Any erstwhile nonfiction narrative that purports to serve other than a diversionary, delusional, or misleading purpose must account for, or at the very least be able to incorporate seamlessly, all of the centrally important evidence in the situation that the storytelling exercise seeks to explain. Lacking the capacity to include even a single important factor means the the entire explanation falls apart. This is actually provable, mathematically, or at least so I would wager every penny in my possession, but that is not the point of today’s inauguration of a new series.
The intention of this cycle of articles, rather, centers around focusing on two undeniable developments in or background to the so-called COVID crisis that has unfolded, at least in the ‘mainstream’ story of things, since a novel Coronavirus, SARS-Cov-II, appeared on the world’s stage as a uniquely identifiable phenomenon that required, because of its pernicious lethality, that we take extraordinary measures to combat it. Quite probably, a minimum of many dozens of such pairings as today’s will appear in the coming period on this WOW blog, which means at least several dozen such articulations as this one over the next couple months or so.
Legal conflicts offer useful ways of thinking about the most important data in a given case. Material facts, especially pertinent in actions that allege fraud or misrepresentation, can help to conceptualize these things. Thus, a “Material fact is a fact that is important, significant, or essential to a reasonable person in deciding whether to engage or not to engage in a particular transaction, issue, or matter at hand. It is a fact that is significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand. The term material fact is also used to distinguish the unimportant or trivial detail.”
And thus, the absolutely accurate admission that I am roughly ¾ inch shorter than I was when I was twenty five years of age is ‘unimportant and trivial’ in relation to how authorities have managed determining and reacting to the SARS-Cov-II virus. While “genuine issues of material fact” may exist about evidence, various examinations of which are forthcoming, real dispute is not always possible; in legal terms, the parties would have to stipulate their truth, or the court would take “judicial notice” of their veridity. Such a required stipulation, in any event, applies to all of the twinned bits of data in this series of postings. None of them display an “issue of material fact,” in the legal sense of the phrase.
In many, or even conceivably all, of these notes that lay out paired key facts, moreover, one or both of these important elements of what has happened in the COVID-19 world make little or no appearance on the established, which is to say corporate and governmental, stages which supposedly report about such things, keep us updated, and generally investigate what might lurk behind what is happening on the surface of affairs that government press releases, business ‘explainers,’ and so forth generally limit themselves to describing. This failure to mention, again in juridical parlance, to disclose, information clearly critical to intelligent decision making cannot help but raise suspicion, especially when precisely the same ‘authoritative’ sources that overlook or hide important evidence are, simultaneously, calling for and instituting censorship against any forthright and open discussion of matters.
In a litigious setting, knowingly suppressing these key facts can be enough to trigger punitive damages: in other words, it is ‘against the law,’ albeit generally in a civil sense of the word, as opposed to any criminal interpretation. In the citizenship domain, cloaking core facts or disputes about them can, especially in circumstances of police state enforcement of whatever the leadership mandates, lead to elevated protest or even uprisings against standard operational protocols.
In some senses, members of any community that calls itself democratic have a basic duty to participate in—speaking and listening in turn—discussion about issues such as any masking of indispensable info about what is really happening and how it has come to pass. A piece of Marshall Arts driftwood message art speaks to this point. “Under ‘Normal’ Circumstances, Injunctions Against ‘Rocking the Boat’ Might Make Sense, But Under More Difficult Conditions, As When Our Common Craft Is Full of Holes & Sinking Or Approaching Other Dire Straits, a Failure to Mutiny Amounts to Insanity, Both Tactical & Strategic Lunacy, Since Thriving, Or Even Survival, May Well Hinge on ‘Making Lots of Waves.’”
Having once again, quite likely, taken too long to contextualize everything, which I vow not to do again in this series, what are the verifiable details that this posting gives to readers? The first concerns how we’ve come to find ourselves in “a public health emergency of international concern,” as the World Health Organization has expressed things since late Winter last year, a pandemic. One may examine, in this regard, how ten years ago, just weeks before amplifying the dangers of an earlier ‘pandemic’ that ended up being significantly milder that other influenza outbreaks, the H1N1 influenza irruption in 2009, W.H.O. reformulated its core definition of pandemic flu.
