Connect with us

Uncategorized

A New “Brave New World”

A New "Brave New World"

Authored by Raw Egg Nationalist via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

For the past century, it’s been a mainstay…

Published

on

A New "Brave New World"

Authored by Raw Egg Nationalist via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

For the past century, it’s been a mainstay of the science-fiction genre: the medicated society—a society in which the majority of the population is given some form of drug to alter their behaviour, ostensibly for the better.

(Lapina/Shutterstock)

The most famous example of the genre is, of course, Aldous Huxley’s novel "Brave New World," published in 1932. In Huxley’s vision of the 26th century, the drug Soma is used to ensure the obedience of the lower classes of a “perfect” eugenic world where people are bred specifically for the social function they perform.

More recently, in the Christian Bale film "Equilibrium" (2002), the citizens of a totalitarian city-state must take an emotion-killing drug as a means to prevent war. Those who refuse to take the drug, called Prozium, are labeled “sense offenders” and are violently hunted down and sentenced to death by a special caste of “clerics.” Art, literature, and any expression of human emotion and creativity are prohibited.

Science-fiction writers return again and again to these scenarios because they raise fundamental questions about the nature of authority and social control. In doing so, they also ask us to question what it is that makes us truly human.

Would it be desirable to eliminate human imperfection with something as simple as a pill? Would the loss of certain “negative” or “destructive” aspects of our humanity be justified by the net gain to social order and the reduction in suffering? And would it be better to try to persuade ordinary people to surrender these aspects of themselves voluntarily for the greater good, or would an “enlightened” class of rulers have every reason to force people to do so, perhaps even without their knowledge?

The dramatization and the fictional settings shouldn't blind us to the fact that such possibilities are very real. Very real—and very close. Just how close has been revealed by new figures from Public Health Scotland, which show that more than a million men and women, close to a quarter of Scotland’s adult population, are now being prescribed anti-depressants, powerful drugs with wide-ranging effects on mood and physical health. This probably makes Scotland the nation with the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the world. In the United States, by contrast, around 15 percent of adults are on anti-depressants, which is still, by any metric, a lot.

It’s not just anti-depressants that Scots are swallowing in record numbers. According to figures published by the Mail on Sunday, more than a third of Scottish adults are now being prescribed drugs from one of five broad classes associated with mental health issues. This includes a further 200,000 adults taking benzodiazepines, which are prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, and 190,000 who take gabapentinoids. Another 130,000 adults are given so-called z-drugs (such as zopiclone and zolpidem), and more than 800,000 are on opioid-based pain medication.

A situation like this doesn’t emerge overnight. It’s taken decades for Scotland to reach this point. The problem was already bad enough in 2007, when the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP) first came to power, that the government made a pledge to reduce the country’s dependency on anti-depressants. Instead, the figures have risen every year since. By 2010, 630,000 adults were taking anti-depressants, and an extra 390,000 were added over the next 12 years. There’s no reason to believe the trend won’t continue.

Politicians are now asking serious questions. Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament Maurice Golden told the Mail on Sunday: “The sheer number of prescriptions being issued for depression and anxiety in Scotland is astonishing. The fact it has risen so considerably requires urgent and serious attention from the Scottish Government.

“There was a time when the SNP pledged to reduce the rise in these prescriptions, but it has only ever gone in this direction since.”

So why is this happening? A representative from Scotland’s Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr. Jane Morris, suggested it may simply be due to increased public knowledge of mental health issues and the treatments on offer.

“We’d like to think public education and awareness of the treatability of mental illness means that more people are coming forward,” she told the Mail on Sunday.

On this view, the number of people suffering from depression would be fixed, more or less: All that actually changes is how many people decide to seek treatment. We’re supposed to conclude, then, that at least a quarter of the adult population of Scotland has always been depressed. You don’t need to be an expert to have serious doubts that this could ever actually be the case. Dr. Morris did at least acknowledge that “increased prescribing may now reflect a rise in Scotland’s need for mental health treatment.”

