43 (16%) males; 126 (46%) African Americans, 131 (48%) Caucasians, and 18 (6%) others. The leading diagnoses included 88 (32%) patients with lupus, 80 (29%) patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and 37 (14%) patients with other forms of inflammatory arthritis. Of the 275 charts reviewed, 11 (4%) of patients were G6PD deficient. The G6PD deficient patients had a total of 711 months of exposure to HCQ. One of the 11 G6PD deficient patients (9%) was found to have sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (TMP/SMX) induced hemolysis prior to the initiation of HCQ. This patient was later started on HCQ with no clinical adverse events noted. In 3 of 11 G6PD deficient patients, HCQ was discontinued: one after discovering G6PD deficiency (< 3 months HCQ exposure), one self-discontinued (24 months HCQ exposure), and one discontinued by hematology due to neutropenia (108 months exposure). Of the 264 patients with normal G6PD levels, 14 (5%) had hemolytic anemia at some point, caused by TTP (n=4), autoimmune hemolytic anemia (n=9), and pure red cell aplasia (n=1). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date evaluating G6PD deficiency with concurrent use of HCQ. Among 11 patients with G6PD deficiency, only 1 had evidence of hemolytic anemia, induced by TMP/SMX prior to successfully tolerating HCQ for SLE without further hemolysis episodes. In this cohort, no G6PD deficient patients developed hemolytic anemia attributable to HCQ during 711 months exposure to the drug. These data do not support routine G6PD level measurement prior to initiating HCQ therapy.
is that they are on the receiving end of government grants, and Fauci holds their purse strings, so they bray the party line.
Years ago I worked, briefly, in a lab doing computer aided drug design. One of the reasons I left was that it became clear to me that the top scientists I worked for were driven by profits not truth. One time I went to them and explained that the molecules we were modeling didn’t fit and wouldn’t work as intended (for drug design purposes) they told me to keep trying, in order to get the results the client wanted, even though it was clear, computationally, it wouldn’t work. In other words, they didn’t care so much about the scientific results, but in keeping the grant money. I have known more than one scientist driven by ambition and greed.
Someone like Fauci, who has climbed to the top of that world power structure and stayed there over thirty years, doesn’t get there without being extremely ambitious, and even compulsive and ruthless. I think he and others, like Gates, who are driving this dangerous game, think they can just keep playing it and damn the consequences, because they are furthering progress.
“Oops, a genetically modified virus leaked out and killed hundreds of thousands and bankrupted the world! Oh well, time to roll up our sleeves and work on a vaccine!”
and on their merry way they go, marching confidently into their idea of the future. It’s why I referenced Hannah Arendt’s phrase"the banality of evil" to describe the phenomenon of someone like Fauci. From wikipedia:
“She, like others, was struck by his (Eichmann’s) very ordinariness and the demeanor he exhibited of a small, slightly balding, bland bureaucrat, in contrast to the horrific crimes he stood accused of. He was, she wrote, “terribly and terrifyingly normal”. She examined the question of whether evil is radical or simply a function of thoughtlessness, a tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without a critical evaluation of the consequences of their actions. Arendt’s argument was that Eichmann was not a monster, contrasting the immensity of his actions with the very ordinariness of the man himself… She pointed out that his actions were not driven by malice, but rather blind dedication to the regime and his need to belong, to be a joiner.”
I think people like Fauci and Gates, are “terrifyingly normal” in that they are blindly and confidently dedicated to their regime of scientific progress and vaccine research. They are willing to further this dangerous gain of function research, despite the cataclysmic risks it poses… because they can. They are members of an elite powerful club. Now they are in the world spot light because of it and hailed as heroic leaders by the ignorant masses.
They are more like Eichmann than J Robert Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer was the"Father of the Atomic Bomb" who had the insight and humility to realize what horror he had unleashed upon the world, and famously said of it: “Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.”
We have now passed the Atomic Age and have entered the Age of Virology.
I value the many valuable and insightful contributions from some commentators in this thread, amongst a sea of off-topic dross.
I am nevertheless troubled by what appears to be a complete absence of any response to the central theme of Chris’s video, “Bombshell! Covid-19 lab-made. Fauci connected”. No Bombshell here, or any where else for that matter!
Chris presents us documentary evidence that the US NIAID “off-shored” the dirty work of playing god and engineering the SARS COV 2 virus to China, and nobody can add 2 and 2 and admit the Covid-19 pandemic originated in the good ol’ USA.
Establishing criminal negligence (malfeasance) in public officc by NIAID would require proof that NIAID was well aware that it was literally impossible to guarantee that the experiments it funded presented NO THREAT WHATSOEVER that humanity would be subjected to such as this very pandemic. That’s a no-brainer, in’t it?Of course they knew they were playing the odds with all our lives! And patently, whatever steps NIAID did take to mitigate these risks, it simply wasn’t possible to eliminate then entirely. As history has taught many times.
So why the deafening silence in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and across the world about this? Why am I not hearing Americans shouting from the rooftops that their own country has spent their money to become the root cause of this global tragedy?
The evidence of alleged criminal negligence by NIAID in causing this pandemic is on the public record. Why haven’t America’s most popular TV personality, Dr Fauci and his cronies been indicted?
I was thinking yesterday of exactly the analogy you painted for us… i.e. the parallels between the scientific discovery of the atomic bomb and what has now (seemingly) happened in the realm of virology. You brought the idea to written life better than I could have : )
I have not been able to follow these threads in the recent weeks as closely I had in the beginning of all this, so I am unsure if I missed any new information with regards to how long Covid-19 lasts on surfaces. I know the standard number of days for rotating masks is 9 days. And I also remember the report that came out in April from the New England Journal of Medicine which said 24 hours for cardboard and 3 hours in the air. Yet that did not seem to change the opinion about giving 9 days for rotating masks. So I have continued to let packages, mail, non-perishable groceries, etc… sit for at least 9 days before handling them (using the precautionary principle of erring on the side of most caution until there is solid evidence that the precautions are not needed). Those living with me are frustrated with these measures, so I wanted to check if I am missing anything: if any info has come along to suggest less than 9 days is adequate.
Thanks for the response. I am looking for something more concrete in terms of science.
Alaska has started to open up again. So far I have gotten my hair done, gone shopping at a 2nd hand store and gone out to dinner and had a much needed margarita. It is wonderful to feel normal again.
Doctor’s can start performing out patient surgeries like knee surgeries and Dentists can perform needed procedures as well. Provided - a/the patient gets a Covid-19 test within 48 hours of the procedure and it’s negative. If, of course the test results are not ready within the 48 hours they would have to be done again, Supposedly. It may be a problem for outlying areas to get the test done and meet the 48 hour turn-around time. Oops didn’t meet the deadline then stick that test stick up your nose again and reschedule your appointment for round two. I suspect there may be problems with this new plan. Especially due to our geography and transportation challenges. Teeth cleaning do not require a test.
Emergencies will not require testing before treatment.
Hey, remember when you could schedule something and actually count on having it happen? Yeah, me too. Welcome to the world of “iffy/maybe”.
Something tells me people are not going to want that test stick shoved up their nose every time some entity wants you to prove your health, wellbeing and status.
Time will tell. Big Brother awaits.
Are you willing to be routinely tested?
AKGrannyWGrit