No Lockdown Tanzania has less deaths than locked-down New Zealand?

Read this. 

New Zealand COVID deaths: 25

Tanzania COVID deaths: 21

How come there's been so much praise for Jacinda Ardern, but not for John Magufuli? Because he didn't do as told by a Big Pharma/Bill Gates-corrupted World Health Organization?

When will we consider why some people/countries are affected by a new virus, but others aren’t? Clearly it can’t all be explained by these measures we’re taking, which at best are surely only delaying the inevitable?

Why do we just focus on a war against an evil virus, and do nothing about addressing the issues that cause that virus to do harm? Could it be that nature isn’t actually out to get us, but it’s the various toxins we’ve put into our bodies/environment, that are the problem? But it would be a massive threat to capitalism to address all of that?

Seems like a road to totalitarianism and extinction if we don’t start considering this... Did we get it all wrong with Germ Theory?

Covid: a response...

I shared this interview with Ivor Cummins on Facebook, and had a response from a friend on Facebook - criticizing me for not following 'the science'. Thought I'd just keep a note here of my response.

-

Did you watch the interview? Ivor seems to do a good job of running through the stats. Check out his YouTube channel and let me know what you think.

Isn’t ‘the science’ that we have a new (seasonal?) virus that has thankfully been nowhere near as bad as some forecast? Isn’t ‘the science’ that the measures we’ve taken in response to it have caused catastrophe; and were quite possibly mostly futile, given that the number of deaths seems to be quite random, whatever measures a country puts in place? Many countries which didn’t lock down, have had better/similar fatality rates than those that did, right?

Seems to me like there must be other factors that determine outcome. Environmental factors? 

Unless perhaps you do what NZ and Oz did. Though, given that countries like Belarus, Nicaragua and much of Africa did sod all in response to the virus and, like NZ and Oz, have had barely any deaths, it might be a bit presumptuous to say as fact that the lockdowns is what caused a lack of deaths in those countries. (Maybe the virus spread a lot pre-lockdown, with little impact? Probably not, but just a thought). In any case, their approach seems like a recipe for perpetual lockdowns, surveillance, loss of civil rights... totalitarian society. (Popular though, by the looks of it!). 

My main concern is about how damaging it has been to just focus on a - possibly mostly futile - war against one virus, (whilst doing nothing to wage war on the things that cause new viruses to do harm). I've also been looking into the possibility that our entire understanding of, and approach to, viruses, and human/environmental health in general, is based on out of date science - I've been listening a lot to a guy called Zach Bush, who is super interesting: 

Famines now loom in the global south. Cancer etc treatment/diagnosis delayed. Depression and suicides on the rise. Economies/small businesses destroyed. Massive concentration of wealth. Etc. Lockdowns kill, especially in an extremely unequal and globalised world. God knows what the long term impact of all this is going to be. Also any potential normalisation of fear, separation, sterilisation is pretty suicidal for our species. 

Almost no effort has been made to address the issues that cause viruses to do harm; to protect and heal people by enabling and encouraging them to improve their general health; ie to detoxify, to address nutrient deficiencies (which would be so easy and cheap to do!!) and poor diet etc. Despite this clearly being heavily correlated with Covid susceptibility - the vast majority of those dying have diet-related comorbidities, right? And there's so many studies linking Vitamin D deficiency to increased mortality. (And like, what is there to lose? Ah yeah, profit for big pharma/food companies!). Instead, we're just forced to stay home, out of the sun; do less exercise, be anxious, get depressed, get bombarded with junk food advertising on tele, comfort eat. Hasn't all of this actually made people more susceptible to viral infections, and other diseases?

And what's more: the rushed vaccines are likely to be crap, particularly on the vulnerable, (and at best only likely to reduce symptoms a bit, not stop infection?). And we will not know the long term side effects. And researchers have warned they might increase risk of HIV. And I think they will only have been tested on healthy people? So we won't know how vulnerable people will react?