Getting to the bottom of the problem is likely to prove difficult. And the difficulties are only made more acute by the fact that anti-depressants don’t really work.

The state of depression research is shockingly limited. Even after decades of scientific study, there’s still no evidence that the dominant chemical explanation for depression—serotonin deficiency—is true. And yet the doctors of Scotland, and doctors throughout the Western world, continue prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (“SSRIs”) on the assumption that serotonin levels are the issue.

Many studies have shown that anti-depressants are barely more effective at improving mood than placebo. The improvement is so small that some scientists argue it’s really non-existent. Access to these minimal benefits is also unevenly distributed among users. A large-scale meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal, considering data from 232 studies of anti-depressant use dating back to 1979, showed that just 15 percent of users experienced an improvement they would not have derived from the placebo, with the remaining 85 percent gaining no benefit from their use.

Those who should supposedly benefit the most from anti-depressants—sufferers of severe depression, comorbid anxiety, and suicidal thoughts—may actually benefit the least from their use. Most clinical trials of anti-depressants deliberately exclude these people, resulting in misleading claims being directed at the drugs’ main target consumers.

If Scotland is facing an enormous mental health crisis, and there’s no reason to believe it isn’t, anti-depressants are unlikely to be the answer. Their blanket use is just complicating matters further. Not least of all because they introduce a range of unpleasant side-effects, ranging from widely publicized loss of libido and sexual function, to gastrointestinal problems, dizziness, insomnia, headaches, loss of or increase in appetite, and even suicidal ideation and self-harm, especially in the early stages of use.

But, more fundamentally, our reliance on drugs that don’t really even work is preventing us from understanding the root causes of depression and devising new ways—real ways that work—to address them.

This is a textbook case of what the philosopher Ivan Illich called “iatrogenesis,” or “medically caused harm.” In his famous book "Medical Nemesis" (1975), Illich argued that the growing medicalization of society is having the paradoxical effect of making us less and less well. In particular, what medicalization does, according to Illich, is reduce our capacity to respond to our problems of health and well-being in suitable ways.

When we see illness simply as an issue to be solved by technical interventions—with pills, injections, and surgery—administered to us by an anointed class of experts, we lose the ability to see illness on any other terms, as anything else. Like, for example, the product of a mismatch between our nature as human beings, stretching back 200,000+ years, and the very different social world we now inhabit. There’s no pill or surgery that can cure that.

I make the case repeatedly in my work that the modern industrial diet, consisting of more and more processed food, and our unprecedented exposure to harmful industrial chemicals are making us deeply unwell, including causing a precipitous decline in markers of reproductive health such as sperm counts and testosterone levels. I think depression is part and parcel of this too. In the last few weeks, new research has shown, for instance, that consumption of processed food, especially products containing artificial sweeteners, can increase depression risk by up to 50 percent, and that elevated exposure to phthalates, a class of ubiquitous chemicals found in everything from personal-care products to plastic bottles, can significantly increase the risk of post-partum depression in new mothers.

There's still much investigation to be done of what's clearly a very complex issue. But we would be fools not to heed the warnings of the thinkers who have shown us, on the page and on the screen, the dangers of a world of total medication. If we really want to do something about the massive rise in depression, in Scotland or anywhere else, we must face the possibility of a new Brave New World: one in which pills are not the answer to all our problems.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/13/2023 - 23:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Incest Is Best? The Economist Says Copulating-Cousins Cool “In Most Cases”

Incest Is Best? The Economist Says Copulating-Cousins Cool "In Most Cases"

With America facing population collapse thanks to a pandemic which…

Published

on

Incest Is Best? The Economist Says Copulating-Cousins Cool "In Most Cases"

With America facing population collapse thanks to a pandemic which compounded already-shrinking birth rates, petrified young men who don't want to get #MeToo'd for trying to get past 1st base, and record numbers of young Americans identifying as anything but heterosexual, The Economist wants you to know that it's "probably fine" to bang your cousin, which they also note is "illegal in 25 American states."

