Does Biden’s Public Health Adviser Want the Coronavirus to Kill the Elderly?


Recommended Posts

Does Biden’s Public Health Adviser Want the Coronavirus to Kill the Elderly?
By Edward Hudgins
April 20, 2020

Ezekiel Emanuel, the architect of Obamacare, is an advisor on coronavirus to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Emanuel famously wrote a 2014 Atlantic article titled “I Hope to Die at 75.” Unless he’s a hypocrite, Emanuel’s own words demand he tell Biden that COVID-19, which disproportionately kills elderly Americans, is a blessing rather than a curse, and just when researchers work to “cure aging.”

To be clear, Emanuel doesn’t advocate for himself or anyone else to commit suicide on reaching 75, nor is he promoting marching seniors off to death chambers. Rather, he cites statistics to make the obvious point that older people suffer more infirmities and ailments, and in various ways are diminished from their younger, more vibrant selves. He then maintains that “living too long is … a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world.”

Therefore, he tells us, “At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment.”

This morally perverse view assumes that for most people over the age of 75, more life is somehow not worth living. But it’s the individual, not his statistics, that really counts. It’s one thing to speculate whether loved ones suffering from dementia would rather have died before the ailment took their memories. It’s another to suggest that because an elderly individual can no longer play football or engage in certain activities, that life holds too little joy to be worth holding on to. If Emanuel fears his joys won’t outweigh his sorrows past 75, that’s his bizarre judgment. To suggest this is the case for the rest of us is sheer pretense. But what does Emanuel’s perspective imply about COVID-19? In his Atlantic article, he writes, “Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs.” But for him at 75, “Flu shots are out.” Emanuel says ...  (Continue reading here.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ed, Jon is why We can’t have nice things, like..members that talk more than they do. Nice to see you!

From Ed's article: We have a discrepancy in perception here re who the good guys are and aren't. Ellen

Tell us that while Lieber was in fact secretly serving as a strategic scientist at Wuhan, he was also a great professor when he was focused on Harvard, and he volunteered in several clubs, and he had

Posted Images

See the Georgia Guidestones, see Bill Gates the eugenicist and and his eugenicist father, see the Queen of England's husband's wish to come back as a virus so he can kill millions, see the murals on the walls at Denver International Airport.

They have long wanted at least 90% of us gone and they are not shy about it anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

See the Georgia Guidestones, see Bill Gates the eugenicist and and his eugenicist father, see the Queen of England's husband's wish to come back as a virus so he can kill millions, see the murals on the walls at Denver International Airport.

They have long wanted at least 90% of us gone and they are not shy about it anymore.

From Ed's article:

Quote

Farsighted tech achievers such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and others are providing billions of dollars for age-related disease eradication efforts. Google Calico targets significant funds for anti-aging research. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and PayPal co-founder and tech investor Peter Thiel have put money into Unity Biotech, which seeks to “slow or reverse age-associated diseases.” Thiel also funded the Methuselah Foundation, which supports regenerative medical therapies with the goal to “make 90 the new 50 by 2030,” and its spinoff SENS Foundation, which does hands-on research. The latter is headed by chief science officer and co-founder of both groups, Aubrey de Grey, who has broken down the various factors associated with aging and is developing the strategies to deal with each.

We have a discrepancy in perception here re who the good guys are and aren't.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's not a discrepancy but just an issue of looking at who said/does/did what in more detail. On the good side, look at the links I supply in the article.

I've pages of quotes from eco-extremists comparing humans to viruses and calling for our eradication. Prince Philip has said "Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed... We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.... "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." He is, of course, an idiot and of no account.

Bill Gates is also, mistakenly, concerned about overpopulation. But he points out, correctly, that as medicine and survival rates improve and as productive societies allow people to save for their retirements, birth rates tend to fall because people no longer see the need to have 8 kids to make sure at least a few survive to care for them in their old age.

When Zuckerberg announced he would spend $3 billion to cure diseases, leftist wacko Jemima Lewis wrote “Sorry, Mark Zuckerberg. Your plan to put an end to disease is a sickeningly bad idea. ... Developing new technologies and medicines to tackle every disease ever invented. We’d better hope they don’t succeed. What would it do to the human race if we were granted eternal health, and therefore life?”