Oh and they’re being developed by massively corrupt, criminal corporations, so many people will understandably reject them, however effective and safe they are deemed! So to be pinning all hope on a vaccine, makes no sense to me. I think it’s a really nonsensical and irresponsible strategy to promote. It does nothing to address poor health and susceptibility, and it's led to all those catastrophic consequences I mentioned. And if this continues to be our strategy, I worry we will remain living like this forever. (Authorities will like it that way). We have no choice but to take a root-cause approach, if we want to avoid a totalitarian future.

It all seems very irrational, reductionistic, destructive, anti-human and anti-science to me, (and to many, many other, actually-qualified, people!). 

I supported the lockdowns in March, but looking back now, I'm unconvinced they did much, and my view is that as soon as we knew the curve was flattening, we should've opened back up, but enabled all under 60s to retire early (if they wanted to), prepared the NHS with more beds/PPE etc, in case of any more waves, and embarked on a massive campaign to address nutrient deficiencies, poor diet, the mental health crisis, poverty, etc. (Ultimately, we need to begin changing the food system to organic/regenerative, so that we stop fueling new viruses and disease, but the further concentration of wealth and power that the Covid response has led to, probably makes this even more unlikely now).

Anyway, I just shared an interview that I think is interesting (I don't agree with Ivor on everything). Hope this is still permitted... seems things have already become increasingly totalitarian of late. Those calling for a different approach, or just to have a debate and do a cost/benefit of all these measures, have been marginalised/censored by media and big tech - which are now under the thumb of a WHO that is in turn significantly under the thumb of big pharma and the ideology of Bill Gates. Highly disturbing. Read this Der Spiegel article to get an idea of how powerful and influential big pharma is.

Who’re you getting modelling from btw? I think Michael Levitt’s predictions back at the beginning of the year were more accurate than most. So might be worth following him. 

This is worth watching too.

-

Some other points:

What about the tests? Have we ever done mass testing like this for any other virus? Is it correct that we refer to a positive test result as a 'case'? It seems the inventor of the PCR test would've disagreed with this.

Where has the flu gone? According to the stats, it's almost vanished in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Would everyone dying with Covid have otherwise died with flu? Are all viral deaths automatically being registered as Covid, when it might've been flu? 

The importance of a balanced, nutritious diet

 As Dr Aseem Malhotra says, ‘this is NOT fat shaming. This is something we’re all in together.’

We're all victims. Big Food and Big Pharma corporations have corrupted the government, the media, the science. 

And we have a medical system that is mostly clueless when it comes to nutrition - doctors learn almost nothing about it at medical school. Crazy right? (But it’s not the doctor’s fault! System problem).

As a result of all this, we now have an epidemic of chronic disease, cancer, nutrient deficiencies...

Ultimately, we need big policy/system change, but in the meantime, let’s do whatever we can to liberate ourselves from the grip of these industries, and heal!

New Zealand

‘New Zealand has had few deaths because they locked down and had decent leadership that took Covid seriously’.‬

‪Ok, but Belarus, Nicaragua, much of Africa, Sweden, didn’t lock down. They had leadership that didn’t respond much to Covid. Yet they also had few deaths - or at least, in the case of Sweden, less deaths than many of those countries that did respond robustly.

‪I’m not saying I understand what’s going on. It just seems correlation only equals causation when it suits? It seems like there’s other factors that determine what impact Covid will have - like the general health of the populace? Exposure to pollution and certain chemicals? Who knows.

‪Is it not possible that Covid may have already run through New Zealand and Australia before the lockdowns, with little impact?

Assuming that New Zealand’s stringent response really is the reason for their lack of deaths, then at best, Jacinda Arden may have slightly prolonged a few thousand lives‬. But at what cost?‬ Ruining everyone’s life on and off for perpetuity? Helping to screw the global economy, fueling famines? Normalizing health surveillance and criminalization of protest? Making millions of people take a rushed vaccine?

Given that the vaccine may only be 50% effective, and only designed to reduce symptoms, rather than prevent infection, I really don’t understand the long term plan? Stay on edge, with intermittent lockdowns, until there’s an ineffective vaccine? I don't get it. 