After a dig at Kentucky for a 'quickly withdrawn' proposal to remove "first cousin" from the state list of incestuous family relations, the article goes on to 'ackshually' explain that the risk of genetic mutations among the offspring of first cousins is 'greater' than non-incest relations, however 'the increase is quite small.'

Justifying 'kissing cousins' further, The Economist suggests that it's unfair to prevent incest because "Many other couples face far higher risks of genetic complications for their offspring, and those unions are not banned," such as people with recessive genes for certain disorders, such as sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, their offspring has a 25% chance of being born with that disorder, "Yet those marriages are allowed."

"The law against first-cousin marriage is a major form of discrimination," said University of Washington Department of Medicine Director of Genetic Counseling, Robin Bennett (M.S., CGC, (she/her)).

Robin Bennett, not a PhD, who says it's fine to bang your cousin

According to Bennett, "the risks are very low and not much different than for any other couple."

The Economist then goes on to let us know that 'the Bible does not directly ban sexual relations between cousins,' ("how else would all of mankind have descended from Adam and Eve?" they write), though "The Roman Catholic Church did later prohibit first cousins from marrying, though exceptions were made for a fee."

That said, there are limits, even for The Economist...

Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary biology, who married his first cousin in 1839, was reportedly conflicted about his own arrangement. The Darwins had ten children, but three of them died during childhood and three of his surviving children never had any offspring with their spouses. Some historians surmise that the children suffered from genetic abnormalities due to their parents being closely related—the families of Darwin and his wife had a long history of intermarriage.

Yet despite the fairly low genetic risk for most couples, the “ick” factor prevails in Western culture. The family dynamics can be difficult to explain to others. Many consanguineous couples choose to keep quiet, says Ms Bennett. For this reason it is difficult to know how many of these couples exist in America. -The Economist

Maybe the plan is to either get people banging their cousins, or keep the border open while praising Biden's amazing 'jobs recovery'?

Also 'probably' just fine?

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/17/2024 - 20:25

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Exchange Rate Pass Through into Import Prices, CPI

Justin Ho of Marketplace discussed the implications of the import/export price release Thursday. My view was that pass through into import prices was low…

Published

on

Justin Ho of Marketplace discussed the implications of the import/export price release Thursday. My view was that pass through into import prices was low in the short run, and even in the long run was not very large, while pass through into the broader price index was unlikely to be large. Not sure I was alone in this view, but here’re my thoughts.

Figure 1: Import price ex-fuel (blue), nominal trade weighted US dollar exchange rate (up is depreciation) (tan), both in logs, 2020M02=0. NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, Federal Reserve Board via FRED, NBER, and author’s calculations.

The variables are defined so that one anticipates the two variables to comove positively. In fact, there is not much of a correlation apparent in (log) levels. Since both series are nonstationary, it makes sense to estimate in log first differences. Sampling the data as end-of-quarter, and estimating the regression from 2002Q1-2023Q4 (with four lags of exchange rate), one gets the long run pass through coefficient at about 0.3 (ignoring any other factors like domestic slack and measures for exporting country costs). The adjusted R2 is 0.41. Note that, as in previous studies, the estimated pass through is much less than unity, which makes sense given that most imports are invoiced in US dollars.

Figure 2: First log difference in Import price ex-fuel (blue), nominal trade weighted US dollar exchange rate (up is depreciation) (tan). NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, Federal Reserve Board via FRED, NBER, and author’s calculations.

For comparison, Bussiere, della Chiaie and Peltuonen (2014) estimate the long run pass through at about 0.35 for the United States, over the 1990-2011 period. Results from the earlier 2006 Fed survey, discussed here.

What about for broader indices? For the PPI for tradable industries, the estimate is about 0.3 for 2013-20 in Amiti et al. (2022), but  0.7  for 2021, suggesting the pandemic era exhibits different behavior.