So you need to be specific about the who said or did what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Epstein had Gates by the balls. (Do his murderers now have Gates by the balls?)

It is documented on this site.

Or simply search terms like Harvard MIT Gates Epstein donation

Discrepancy is between reality and Ed. Reality: scumbag pedophile globalist

Ed: “Far-sighted tech achiever.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

...an issue of looking at who said/does/did what in more detail.

Along with looking up material Jon's provided, search Google for Gates climate change.

This item was first in the list when I did that search:

Quote

https://qz.com/1402301/bill-gatess-1-billion-energy-fund-is-expanding-its-portfolio-of-startups-fighting-climate-change/

Water from thin air.
BREAKTHROUGHS NEEDED


Bill Gates-led $1 billion energy fund is expanding its portfolio of startups fighting climate change
September 26, 2018

By Akshat Rathi
Senior reporter
FROM OUR OBSESSION


Climate Consciousness
Every decision counts.


It’s not often that the world’s richest people get together, agree on a goal that’s for the public good, and then set about finding ways to achieve it. But that’s what Bill Gates has achieved with Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV), which aims to invest $1 billion into radical energy startups capable of drastically cutting global emissions. The fund draws on the resources of billionaires like India’s Mukesh Ambani, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Virgin’s Richard Branson, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, and SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either/or, or both/and? I've been editing and helping to write papers on the problems of climate alarmists for the last few years and realize Gates and many others are very much mistaken. The problem is that either/or thinking does not necessarily apply to people. We are having this exchange because of the incredible revolution launched by Gates, the late Steve Jobs and many others whose politics lean Left. Unless all folks here are typing on Macs or iPhones, you're likely using systems running Gates' software or created by folks with whom you disagree on politics.

The point is that the folks I listed are great benefactors and also wrong on many things. It's both/and. Welcome to the real world of humans! Aristotle was right in his criticism of Plato, that you can't build an ideal republic from scratch but need to take the situation and humans as you find them and work from there, to create what our Founders called "a more perfect union," not a "completely perfect" one. That's the way I approach these matters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell us that while Lieber was in fact secretly serving as a strategic scientist at Wuhan, he was also a great professor when he was focused on Harvard, and he volunteered in several clubs, and he had drinks with the students and was super cool, because it's always both/and.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't go anywhere online without bumping into conspiracy theory types. At least when I find out they're a waste of time to deal with I don't have to waste my time with them. Might include them in my next book however, on the need to overcome irrationality in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Perhaps most interesting is the revelation that an anonymous donor gave the institute $4.6 million in 2008, $1.6 million in 2010 and nearly $1 million in 2011. This donor's contributions bring into question Heartland's purported 'diverse funding base.' According to the documents, the donor has promised to give even more in 2012.

"The Institute boasts what it calls 'a diverse funding base,' which includes roughly 1,600 individuals, foundations, and corporations. Heartland expects to raise $7.7 million this year.

"In 2006, the Institute stated that only a quarter of its income came from corporate sponsors. That same year, however, the organization said that it would stop publicly declaring its funding sources."

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0216/Explainer-What-is-the-Heartland-Institute

Link to post
Share on other sites

MIT does is it the same way as Heartland; We just won't talk about who we got that from … or that … or that … or that … 

The aforementioned email sent by Ito in October 2014 said: "This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein." Cohen replied with "For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey's name as the impetus for this gift."

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-connections-jeffrey-epstein-mit-donations-ronan-farrow-2019-9

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

I've been editing and helping to write papers on the problems of climate alarmists for the last few years...

I've noticed, and that isn't meant as a compliment,

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

"Mistaken about climate." "Great benefactor." Hear no evil, see no evil.

A.k.a., evil.

"Hear no evil, see no evil," and speak Pablum.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed,

On a friendly note, I'm glad to see someone remembers Ezekiel Emanuel long enough to blast him.

He's in the background, but he's not gone.