Regenerative Agriculture

I have come to the conclusion that probably THE key solution to most of our problems lies in Regenerative Agriculture. It has the potential to heal the planet; reversing desertification; restoring soil, biodiversity and life; whilst providing healthy food, for all humanity. 

I'll keep a list of things to read and watch below. 

TED Talk: How regenerative farming can help heal the planet and human health

Greenpeace: The Regenerators

Are Cows The Cause Or Cure For Climate Change?

On Netflix: Kiss The Ground

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory

We Need Regenerative Farming, Not Geoengineering

Full length interview with Nicolette Hahn Niman from the filming of Sacred Cow

Vitamin D, COVID-19 and Allopathic Medicine

There is a Vitamin D deficiency epidemic throughout the world. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have been linking this deficiency with increased mortality from the virus - see here for some studies. Watch this. I have been perplexed by the almost total lack of interest in nutrition and general wellbeing during COVID-19 despite it being very clear that it is those with comorbidities and deficiencies who're most at risk - and despite it being known that many of these health issues can be reversed, often very quickly, with a change in diet, and/or cheap supplements. (If anything, it seems like we've been encouraged to harm our wellbeing, with the constant fear, isolation etc!).

I have since discovered that doctors, (in the western world at least), learn almost nothing about nutrition at medical school, which I find shocking! 

I've been trying to figure out how the medical system ended up like this, and was recommended this book, which I'm currently half way through reading. It's a fascinating book, detailing how the system was set up primarily in the interests of corporate capitalism. The billionaires and elites of the late 19th and early 20th century favored allopathic (science-based) medicine, largely because it enabled them to further centralize and control society. Its reductionist approach to the human body enabled poor social and environmental conditions, brought on by capitalist exploitation, to be ignored, as root causes of illness. Non-allopathic practitioners, some of whom focussed more on things like diet and lifestyle, and who saw healthcare as more of an art form, and not something that a one-size-fits-all, departmentalized approach, could effectively address, opposed this monopolization of medicine by the 'science-based' approach. They were subsequently smeared as 'quacks', and put out of business. 

Of course, many of those non-allopathic practitioners were indeed 'quacks', and there have also been plenty of achievements with allopathic medicine, but unfortunately it seems that its reductionist approach is a major issue, and it appears that corruption and bias in favor of the interests of the subsequently enlarged and empowered pharmaceutical companies, is extreme. Read here, here, here, here. 

The reductionist approach to the human body, the influence of big pharma, and the almost total lack of understanding regarding nutrition, makes it very difficult for allopathic practitioners to heal chronic disease (of which there is now an epidemic), and mental health issues. Patients are given drugs, just to manage the disease (many of which are poorly tested/will negatively impact other parts of the body), when so often, a holistic approach and a change in diet is the medicine required, (...and a change in social/environmental conditions). It mostly seems to be a system of sickcare, rather than one of healing and wellbeing. And it all seems very anti-science to me!

Anyway, I thought I'd keep a list of things to read and watch below, about Vitamin D, as it seems to be one of the nutrients that people are most in need of. Though what people are really most in need of is a different approach to healthcare, (and a change in social conditions). I've been looking into Functional Medicine, which is a holistic, science-based approach, with a focus on food as medicine. Look it up on Wikipedia, and you'll see it described as 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience'. But surely it is allopathic medicine that should now be described as that, given what I've stated above, and given that it is, according to some, the third leading cause of death in the US! My allopathic doctor's surgery in California is now offering Functional Medicine, which hopefully indicates that it is becoming more accepted and popular.