What about the impact on the broader indices? Mattschke and Sattiraju (2022) argue dollar appreciation/depreciation have very little impact on PCE inflation. Pointing out that only about 10% of a core consumer basket involves imported goods. (Oil prices denominated dollars, when they rise, are another matter.)

A caveat is in order. In the above literature, the exchange rate is taken as largely exogenous, not completely implausible given the large unpredictable component of nominal exchange rates. That being said, as Forbes, Hjortsoe and Nenova (2018) and Ha, Stocker and Yilmazkuday (2020) notes, the types of shocks (demand, monetary, supply) matter as well. For advanced economies, Ha et al. find the average exchange rate pass through into the CPI to be about 0.10.

 

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

RFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex

RFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex

Authored by Debbie Lerman via The Brownstone Institute,

The…

Published

on

RFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex

Authored by Debbie Lerman via The Brownstone Institute,

The Wuhan Cover-Up and the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (Skyhorse Publishing, December 3, 2023) is a crucial book for understanding how the Covid catastrophe happened. 

I would even go so far as to argue that RFK, Jr.’s new book is the most important Covid chronicle to date, although it ends at the beginning of 2020, before most of us were even aware that a “novel coronavirus” was circulating among us. 

The book explains the CAUSES of the global disaster, which all happened before March 2020. Everything after that are the downstream EFFECTS of what The Wuhan Cover-Up exposes.

Here’s how RFK, Jr. summarizes those effects:

Everyone has now seen that pandemics are another way for the military, intelligence, and public health services to expand their budgets and their power. In 2020, public health, defense, and intelligence agencies weaponized a [Covid-19] pandemic, resulting in unprecedented profits to Big Pharma and the dramatic expansion of the security/surveillance state, including a systemic abandonment of constitutional rights—effectively a coup d’état against liberal democracy globally.

(Kindle edition, p. 385)

Putting Covid in the Biowarfare Context

Interestingly, in the publicity blurb on the book and in interviews about it, RFK, Jr. focuses on “the etiology of the gain-of-function research” and everything that led up to a virus being engineered in a US-funded lab in Wuhan by a group of Chinese and Western scientists.

At the core of this story is RFK, Jr.’s desire to warn readers about the dangers of gain-of-function research, which he shows in the book to be irrefutably a biowarfare – not a public health – endeavor.

But in the process of constructing the argument and supplying the proof for his dire warning, and for his assertion that this type of research should be stopped immediately and forever, RFK, Jr. provides what I find to be an even more compelling story.

The story in the Wuhan Cover-Up that interests me is the rise of the biowarfare-industrial-complex – the global behemoth comprising military/intelligence alliances, Big Pharma, Big Tech, academic and medical institutions, and NGOs – that both created the virus known as SARS-CoV-2 and ran the global response to it.

In this article, I will highlight key parts of The Wuhan Cover-Up that pertain to this storyline – which I believe are downplayed in its publicity materials and are one of the main reasons it has been practically banned from polite society: The book has been so heavily censored that I cannot find a single actual review on Google. Newsweek reported that independent bookstores do not want to carry it. 

A lot of the censorship has to do with mainstream animosity toward RFK, Jr’s presidential campaign. But the explosive content of the book, as reviewed in this article, is also likely a factor.

Top-Level Summary of the Rise of the Biowarfare Industrial Complex, as Told by RFK, Jr.

  • The biowarfare industry started to grow after WWII, when Western intelligence agencies imported Japanese and German scientists to help develop weapons against Communist enemies. This was, in fact, the first task of the newly formed CIA.

  • After 9/11, funding for bioweapons research exploded, and so did the power and reach of the military and intelligence agencies in charge of such research. The research, presented to the public as “pandemic preparedness and response (PPR),” encompassed mostly attempts to engineer deadly pathogens and simultaneously to create countermeasures to them, predominantly vaccines. 

  • So much money was pouring into PPR/bioweapons research that the public health agencies and academic institutions involved in government research all became dependent on it – or, perhaps more accurately, addicted to the money and power this type of research bestowed. Multinational public-private partnerships and “non-governmental organizations” (e.g., The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Wellcome Trust) were created to fund and promote the need for such research.