I hope the anti-aging research sponsored by Gates, etc., that you mentioned bears fruit, but the real problem will be how to take it from these dudes.

That doesn't sound Randian, I know, but neither do their business models.

To go by one example, Gates. When he built his main computer products, he was like Rearden. But his business practices were, are--and always have been--pure James Taggart. He's a crony corporatist. His companies could not exist on the free market without unearned favorite-status government protections. And he seeks them with a vengeance.

So while he may be investing in something good for humanity re anti-aging, would you want the products of that to be controlled by a James Taggart, paying for it out of laundered taxpayer funds, and doling it out according to pull, but calling it free market? Or would you, like me, like to find a way to withdraw the crony government protections and let the free market decide? How much do you trust the main players in the corrupt crony government-business system to keep their lust for power in check now that they have ramped up their social engineering stuff? 

That is the root of the resistance you are getting right now.

After seeing what these cronies have done and do, I don't trust them, even though the main modern cronies are not incompetent like the cronies in Rand's fiction. I don't blame anyone who doesn't trust them, either.

I offer this as food for thought.

(btw - It's good to see you. 🙂 )

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MSK! It's funny that some Leftists on pro-tech, pro-life-extension Facebook pages, who should be outraged by Emanuel's pronouncements, simply scream at me that I'm a Trump puppet, even though I'm offering no opinion on Trump. A few argue that these are just Emanuel's personal opinions but I point out that it's delusional to think they will not inform the policies he could be developing under a Pres. Biden.

On Gates, I'd say he rightly understanding that with competing producers of PCs and Moore's law, drop costs, making hardware a commodity and that software would be the value added. He smartly developed Basic, a bunch of other apps and, of course, Windows which he licensed to PC manufacturers and ended up providing over 90% of operating systems by the 1990s. Brilliant! Could anyone ever out-maneuver giant IBM? Sure! All that was Rearden, not Taggart.

But we also had the sanction of the victim. The Clinton admin went after Gates under anti-trust because his Explorer search engine was on the homepage of Windows but it took a couple extra clicks to get to competing search engines, which could be freely run on PCs using Windows. (This was before Google's rise.) A few days after the anti-trust ruling against him, he was in D.C. sitting beside Bill Clinton, the guy who'd just punished him for his success, talking about helping people, blah, blah, blah. 

And, of course, Microsoft missed the smartphone and tablet revolutions because it was too devoted to Windows while Steve Jobs, back at Apple, innovated and tried to get ahead of his own products; the iPods were popular and profitable, but his vision was to bundle that tech into an iPhone with a search engine and emails, making iPods superfluous. Brilliant!

As for the later Gates, he's been bad on a lot of things and, yes, cronyism is a problem across the industry. But you wouldn't have this website and I wouldn't be accessing it or typing these words (on a Windows machine, by the way), without these innovators.

On anti-aging and life extension, I want to see a thousand flowers bloom! I'm not worried about suddenly Gates owning the secret Fountain of Youth; even if he did, if he marketed it like Windows, we'd all be living to 200! But I understand the complexity of aging and there probably won't be a single silver bullet. Look at Aubrey De Grey's excellent breakdown, which I mention in my article. I'm also reading David Sinclair's new book, "Lifespan," which so far I recommend. I'm a subscriber to Peter Diamandis's excellent Abundance Digital service, with hundreds of excellent discussions and interviews with cutting-edge researchers. Peter created the private Space X-Prize, co-founded Singularity U with Ray Kurzweil, and lists Ayn Rand as one of his mentors. I highly recommend his latest book, "The Future Is Faster Than You Think." This is where the action is. Don't re-read Rand, as good as she is. Read this if you want to see the future!

By the way, I was not planning to post the the piece with link below because, as we both have learned over the years, flame wars are a waste of time, and I have no intention of wasting my time on Jon L. But you're a worthy corespondent, so here's one of my more ill-timed pieces--it came put just before the corona crisis erupted and the market crashed. (“A Trump Tech Titan’s Détente to Ensure Prosperity and Meet the China Challenge.”)But I think the points are still very relevant and will help you understand my current enterprise. I'm retooling! More on that, I hope, in the future!