• Recommendation for vitamin D is far too low, experts say
• Vitamin D toxicity is a myth
• Vitamin D – Why You are Probably NOT Getting Enough 
• 14 Signs Of Vitamin D Deficiency
• Vitamin D pills 'could stop colds or flu'
• Perfect Your Health with the Power of Vitamin D | Dr. Joel Gould on Health Theory
• Do You Need To Take A Vitamin D Supplement?
• Daily oral vitamin D supplementation for 12 months may improve cognitive function
• Study confirms vitamin D protects against colds and flu
• Vitamin D levels in the blood linked to cardiorespiratory fitness
• Top UK scientist urges people to take vitamin D supplements
• The Danger of Vitamin D Deficiency
• Vitamin D and Immune Function

-

I have now finished the book mentioned above. I thought I'd copy a few extracts from the last few pages here...

Scientific Medicine: Beliefs and Reality

Nearly all of us turn to medicine when we are sick. Whether the healer is called a shaman, a witch doctor, a priest, a feldsher, or a physician, we all seek someone in whom to place our confidence, someone we believe will make us well. Early in the 19th century, most Americans relied on lay healers. By the middle or latter part of the century, most Americans turned to physicians, who were being prodigiously produced in mushrooming medical schools throughout the land. At the time, one could choose the particular medical theory one wanted in a physician – from homeopathy to orthodox or “allopathic” medicine – or the particular type of healer – from herbal traditions to Christian science. Not until the last two decades of the last century were there any significant number of physicians who practised what they called “scientific” medicine, meaning a medical practice based on principles continuously being developed and refined by the analytical biological and physical sciences.

Today most of us look to doctors and hospitals and surgery and drugs to cure us of every ill. We want solace, and, therefore, we expect it. The medical profession has, of course, encouraged such beliefs through its campaign to increase the confidence of the populous. Other medical interest groups, like the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have joined in the campaign for public confidence, frequently hosting briefing sessions for newspapers’ science and medical writers to learn about the “latest advances” in cancer treatment. We have come to credit scientific, technological medicine with having reduced the enormously high death rates of past centuries and with being effective against most disease and suffering in our time. Yet such past successes and current progress are greatly exaggerated.

Life, Death, and Medicine. The Historical Record.

Historical epidemiological evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that medical science has played a relatively small role in reducing mobility and mortality. Thomas McEwan argues very convincingly that improved health and the great decline in Western Europe’s total death rate from the 18th century to the present were due to four factors. First, nutrition improved because food supplies increased from the early 18th century, due initially to the reorganisation of agriculture rather than improved chemical or mechanical technology. Second, environmental sanitation measures – cleaning up the accumulated filth of the cities, assuring uncontaminated water supplies, and so forth – instituted by the late 19th century, added to improved nutrition and further reduced mortality particularly of children. These measures were well underway by the middle of the century, before either the concept of specific causes of disease or the germ theory was widely accepted. Third, these improvements in the standard of living caused a substantial increase in population, which would have overrun the gains in health if birthrates and family size had not soon sharply declined. Finally, specific preventative and therapeutic medical measures gradually introduced in the 20th century slightly accelerated the already substantial decline in mortality and also improved physical health. While science greatly extended the original non-technological advances in agriculture, hygiene, and birth control, the contribution of medical science to the overall reduction in death rates and improved health was relatively quite small.

In the great majority of cases the toll of the major killing diseases of the 19th century declined dramatically before the discovery of medical cures and even immunisation. Tuberculosis, the Great White Plague, was one of the dread diseases of the 19th century, killing 500 people per 100,000 population at mid century and 200 people per 100,000 in 1900. By 1967 the United States rate had dropped to 3 deaths per 100,000. This tremendous decline was only slightly affected by the introduction of collapse therapy in the 1930s and chemotherapy in the 1950s. Similarly, for England and Wales, John Powles shows that overall mortality declined over the last hundred years well in advance of specific immunisations and therapies.

René Dubos, the microbiologist formally with the Rockefeller Institute, succinctly summed up the historical record: “The tide of infectious and nutritional diseases was rapidly receding when the laboratory scientist moved into action at the end of the past century”, Dubos wrote in Mirage of Healthy. “In reality“, he observed, “the monstrous spectre of infection had become but an enfeebled shadow of its former self by the time serums, vaccines, and drugs became available to combat microbes”.

Improvements in general living and working conditions as well as sanitation, all brought about by labour struggles and social reform movements, are most responsible for improved health status. Improved housing, working conditions, and nutrition – not medical science – reduced TB‘s fearsome death toll. Responding to riots and insurrections as well as the pitiable living conditions of the poor and working classes in Western Europe and North America, nineteenth-century reformers brought dramatic declines in mortality without the benefit of even the germ theory.

Children have benefited the most from these changes. The average baby born in 1900 could have expected to live only forty-seven years. A baby born in 1973 can expect to live more than seventy-one years. Most of this increased life expectancy at birth has been due to a sharp decline in infant’ and young children’s deaths from infectious diseases. At the turn of the century, young children succumbed to influenza, pneumonia, diarrhoea, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles. By 1975 the infant death rate had fallen to sixteen per 1000 live births - less than one ninth the rate in 1900. And the death rates of young children have similarly declined. Improved housing, nutrition, water supplies, and waste disposal, pasteurisation of milk, and the virtual elimination of child labor (except for migrant farm workers) drastically cut the spread of infectious diseases and enabled children’s bodies to resist them.

-

Members of the corporate class embraced scientific medicine because it supported their political and economic struggles. Technological medicine provides the corporate class with a compatible world view, an effective technique, a supportive cultural tool, and a focus on the disease process within the body that provides a convenient diversion from the health-damaging conditions in which people live and work...

...Their policies reflect a general corporate class concern that any excess sickness and death not be attributed to the admitted inequalities of capitalist society or to the organization of production that places profits before environmental protection and worker's health. In addition to this broad class interest, a growing interest group within the corporate class has a direct financial stake in the dominance of technological medicine.

Also read this.

The Great Reset and other so-called conspiracy theories... "Once we can access people's thoughts".

Check out the last two minutes of this film from the World Economic Forum, (a highly influential 'NGO'), about ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’:

“Once we can access people’s thoughts and access people’s emotions”, she says.

WHAT THE FUCK.

How have we ended up in a situation in which just mentioning and wanting to discuss these factual agendas, like Agenda 21 or 'The Great Reset' (of which 'The Fourth Industrial Revolution' seems to be a part), makes you a ‘conspiracy theorist’?

It is so totalitarian! Clearly no debate or dissent allowed.

It looks like we’re to become half human, half robot slaves for the corporations, in a soulless, monoculture, dystopian world, and that’s that. We've no choice but to submit to the will of the corporations and Davos billionaires.

Don’t you just love ‘liberal democracy’?

I’m sure many people have been predicting this kind of thing for years and have been derided/censored as... ‘conspiracy theorists'... 

This isn't really a case of secret conspiracies. I don't really think there's a dark hidden agenda. It's out in the open. We just live in a highly centralized world - a trajectory we've been on for hundreds, thousands, of years - in which a few corporations/billionaires have huge power and influence over everything, and in which there’s now an open agenda to reset the global system, because more and more people are realizing that we're reaching a tipping point. So capitalist elites are having to act, essentially to appease the masses. This agenda involves some nice-sounding things ('sustainable development' etc) and some extremely terrifying and destructive-sounding things. It all involves centralized control over the world; and anyone who opposes this, and the destructive agendas, gets smeared as 'conspiratorial'. 

COVID-19 is being used as an excuse to accelerate us along this path. Read this. Somehow, we are being manipulated to accept the narrative that, ‘nothing in our lives will ever be the same again’, because of a virus with a 0.05% fatality rate for under 70s.

Obviously we do need big change, but ideally it would be good if that change didn’t involve us becoming half robot surveilled slaves to the corporatocracy, (not much different to now really, I guess!).

Let’s choose another path: watch this and this. Read this. We need decentralization! We all know that power corrupts, right?! So maybe global government isn't the best plan?!

....

Will keep a list of more things to read about this below.

The Great Reset: Where Do We Go From Here?

Brave Vandana Shiva speaks out against the Great Reset

Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardhern, have all recently used the slogan 'Build Back Better'. Coincidence?