  • In the fall of 2019 an engineered pathogen from one of the bioweapons labs in China found its way into the population. All the military, intelligence, and public health officials from China, the US, UK, and other countries, with their pharma and academic partners, conspired to cover up the lab leak, while simultaneously preparing to unleash their countermeasures on the world.

How the Nature of Biowarfare Research Has Not Changed

As RFK, Jr. tells it, the history of today’s biowarfare industry starts after WWII, when German and Japanese scientists were secretly repatriated to assist the intelligence community and military in developing chemical and biological weapons programs. 

It is no coincidence, he argues, that many sinister features of those earlier programs carried forward to the present. These features include:

  • tight alliances with the pharmaceutical industry and the media; 

  • the complicity of academia and medical schools; 

  • the co-opting of journals; 

  • intense secrecy; 

  • pervasive experimentation on human subjects; 

  • liberal use of the word “volunteers;”

  • open-air testing on large unwilling populations; 

  • ethical elasticity; 

  • the normalization of lies; 

  • the use of microbiology to alter and weaponize bugs; 

  • the use of vaccine development as a mask for bioweapons research; 

  • the corruption of the entire medical establishment 

(p. 48)

Even just this list is enough to explain what happened with Covid: Take all these ingredients, add billions of dollars and multinational public-private partnerships involving top research institutions and thousands of scientists, and how could you not get a global disaster? 

Deep CIA-Biowarfare Ties

The Wuhan Cover-Up spends a lot of time documenting the correspondence between the rise of the CIA and the emergence of the modern biowarfare program. 

 RFK, Jr. writes:

…it’s worth reviewing the agency’s seventy-five-year preoccupation with bioweapons, pandemics, and vaccines. Bioweapons development was the CIA’s first love, and has remained its relentless passion. The CIA’s natal obsession with bioweapons pitted the agency against all the idealistic underpinnings of both American democracy and the healing arts of medicine. 

(p. 46)

An important related point emphasized in the book is that bioweapons research is not an obscure, niche industry. Rather, according to The Wuhan Cover-Up, it is a top national defense concern, driving the national security agenda:

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the military and intelligence apparatus erected the biosecurity agenda as the new spear tip of American foreign policy. These agencies deftly replaced the fear of the Soviet monolith and creeping communism with a fear of infectious disease, which they have successfully stoked to justify vast expansions in power…

(p. 44)

Shockingly Broad Participation by Academics and Scientists

Because the biosecurity agenda – which focuses on biochemical and medical research – is so central to foreign policy and national security, it controls large swaths of research funding. Thus, as RFK, Jr. documents, it has come to encompass many top academic institutions and thousands of doctors and scientists:

Among the most alarming side effects of the federal preoccupation with bioweapons has been the systematic diversion of vast resources and armies of academic and government scientists away from public health and healing. 

(p. 46)

Today, some thirteen thousand death scientists labor on bioweapons technology on behalf of US military, intelligence, and public health agencies in some four hundred government and university bioweapons labs. 

(p. 83)

Moral Bankruptcy

When faced with Covid “conspiracy theories” – such as those put forth in The Wuhan Cover-Up – people often argue that so many doctors and scientists could not possibly have knowingly agreed to civilization-killing ideas like lockdowns and injections of unsafe medical products into billions of people. They must have believed they were actually saving humanity, right?

Wrong, according to RFK, Jr.:

History has shown again and again the bioweapons agenda’s awesome power to transform compassionate, brilliant, idealistic doctors into monsters. 

(p. 47)

They have, as a class, demonstrated thoroughly warped judgment and a reliable penchant for dishonesty and terrible ideas. 

(p. 87)

Bioweapons Research = Vaccine Research

Another crucial idea bearing on our understanding of the Covid response is that vaccine research is a primary concern for the biowarfare-industrial complex, although it is publicly presented as a public health endeavor.