Enjoy and stay safe! 

Ed

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 11:45 AM, Ed Hudgins said:

I can't go anywhere online without bumping into conspiracy theory types.

And you never will be able to again.

Another of Billy Gates' well-paid pals, Marina Abramovich, is crying about the same thing today. Both of you can stay indoors, stay offline with your mouths shut if you wish to stop people from commenting truths about you and the people who sign your paychecks.

“I need to open my heart,” Ms. Abramovic said. “I really want to ask these people, ‘Can you stop with this? Can you stop harassing me? Can’t you see that this is just the art I’ve been doing for 50 years of my life?’”

merlin_171778659_5c29074d-143b-4459-91d4
Image
In the 1990s, Ms. Abramovic created “Spirit Cooking,” a series of works in which she painted recipes on gallery walls in pig’s blood.Credit...Marina Abramovic; via Sean Kelly Gallery/(ARS), New York
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 12:07 PM, Jon Letendre said:

"Perhaps most interesting is the revelation that an anonymous donor gave the institute $4.6 million in 2008, $1.6 million in 2010 and nearly $1 million in 2011. This donor's contributions bring into question Heartland's purported 'diverse funding base.' According to the documents, the donor has promised to give even more in 2012.

"The Institute boasts what it calls 'a diverse funding base,' which includes roughly 1,600 individuals, foundations, and corporations. Heartland expects to raise $7.7 million this year.

"In 2006, the Institute stated that only a quarter of its income came from corporate sponsors. That same year, however, the organization said that it would stop publicly declaring its funding sources."

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0216/Explainer-What-is-the-Heartland-Institute

4.6 in 2008

1.6 in 2010

1 in 2011

"even more promised for 2012"

Has/can/will your employer deny that these donations were received neither from Gates, Epstein, nor their agents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

4.6 in 2008

1.6 in 2010

1 in 2011

"even more promised for 2012"

Has/can/will your employer deny that these donations were received neither from Gates, Epstein, nor their agents?

Jon,

It wasn't Gates (or Epstein, etc.).  Gates (or etc.) contributing to Heartland would be as peculiar as the Clinton Foundation contributing to Trump's campaign.

The donor is an ultra-religious group (Christian).

Ellen

PS:  Incidentally, re Epstein and Gates, I think you have it backward re who had whom "by the balls."

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Gates (or etc.) contributing to Heartland would be as peculiar as the Clinton Foundation contributing to Trump's campaign.

Gates DID contribute to Heartland. How much is unknown because Heartland hides its cash sources.

 

0216-heartland-institute.jpg?alias=stand
Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters
 
Microsoft founder Bill Gates speaks in London last month. Leaked documents reveal that the computer company donated some $60,000 to the Heartland Institute, a think tank that promotes climate change skepticism. Microsoft says that the donation was unrelated to climate change policy.

February 16, 2012

  • By Trevor Quirk Contributor
  • The leaked documents revealed current donors, some of whom are surprising. According to the documents, Microsoft donated about $60,000, and the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKlein gave about $50,000. Both of these companies told the New York Times that their contributions were billed for projects unrelated to climate-change policy. 

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0216/Explainer-What-is-the-Heartland-Institute

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The donor is an ultra-religious group (Christian).

Which one, and how do you know?

(To be clear, we are talking about who it was who donated to Ed's employer, Heartland Institute, which has an annual intake under $10 million.)

They gave Heartland,

$4.6 million in 2008

$1.6 million in 2010

$1 million in 2011

"even more promised for 2012"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

PS:  Incidentally, re Epstein and Gates, I think you have it backward re who had whom "by the balls."

Their little cult is a mutual blackmail society, so maybe it is both/and? I am very interested in your thinking on this.

(Did you see that multiple Weinstein victims gave consistent sworn court testimony that Weinstein has no balls no testicles, has a vagina, and injected his penis with something to make it erect before raping them?)

 

They can't get you by the balls if you have no balls

09-roll-safe.w1200.h630.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now