|
Post by ZETAR on Jun 3, 2020 13:42:52 GMT
Gordon Chang On China: What We Must Do, & What We Must Not Do China has attacked America with coronavirus. At this moment, more than 100,000 Americans have been killed. We brace ourselves for the deaths to come.
Today, I'll do two things. First, I'll talk about the nature of that attack. The second thing, what we must do to protect ourselves.
www.zerohedge.com/markets/gordon-chang-china-what-we-must-do-what-we-must-not-do
First of all, China is not, as many people will tell you, just a competitor. It is an enemy. China is trying to overthrow the international system, and in that process, it is trying to make you subject to modern-day Chinese emperors.
I know this sounds as if it cannot be true, but we must listen to what Chinese leaders say. When we do that, we realize that to defend the American republic and defend our way of life, we are going to have to decouple from China.
On May 6, President Donald J. Trump said that China's attack was worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than the World Trade Center. "There's never been an attack like this," he said, and he is right.
Most critically, Chinese leaders publicly admitted that the novel coronavirus, the pathogen causing COVID-19, could be transmitted from one human to another on January 20.
Yet doctors in Wuhan, the epicenter, were noticing the contagiousness of this virus no later than the second week in December. Beijing knew a few days after that. If Chinese leaders had said nothing during that five‑week period, that would have been grossly irresponsible.
What they tried to do, however, was deceive the world into believing that this was not transmissible human-to-human. As a result of that campaign, the World Health Organization (WHO) propagated China's false narrative, especially with that infamous January 14 tweet:
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China."
At the same time, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China since 2012, pressured countries not to impose travel restrictions or quarantines on arrivals from China. Again, WHO helped China, this time with its January 10 statement opposing these restrictions.
What happened was arrivals from China -- when Chinese officials knew this virus was human-to human-transmissible -- turned what should have been an epidemic contained to China into a global pandemic.
I don't know what Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, was thinking, but if after having seen what the coronavirus did to cripple China, he decided to cripple other societies to get even, he would have done exactly what in fact he did do.
That means there is only one inescapable conclusion. This conclusion is that China maliciously spread this virus around the world, sickening people, killing others.
This is the first time in history that one nation has attacked all the others.
That is not all. After admitting the human-to-human contagiousness of this disease, Beijing then downplayed it.
On January 21, the day after formally admitting the disease's human-to-human transmissibility, Beijing got its propaganda machine in full gear to tell the world that this was less dangerous than SARS.
SARS is the 2002‑2003 epidemic that according to the World Health Organization infected 8,096 people across the world, killing 744. By then, on January 21, Chinese officials knew it was much worse than SARS.
According to Der Spiegel, Germany's intelligence agency, the BND, believes that on January 21 ‑‑ this is the day after China formally admitted human‑to‑human transmissibility of the disease ‑‑ Xi Jinping spoke to Dr. Tedros, the director-general of WHO, and tried to get the organization to hold back information on human‑to‑human transmissibility, as well as to delay declaring a pandemic.
Now, WHO denies that this phone conversation between Xi and Tedros took place, but it fits known facts. It also fits what the US intelligence community has been saying, according to various reports.
China's actions had consequences. Beijing lulled public health officials around the world, including those in the United States, into not taking actions that they otherwise would have adopted.
Democrats and Chinese communists have criticized President Trump for acting too slowly after he imposed the travel restrictions on China on January 31. If that is true, it is only because people on his coronavirus task force were actually listening to what Beijing was saying and making judgments on what they had heard.
For instance, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus task force coordinator, in her March 31 press briefing said she had seen the data from China and decided that this was no more dangerous than SARS, but realized, after the infections ripped through both Italy and Spain, that she had been deceived by the Chinese. She is not the only one. Dr. Anthony Fauci has also talked in public about how the Chinese misled him.
We must impose costs on China. We must impose costs because, first of all, what China did was a crime against all of humanity. We must also impose costs because we need to deter China. This is not going to be the last pathogen generated on Chinese soil. We got to make sure the Chinese leaders do not believe that they can maliciously spread another disease.
This means there is going to be friction between China and the United States as we Americans take steps to protect ourselves in the future. Those steps are going to cause arrogant and belligerent Chinese to move against us.
We should take a look about how the arrogant and belligerent Chinese indeed view the international system, how they view the world order. You will hear many analysts say that the friction between the United States and China is just another one of these boys-will-be-boys contests in history.
The notion is that the United States is jealously protecting its position in the international system fits in with Beijing's narrative that their rise is inevitable and that we are in terminal decline.
The truth is that the United States is defending more than just its position in the international system. We are defending the international system itself, the system of treaties, conventions, rules, and norms.
Unfortunately, Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, does not believe in that system. He is trying to impose China's imperial‑era notions of the world. In other words, he believes that everyone around the world must acknowledge Chinese rule.
In short, Chinese rulers believed that they had the mandate of heaven over tianxia, meaning "all under heaven." Xi Jinping has used tianxia‑like language for more than a decade. Recently, his pronouncements have become unmistakable.
For instance, in his 2017 New Year's message he said, and I quote, "The Chinese have always held that the world is united and all under heaven" -- all under heaven -- "are one family."
If this were not enough, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, in September of 2017 wrote an article in Study Times, the Central Party School's influential newspaper. Wang Yi wrote that "Xi Jinping thought" ‑‑ "thought" in Communist Party lingo is an important body of ideological work -- "made innovations on and transcended the traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years."
If you take 2017 and subtract 300 years, you almost get to 1648. Wang, with his time reference of 300 years, was almost certainly pointing to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which established the current international system. That system recognizes the sovereignty of different states.
Also, when Wang Yi used the word "transcended," he was saying that Xi Jinping does not believe that there should be sovereign states, or at least no more sovereign states than China itself. The trend of Xi Jinping's recent comments is that he doesn't want to live within the international system. He does not even want to adjust it. He wants to overthrow it altogether.
This means China once again is a revolutionary state. Now, Xi Jinping, of course, has not had the power to compel others to accept this audacious vision of worldwide Chinese rule.
Nonetheless, in the last few months, he has seen an historic opportunity because the United States has been stricken by the disease that China itself has pushed out beyond its borders.
What must we do? First, let us talk about what we must not do.
We must not save Chinese communism again. In the past, American presidents, when China had been stressed, have ridden to the rescue of the Chinese state. In 1972, for instance, Richard Nixon went to a Beijing that had been weakened by more than a half decade of the Cultural Revolution, signaling America's support for China's communism. That is how people in China took that visit.
The second time, 1989, George H. W. Bush sent Brent Scowcroft, his secret emissary, to Deng Xiaoping in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre. Again, America was telling the Chinese, "Don't worry about American sanctions, don't worry about what we say in public, we have your back."
The third time, 1999, President William Jefferson Clinton signed a trade deal with China – at a time when the Chinese economy, in reality, was contracting. Certainly, China was suffering geopolitical setbacks. That deal was the basis of China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Despite all these saves of Chinese communism, China's communist leaders have remained hostile. We have seen this hostility, especially since the first week of February of this year when the Global Times, which is a Communist Party newspaper, and the Chinese foreign ministry have engaged in an inflammatory disinformation campaign against the United States in an attempt to tar the US with all sorts of disease‑related sins.
This campaign culminated, reached a high point -- although this campaign is still continuing today -- on March 12th when the foreign ministry went on a Twitter storm. As a part of that Twitter storm, foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that coronavirus patient zero was in the United States.
In other words, the disease started here. He also suggested that the US Army carried the disease to Wuhan. We were seeing daily stories about how the United States had been spreading the disease around the world.
Now, Americans, of course, were taken by surprise by this Twitter storm, but we really should not be -- because on May 13 of last year Beijing declared a "people's war" on the United States. This means the contest with China is existential. There is going to be one survivor. It is going to be either the Peoples' Republic of China or the United States of America, not both.
We have just heard about what we should not be doing. We should not be rescuing Chinese communism.
What should we do? In my call for action, there are eight items.
First, we need to cut off trade with China. Now, I know a lot of people think we should not do this, or this would be unfortunate.
Yes, this is unfortunate, but the point is that China's communism cannot be reformed, so the only way we can protect American society and Americans is to reduce our exposure to China and our great exposure, of course, is trade. In any event, we should not be enriching a hostile state with the proceeds of commerce with the United States.