The book quotes Professor Frances Boyle, author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, with this explanation:

You can’t use a bioweapon against your enemy without having in your possession an antidote with which to shield your own team from blowback. For this reason, bioweapons and vaccines are always developed in tandem with each other.

(p. 121)

Moreover, because vaccine research funding goes to both biodefense and public health agencies, they have become inextricably linked:

The military and public health agencies work in close coordination to develop vaccines for military applications, sharing information and working side by side in labs. Vaccine research often serves as a cover or rationale for illegal bioweapons development.

(p. 129)

From an Obsession of US National Security to a Tool of Globalism

As RFK, Jr. writes, after 9/11, Islamic terrorism became the focus of US national defense. After the anthrax attacks, the focus of antiterrorist activities coalesced around the need to predict, prevent, and create countermeasures to biological terrorism. 

This more reliable and terrifying enemy would soon replace the war against Islamic terror—justifying a “forever war” against germs. “Biosecurity,” a.k.a. Pandemic Preparedness and Response (PPR), provided a rationale for US presence in every developing nation.

(p. 149)

And, as further explained by RFK, Jr., the focus on bioterrorism, which first served the American imperialist impulse, then became incorporated into the program of globalism:

The emerging medical/military-industrial complex would soon be citing biosecurity as a pretext for centralized control, coordinated response among nations, a sprawling construction project for new US bioweapons laboratories, the archiving of every germ with weapons potential under the pretext of pandemic protection, the control of the media, the imposition of censorship, the erection of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure ostensibly needed to “track and trace” infections, universal digital IDs, digital currencies to reduce disease spread, and the ceding of power by national governments to the WHO—in short, globalism. 

(p. 149)

China Becomes a Dominant Biowarfare Research Player

Concurrently, China’s leaders were working on a mission to make China a world leader in science, research, and innovation. According to The Wuhan Cover-Up, the Chinese have been using the West’s march toward globalism to infiltrate “Western academia, businesses, media, cultural groups, and government agencies that speak the language of cooperation, globalism, and public health.” (p. 257)

As part of their infiltration process, the Chinese lavished funding on Western research institutions and scientific publishing houses. And because biomedical/biowarfare research was so central to Western governments and research institutions, the Chinese were able to eventually dominate that space as well.

Thus, the book explains, China was able to “co-opt US academic institutions and US public health agencies into performing backdoor bioweapons research for the Chinese military.” (p. 274)

Why Would the US Do Bioweapons Research in/for China?

This is, perhaps, the most oft-raised question in response to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered bioweapon from a lab funded by the Chinese military, the US, and other Western governments.

As RFK, Jr. explains, with the Chinese as major funders of Western institutions, journals and projects related to biomedical research, this strange collaboration was not just unsurprising, but in fact, inevitable:

The Chinese campaign to co-opt leading scientists and the river of Chinese funding to researchers at US and British medical research universities and to the leading scientific journals had, by then, bought China powerful friends across the Western scientific establishment. 

(p. 280)

Furthermore, the interests of China intersect with the interests of major global corporations and NGOs that comprise the biowarfare-industrial-complex – many of which enriched themselves considerably through the Covid response. As RFK, Jr. writes:

There is a natural intersection of interests between Western business titans and a former communist government [the Chinese Communist Party] that has made itself the global model for seamlessly merging corporate with government power, and promoting business growth by suppressing democracy, labor, and human rights. 

(p. 572)

For its part, the US intelligence community has all kinds of reasons – all ultimately geared toward increasing its own power and influence – to engage in sensitive scientific research projects with the Chinese:

The deliberate transfer of our superior bioweapons knowledge to the Chinese—a potential enemy—makes little sense to citizens who think in terms of conventional rivalries between nations. Espionage was clearly among the complex motivations for the US intelligence community supporting Chinese bioweapons research in China. Knowing what the Chinese are up to is the mission of the US intelligence community. But quietly sharing cutting-edge technologies may also serve institutional self-interest. After all, the intelligence community expands its power by reporting the enemy’s expanding capabilities; more frightening capabilities abroad justify increased budgets and increased power at home. 