Here’s what the organization said in mid-April, 2009. “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
Now, one can compare that with the changes in language a month and a day later, twenty-odd days before declaring H1N1 pandemical, much to the benefit of vaccine marketers and detriment of regular people, who in one way or another paid for their shots without garnering protection against any ‘dread disease.’ “A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”
This elimination of any component about virulence and ubiquity has to mean something. Among the sources that pointed out plausibly culpable conflict of interest were The British Medical Journal, an investigating committee of the European Union, and the German paper, Der Spiegel. James Corbett wrote a scathing critique of W.H.O. roughly a year after the unfolding of what he terms now as “Scamdemic number one.”
All these sources and plenty more called for eliminating practices that depended on the advice and leadership of parties who had ongoing lucrative connections with pharmaceutical companies; however, to date, no such reformulation has occurred, so that now—at least till a Biden administration may restore U.S. assistance—the largest donor, by far, to the World Health Organization is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with its multiple interconnections to major manufacturers and marketers of drugs and vaccines like those that made these companies ten billion bucks in 2009 and that will result in windfalls of, quite likely, tens of billions more in 2020, 2021, and beyond.
The second key fact of today’s installment deals with influenza numbers in the here and now. Since last Summer, flu has essentially disappeared, both from the USA according to the Centers for Disease Control and from Earth, according to the World Health Organization. In au courant terms, WTAF? More prosaically, and in a more ancient idiom, “Excuse me?” or, “Say What?”
Undoubtedly, a possible explanation for such an unparalleled disappearing act—literally not once in the decades of keeping statistics on this issue have flu’s afflictions simply gone away—is that this diminution serves to emphasize SARS-Cov-II as the primary, almost the only, vector for seasonal respiratory illness. If such a plausible account is untrue, then those in charge—both ‘expert’ and ‘journalistic’ sources—need to tell the people what else allows us to see why this is happening. Instead, of course, rarely even a whisper about this point comes out of monopolistic ‘news’ outlets, while the CDC and WHO merely report the vanishing act with little more than a chart or graph or two as explication for what’s gone missing.
A later installment in this series will pair pneumonia’s supposedly decreasing prevalence with some as yet undetermined policy shift, paralleling today’s matching up of data about influenza numbers with earlier, elective changes in defining pandemics. The point of all this, of this particular grouping of interludes about evidence, is multifold, but it centers around a contextualization of the true utility of expertise, which is to establish, and then to communicate, facts and not to mandate policy, which in democratic realms must fall to citizens to determine in one way or another.
Are citizens actually even considering the identifiable empirical basis for current determinations of rules and regulations? They probably are wondering; that, in the event, ‘authorities’ and ‘mainstream’ reporters have almost nothing to offer common people about salient facts as they ponder is at best discomfiting, and quite likely much worse. Only by conveying this kind of information, as frontline nurses will state the case—STAT!!–can those who promise that they care about our health and well being contribute to either a fair or a widely accepted understanding of our situation, which obviously is the only way that a democratic decision making process can happen.
This is a centrally important point—that citizens’ ignorance has come about through negligence or intention—because one consequence of this insouciant oversight is clearly that huge elements of constitutionally guaranteed rights also apparently no longer exist, all as a result of the ‘horrible disease’ about which key facts are absent or barely noticed. Among the freedoms that now do not apply are these: to contract and do business freely; to travel over internal borders without interference; to speak and carry on discourse and assembly without limitations, like ‘social distancing’ and face coverings, that are only defensible in a case of a threat to the Republic’s very existence.
Thus far, we have not presented a factual foundation adequate to assess whether the COVID disease response is such a dire ‘threat.’ But we can use common sense. We have every right, and even a duty, to doubt such an assertion. Furthermore, neither of today’s facts support such a belief.
In actuality, the facts that this briefing mentions contradict, or at least are incongruent with, any impression that SARS-Cov-II is a mortal threat to the capacity of the United States of America to survive. For this reason, then, as well as for more general due diligence, we have to begin demanding more data, more clear explanation, than has been forthcoming thus far. As police state enforced lockdowns now threaten to destroy lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans, such a clamoring, such a ‘rocking the boat,’ has become as important to our survival as paying close attention when we cross busy city streets.
At a minimum, failing to take a stand for more conversation and investigation will mean that we are complicit in the authoritarian protocols that our political and economic overlords insist that they are promulgating in our best interest, to keep us safe, to reduce harmful outcomes. If those despotic regulations then cause vastly more harm than that from which our so-called leaders want to protect us, we again will have primarily ourselves to blame. As my grandmother liked to say, “a word, to the wise, ought to be sufficient.