This means, of course, that we need to get our factories off Chinese soil, but especially our pharmaceutical factories. China has been threatening to throw the United States into what it calls "a mighty sea of coronavirus," and it has not been kidding.
For instance, we know the Chinese have turned around at least one ship carrying personal protective equipment -- masks, gowns, gloves -- that were on their way to New York hospitals. Moreover, Peter Navarro has said China has even nationalized one American factory in China producing those N‑95 masks.
China's leadership always talks about how it is not possible for the US and China to "decouple." Now, it is possible. Our job is to make it inevitable.
Second thing that we need to do: The administration is well on the way to making sure federal pension money is not invested in China's markets. We also need to make sure that state pension money, and money from individuals, is not put into China's markets. We should not be enriching China with our investments into its equity markets.
Third thing, we need to make China pay. Now, many people have sued the Chinese central government. There are class‑action suits in the federal district courts in Florida, Texas, and Nevada. Of course, the Chinese Central Government has sovereign immunity, but there are a number of bills in Congress, including one sponsored by Senator Blackburn and Representative Lance Gooden.
There is also another bill sponsored by Tom Cotton and Dan Crenshaw, and these would strip China of sovereign immunity. I believe Josh Hawley, the Senator from Missouri, also has a bill.
The State of Missouri, by the way, has sued the Communist Party of China, which is far more important and far richer than the Chinese central government. Guess what? China's Communist Party does not have sovereign immunity.
People have also been talking about seizing China's holdings of US Treasury obligations. According to official records, it holds more than a trillion dollars. In reality, it is probably a bit higher than that because China holds US Treasuries through nominees.
Of course, China would engage in a vociferous propaganda campaign if we did that. Beijing would say we are repudiating our debt. They would also say we are not responsible members and stewards of the global financial system. They would be wrong, they would be incorrect, but the US might suffer reputational damage.
That is why I think we should seize Treasuries, but we should be doing this in connection with the holders and issuers of other major currencies. For instance, the Canadian dollar, the British pound, the European Union's euro, the Swiss franc, the Japanese yen, maybe the Singapore dollar
When we act with others, this becomes not a China-versus-US issue but an issue of China versus the world. No one country is going to suffer reputational damage.
Of course, Beijing could nationalize American factories in China, but I'm not so sure they're going to do that because China would be hurt far more than we would by that.
Remember that China's economy is still in a contraction phase and it is still export‑dominated, which means it needs those factories on its soil.
Fourth, with the possibility of the coronavirus escaping from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, we are now thinking about whether China has a biological weapons program in contravention of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Right now, we have seen all sorts of circumstantial evidence suggesting lab leak, and we have seen all sorts of circumstantial evidence that the Chinese military has been involved in the cleanup.
The Biological Weapons Convention does not have an inspections regime.
The item on my action list is that the United States should insist on inspections of China's labs, and if we cannot get inspections we should withdraw from the Convention. I am not saying that the novel coronavirus was a biological weapon. We really do not know.
The one thing we do know is that in China's labs, they have been engineering coronaviruses in the past. They have issued scientific papers on this, and what they are doing is extremely risky.
Fifth, we should make sure that China does not mess in our elections. China was extremely active in the 2018 midterms. They were concerned about President Trump's tariffs, and they actually did have an effect in electing Democrats to the House of Representatives.
We know they are going to do that, or something like that, this time. The New York Times a few weeks ago said they are trying to sow chaos in the American public square by disseminating false rumors.
Sixth, we need to stop China from using its nationals to systematically gather information on our soil. Unfortunately, we have had a series of American presidents who have, for various reasons, either done nothing about China's intelligence operations here, or the actions they took were deliberately ineffective.
We know that China's diplomats operate on our soil, sometimes spying, other times in a manner inconsistent with the diplomatic status they have. Also, China's Ministry of State Security agents operate here, freely.
We need to "rip and replace" all the equipment in our telecom backbone that has been supplied by Huawei Technologies, China's telecom equipment manufacturer. China has been using that company's equipment to spy on others. We should have no Huawei equipment in our backbone.
Also, we should be turfing out even more Chinese journalists. Those "journalists," we know, work for China's intelligence services. We have allowed them to stay on our soil for far too long. Secretary of State Pompeo has expelled many of them, and we need to complete the job.
We have to remember that China's 2017 National Intelligence Law requires every Chinese citizen and every Chinese entity to spy if demanded, which means that Chinese nationals on our soil can be under a compulsion to engage in intelligence collection.
Seventh, let's remove China from our cable networks and our newsstands. We should not be allowing China to exploit the openness of our system to try to end it.
Eighth, and the last, we have to deter China, which right now is engaging in what people in Beijing call "wolf warrior" diplomacy. For instance, we see Xi Jinping, with these threats to invade Taiwan.
Since the middle of February, there have been these boat-bumping and other provocative engagements in the South China and East China Seas against almost all of China's sea neighbors. A Chinese diplomat laid the groundwork for taking over Kazakhstan, in Central Asia, and also China has moved to end the autonomy in Hong Kong.
China is lashing out, challenging everybody at the same time. This is a Maoist tactic, and it suggests problems inside the Chinese political system. In any event, we know that this is an incredibly dangerous moment for everyone.
One final note. Pushed by China, the Trump Administration is moving to an historic rupture with the People's Republic of China. Because of this, we are seeing changes in the five‑decade‑old engagement policy.
Those changes are absolutely essential for us because, without them, we cannot be self‑reliant.
SHALOM...Z
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 13:52:53 GMT
If it walks like a duck.......
But go ahead vote for Biden.
It seems the rioters were not too concerned about the coronavirus. So in about a week, if that’s the incubation period, there should be a massive outbreak. If not, well you figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by nyx on Jun 3, 2020 22:03:39 GMT
John Sawers, MI6 boss 2009-2014, tells The Telegraph that COVID-19 was made from virus that were inserted.
Sir Richard Dearlove , known as only C in the British Intelligence from 1999 to 2004, also supports John Sawers.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 4, 2020 21:51:30 GMT
Jane Goodall: Humanity is doomed if we don't change after this pandemic By Nicoletta Lanese - Staff Writer - June 3, 2020
Habitat loss, factory farming and wild animal trade could fuel the next pandemic.
(Image: © Getty)
Primatologist Jane Goodall said that humanity must "drastically change our diets" and our treatment of wild and farmed animals if we want to avoid future pandemics after COVID-19 subsides.
"Our disrespect for wild animals and our disrespect for farmed animals has created this situation where disease can spill over to infect human beings," Goodall said on June 2 in an online event hosted by the campaigning group Compassion in World Farming, The Guardian reported.
"If we do not do things differently, we are finished," she said. “We can’t go on very much longer like this."
Goodall pointed to habitat destruction, the farming and consumption of wild animals, illegal wildlife trafficking and factory farming as risky practices that could fuel the next pandemic. These practices have triggered disease outbreaks in the past, according to The Guardian.
Habitat loss, mainly caused by deforestation, drives animals into new environments and leads to both a mingling of diverse animal species and increased interaction with nearby humans, Mongabay reported. "Irrespective of whether humans are going into forest areas or animals are coming to human settlements due to deforestation, viruses are being exchanged," Rajan Patil, an associate professor of epidemiology at SRM Institute of Science and Technology in Chennai, India told Mongabay.
For example, Patil's research team found that several Nipah and Hendra virus outbreaks were linked to fruit bats that relocated to human settlements following destruction of their natural habitats, according to a 2018 report in the journal Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.
So-called wet markets, where wild animals may be sold alongside domestic animals and produce, also act as prime sites for disease transmission between animals and people, Goodall wrote in a commentary for Mongabay, published May 4.
Initially, scientists suspected that COVID-19 may have emerged from Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in China, as several dozen vendors and customers became infected with the virus following a superspreader event in late December. More recent data suggests that the outbreak did not originate at that market, specifically, but likely began circulating elsewhere and earlier in the year, Live Science reported.
Regardless of where COVID-19 first emerged, wet markets worldwide provide the "perfect environment for viruses to spill over from their animal hosts into humans," as both animals and humans can be exposed to feces, urine, blood and other bodily fluids from many species in one place, Goodall wrote. "It is clearly of great importance that the ban on trading, eating and breeding of wild animals for food should be permanent and enforced," but to do so sustainably also requires that new sources of income be established for those who stake their livelihoods on the trade, she added.
Importantly, "it is not only in China that wildlife markets have provided the ideal conditions for viruses and other pathogens to cross the species barrier," she wrote. Many wet markets exist in Asian countries beyond China, Goodall wrote, and wet markets also appear in Africa and Latin America, Vox reported. More broadly, the sale of bushmeat, meaning meat from wild animals, poses risks beyond the context of wet markets and likely spurred outbreaks of HIV-AIDS in Africa, for example, she wrote.
Animals at wet markets may also be illicitly sold as pets, for their fur or for use in traditional medicines, she added. "The use of some wild animal products for traditional medicine is thus far still legal in China (though rhino horn and tiger bones are banned)," Goodall wrote. The practice of farming brown bears and sun bears for their bile also remains legal and could contribute to disease spread, she said.
Bears farmed for bile are often kept in small cages, exposed to a variety of pathogens and contaminants due to poor hygiene standards, and given large doses of antibiotics that can give rise to drug-resistant superbugs, Goodall wrote. The same standards of care can be seen in intensive industrial farming, otherwise known as factory farming.
"The diseases commonly known as 'bird flu' and 'swine flu' resulted from handling poultry and pigs," and the coronavirus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) may have emerged from infected domestic dromedary camels, she wrote.
During the Compassion in World Farming event, the European Union (EU) commissioner for health and food safety Stella Kyriakides noted that the EU aims to curb the dangers of factory farming through new agriculture and biodiversity strategies and the European Green Deal. These initiatives focus on reducing pesticide use and supporting sustainable farming and breeding practices, while ensuring that food remains affordable, The Guardian reported.
"One of the lessons learnt from this crisis is that we must change our ways," Goodall said during the event. "Scientists warn that to avoid future crises, we must drastically change our diets and move to plant-rich foods. For the sake of the animals, planet and the health of our children."
www.livescience.com/jane-goodall-change-food-systems-after-covid19.html
|
|
|
Post by ZETAR on Jun 5, 2020 13:37:34 GMT
A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unravelingScience’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center. On its face, it was a major finding: Antimalarial drugs touted by the White House as possible COVID-19 treatments looked to be not just ineffective, but downright deadly. A study published on 22 May in The Lancet used hospital records procured by a little-known data analytics company called Surgisphere to conclude that coronavirus patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine were more likely to show an irregular heart rhythm—a known side effect thought to be rare—and were more likely to die in the hospital. Within days, some large randomized trials of the drugs—the type that might prove or disprove the retrospective study’s analysis—screeched to a halt. Solidarity, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) megatrial of potential COVID-19 treatments, paused recruitment into its hydroxychloroquine arm, for example. (Update: At a briefing on 3 June WHO announced it would resume that arm of the study.) But just as quickly, the Lancet results have begun to unravel—and Surgisphere, which provided patient data for two other high-profile COVID-19 papers, has come under withering online scrutiny from researchers and amateur sleuths. They have pointed out many red flags in the Lancet paper, including the astonishing number of patients involved and details about their demographics and prescribed dosing that seem implausible. “It began to stretch and stretch and stretch credulity,” says Nicholas White, a malaria researcher at Mahidol University in Bangkok. Today, The Lancet issued an Expression of Concern (EOC) saying “important scientific questions have been raised about data” in the paper and noting that “an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly.” Hours earlier, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) issued its own EOC about a second study using Surgisphere data, published on 1 May. The paper reported that taking certain blood pressure drugs including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors didn’t appear to increase the risk of death among COVID-19 patients, as some researchers had suggested. (Several studies analyzing other groups of COVID-19 patients support the NEJM results.) “Recently, substantive concerns have been raised about the quality of the information in that database,” an NEJM statement noted. “We have asked the authors to provide evidence that the data are reliable.” A third COVID-19 study using Surgisphere data has also drawn fire. In a preprint first posted in early April, Surgisphere founder and CEO Sapan Desai and co-authors conclude that ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, dramatically reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients. In Latin America, where ivermectin is widely available, that study has led government officials to authorize the drug—although with precautions—creating a surge in demand in several countries. Chicago-based Surgisphere has not publicly released the data underlying the studies, but today Desai told Science through a spokesperson that he was “arranging a nondisclosure agreement that will provide the authors of the NEJM paper with the data access requested by NEJM.” Meanwhile, the questions swirling around the Lancet paper have left leaders of the halted chloroquine trials weighing whether to restart. “The problem is, we are left with all the damage that has been done,” says White, a co-investigator on a trial of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prevention that was halted at the request of U.K. regulators last week. Headlines proclaiming deadly effects will make it hard to recruit patients to key studies, he says. “The whole world thinks now that these drugs are poisonous.” Read more @ www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling What do ya know, Obama's home town Chicago... A Study Out of Thin Airby James M Todaro, MD (Columbia MD, @jamestodaromd) May 29, 2020Misinformation is bad. Misinformation in medicine is worse. Misinformation from a prestigious medical journal is the worst. Herein is a detailed look at the controversial Lancet study that resulted in the World Health Organization ending worldwide clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine in order to focus on patented therapeutics.Study Overview In brief, the Lancet study is a multinational registry analysis assessing the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without macrolide therapy (e.g. azithromycin) in treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The study was very large (perhaps impossibly so, but we will address that later) and included 96,032 patients, of which 14,888 were in treatment groups. The study found that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without macrolide therapy resulted in significantly increased risk of both in-hospital mortality and de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalization. In summary, the authors concluded that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are actually harmful and increase risk of death when used for in-hospital treatment of COVID-19.The Lancet study was released on Friday, May 22. After deliberating over a weekend, on Monday, May 25, the World Health Organization hastily announced the cessation of all COVID-19 clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine in 17 different countries. Instead of performing its own due diligence, the WHO immediately relied on an observational study cloaked in the reputation of the nearly 200-year old medical journal The Lancet.After its publication, a grass-roots investigation by hundreds of physicians and researchers worldwide revealed irreconcilable inconsistencies in the data that The Lancet’s peer-review process overlooked. The study is now found to have inconsistencies with data from national registries of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The authors continue to hide data sources in a black box controlled by an unknown corporation called Surgisphere. Surgisphere Only one peer-reviewed publication prior to the Lancet study. Surgisphere appears to be the sole provider of the data for the Lancet study, and boasts itself to be a real-time global research network that "performs cloud-based healthcare data analytics" using machine learning and artificial intelligence. Based on the Lancet study, it must be a very large, sophisticated network indeed to have partnered with hundreds of hospitals worldwide with the capability of retrieving detailed patient data in real-time. One would expect a multinational database such as this to be a treasure trove coveted by researchers. Strangely, this is not so. Surgisphere has a razor thin folder of contributions to past publications. Besides the Lancet publication, Surgisphere’s only other peer-reviewed publication is one entitled Cardiovascular, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19 that was published on May 1, 2020 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The Research section of Surgisphere's website features twenty-three “Case Studies from Around the World” as evidence of their prior work and product features. The vast majority of these “case studies” lack scientific substance and actually consist of short letters, press releases or potential use-cases for its database. In place of actual research, the website appears primarily promotional and gives the impression of an immature tech company with lofty goals as opposed to a global database with real-time data on millions of patients. According to LinkedIn, Surgisphere has five employees, only one of which has a medical degree—the founder Dr. Sapan Desai. The remaining four employees appear to have little to no science or medical background, but with a plethora of experience in business development and sales & marketing. The team's personnel consist of a VP of Business Development and Strategy, VP of Sales and Marketing and two freelance writers creating content for Surgisphere. With the exception of the founder, the entire Surgisphere team joined the corporation only 2-3 months ago. Actually, according to LinkedIn, the VP of Sales & Marketing is still employed by another tech company, W.L. Gore & Associates. Prior to February 2020, Surgisphere appears to have had a single employee, the founder. A shrouded internet history. The internet trail behind Surgisphere is peculiar to say the least. Mostly because it isn’t there. The Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) has records on more than 439 billion web pages and has long served as a tool to view webpages as they existed in the past. I’ve used the tool hundreds of times and am frequently surprised by the breadth of its database. Even some of the most obscure webpages have historical snapshots available. In the rare circumstances where a historical snapshot is not available, the Wayback Machine’s response is “Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived.” A far less common response—one I’ve never seen before—is “Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.” There are primarily two ways for companies to hide internet histories. First, they can insert special codes into their websites to hide from the Wayback Machine’s automated crawlers. Secondly, companies can request the removal of their historical snapshots, but there’s no guarantee the Internet Archive will honor these requests. Both of these practices are highly unusual and almost exclusively used for obscuring nefarious activities. Read more @ www.medicineuncensored.com/a-study-out-of-thin-air Why That Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in The Lancet Seems Fishy science.thewire.in/the-sciences/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-the-lancet-observational-study-surgisphere/
Lancet Retracts Medical Study Critical of Hydroxychloroquine – Study Results Were Designed for Political Purposes… The medical journal Lancet has now fully retracted their prior claimed “scientific study” against the use of Hodroxychloroquine. The Lancet study was quickly and purposefully used by all major media outlets to attack President Trump for his advocacy of the drug as an effective treatment for the COVID-19 virus.It now appears the purpose of the fraudulent “scientific study”, conducted by a sketchy outfit called Surgisphere – who mysteriously appeared only after President Trump advocated for the treatment, was to weaponize medicine for political purposes.After they were exposed for their role in pushing manipulated data, Lancet has now fully retracted their study in an attempt to retain credibility.Read more @ theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-medical-study-critical-of-hydroxychloroquine-designed-for-political-purposes/
SHALOM...Z
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 14:39:09 GMT
mrgort, I don’t care if you are Republican, Democrat, or third party. I have seen people I know losing their jobs and fallen on hard times and their pain. I just want the coronavirus to go away as fast as possible. Give it another month or two, but you should know that the Democrats want this to promote single hillary health obama care, but maybe you were ignorant of this. Not 2 months yet but it seems the new mantra is Black Labs Matter, and no pole leese.
|
|
|
Post by ZETAR on Jun 17, 2020 14:08:12 GMT
Weaponization Of Food: Starvation To Manufacture Compliance
The elites are doing their best to cut the food supply chains in order to weaponized food. At the end of the day, if they succeed, you will be trading your freedom for a small morsel of food.
www.zerohedge.com/political/weaponization-food-starvation-manufacture-compliance
The L.A. Times reported that “coronavirus outbreaks” at 60 food processing plants will be the cause of the supply chains breaking, and an inability to get food to store shelves. Prepare for a food shortage, as it looks like they will attempt to use hunger and food as a weapon in this game for your mind.
It’s a grim reality that’s playing out across the country as COVID-19 spreads beyond the meat processing plants that have captured the national spotlight. At least 60 food-processing facilities outside the meatpacking industry have seen outbreaks, with more than 1,000 workers diagnosed with the virus, according to a new study from Environmental Working Group. –L.A. Times
This is the horrible reality of participation in centralization and not being able to be self-reliant. The New World Order doesn’t care if you starve, it cares only that you bow down and consent to a life of enslavement. And they are weaponizing the food system and using COVID-19 as an excuse.
The food shortages will come, and like the coronavirus panic, this has been manufactured by the elitists who want to control us. Is this what it’s going to take to get the rest of people to realize they’ve been controlled and enslaved by the very government who said they just want to keep them safe?
Safety has always been the rallying cry of tyrants and that is no different now. People all over the world are waking up to what the power-hungry elitists and politicians have done to us for decades, but many are still sleeping. Will it take these orchestrated food shortages to wake them up? Or will they continue down a path of slavery with no hope? –SHTFPlan
Take the time to learn self-reliance right now and store some food. It’s difficult to say when this will fully roll out, but it most definitely in their plans. Perhaps it’ll happen around the time of the faked “second wave” to really cause as much fear and panic as possible, which means expect it by this autumn.
Obedience to the government won’t save you. Preparedness might.
Farmers are coming out saying they have been told to “quit farming,” and are being forced to dump milk, kill chickens, and turn vegetable crops under. Why? Isn’t it obvious? To scare the public into accepting dependency on the government so they will remain in a constant state of fear and enslavement.
SHALOM...Z
|
|