(p. 388)

Bioweapons expert Dr. Francis Boyle is quoted stating that:

Opportunities to expand institutional power and corporate profits always seem to trump patriotism and duty within the CIA’s bioweapons teams. Patriotism is a polite fiction among the bioweapons set.

(p. 383)

RFK, Jr. adds that the public health agencies, which are heavily involved in, and funded by, biowarfare research, share the CIA’s self-interested non-patriotism:

NIH and NIAID operate under the same perverse incentives that drive destructive conduct across the whole bioweapons field.

(p. 383)

A Convergence of Personal, Political, Financial and Global Interests

In the final chapters of The Wuhan Cover-Up, RFK, Jr. focuses on several key figures in the biowarfare-industrial-complex, including Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust (now at the WHO), Anthony Fauci of the NIH, and Bill Gates. 

RFK, Jr. uses these figures to show how the Covid pandemic emerged from the toxic stew of ethically compromised biowarfare research standards; military, intelligence, public health, and academic institutions/organizations dependent on biowarfare funding; the involvement of China and global interests in the booming business of “pandemic preparedness and response;” and, of course, the endless pursuit of political power and personal enrichment.

Here’s a great summary of how they all came together, through personal and institutional greed and power-mongering, to unleash the Covid catastrophe on the world:

The evidence suggests that instead of relentlessly protecting public health, Farrar exploited the pandemic to promote the venal financial agendas of his WEF [World Economic Forum] patrons, to transform Western democracies into surveillance states, to expand his personal power and paycheck, and to pander to high-level Chinese officials. Achieving these objectives required Farrar to hide [Covid’s] laboratory origins, a project in which he enlisted a cadre of his medical cartel cronies—those who, thanks to years of funding by Fauci, Farrar, and Gates, now occupy the highest echelons of virology in academia, the regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical companies. 

(p. 539)

If for nothing else, I would recommend adding The Wuhan Cover-Up to your library as an invaluable resource on leading figures, organizations, and power brokers involved in the biowarfare-industrial-complex.

Conclusions and Comments

It was especially gratifying to me to read The Wuhan Cover-Up (all 600 pages of it), because it validated my own research, showing that the pandemic response was led by the national security/intelligence arms of government, not public health agencies. 

In fact, after reading the first few chapters – the ones that go into the history of chemical and biological warfare and the rise of the biowarfare-industrial-complex – I paradoxically felt an enormous sense of relief. 

Finally, we have a detailed account that shows – beyond what I would consider a reasonable doubt – that the entire Covid catastrophe was caused, and led, by a multinational military-intelligence-academic-pharma-tech-NGO cabal.

RFK, Jr.’s conclusion is that we should look to a future “in which the bio-elites are held responsible for their actions, people regain their rights, and the Constitution is restored to its intended preeminence.”

But how do we do that? 

I am afraid, based on the information in his own book, and the fact that RFK, Jr. himself is being censored and banned so extensively from the public square, that the solution to the problems he exposes is much more difficult and complex than just “holding the bio-elites responsible” which will somehow lead to people regaining their rights.

What we need to do is to shut down, or extract ourselves from, the global biowarfare-industrial-complex that is able to convince (or coerce?) our governments into declaring states of emergency over supposed pandemic threats, and then curtail civil rights and impose massive surveillance, censorship, and propaganda that would not be permitted in non-emergency situations. Not to mention garnering enormous wealth while forcing the world’s population to accept novel, untested, and potentially lethal medical “countermeasures.”

The Wuhan Cover-Up does a better job than any other book or article I have read at exposing the trends, forces, and institutions that brought us the Covid catastrophe – with hundreds of pages of notes and references. What’s frightening is that the enormity of the problem is beyond the scope of the book, not just to solve, but even to fully acknowledge.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/16/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending