Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Do you want to see a perfect example of Ayn Rand's "drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out" if one were to become a TV anchor? Well, I have one for you performing like a trained seal in a circus. His name is John Berman and he works for CNN. First, for new readers who don't know the reference, the drooling beast of prey/maniac comes from a passage in The Fountainhead spoken by the sculptor, Steven Mallory, after he had shot Toohey and the day after Roark offered him the commission to do the statue of Dominique for the Stoddard Temple of the Human Spirit. (And, for insiders, I am not speaking of that subcommunity mess that helped give birth to OL ). Here is the passage. Quote I'm not afraid any more. But I know that the terror exists. I know the kind of terror it is. You can't conceive of that kind. Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me--it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out. You'd have nothing then but your voice--your voice and your thought. You'd scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you'd have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you'd become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you'd see living eyes watching you and you'd know that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it's breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That's horror. Well, that's what's hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own. I don't think I'm a coward, but I'm afraid of it. And that's all I know--only that it exists. I don't know its purpose, I don't know its nature. Now, look at the video below. See what happens when Yale’s Dr. Harvey Risch meets the drooling maniac. John Berman obviously doesn't have a clue for understanding what he is talking about, yet he yaps on and on, interrupting Dr. Risch. Then remember Rand's (Mallory's) words: "nothing but your voice and your thought," ... "that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way," ... "something with an aim and a cunning of its own..." CNN's drooling beast/maniac has one difference from Rand's, though. It speaks. And it knows the phrase, "random placebo controlled trials." I don't think I've ever heard a precise phase like that said so many times within such a short time frame without an inkling of cognitive input as I did with CNN's drooling beast/maniac in this video. Berman's demeanor reminds me of old Dracula films where a terrified person holds a cross in front of himself and before Dracula to keep from being attacked. Except Berman is not terrified. He looks and acts like he's in a wide-eyed Scientology training-routine trance with his brain turned off (or, as in Rand's more colorful way of putting it, his brain eaten out by disease) holding his mighty cross--"random placebo controlled trials"--in front of him every time his Dracula (Dr. Harvey Risch) moved or said something. Spoiler alert. Dr. Risch, for as much as he tried to explain with words and thought, did not get a spark of independent awareness or intelligence out of Berman. But he did get a drooling human parrot. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 Man, I know so little about the country I live in right now. How in hell can someone patent a fucking virus? Good God... That's just plain wrong... Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Berman's demeanor reminds me of old Dracula films where a terrified person holds a cross in front of himself and before Dracula to keep from being attacked. Except Berman is not terrified. He looks and acts like he's in a wide-eyed Scientology training-routine trance with his brain turned off (or, as in Rand's more colorful way of putting it, his brain eaten out by disease) holding his mighty cross--"random placebo controlled trials"--in front of him every time his Dracula (Dr. Harvey Risch) moved or said something. That’s a good analogy. Since Dr. Fauci approves using remdesivir for Covid-19, I bet Berman does, too. If so, I would like to see Berman read the NIH guideline here about remdesivir and then ask him, Does remdesivir meet your exalted “gold standard”? Here are some excerpts: - “There are insufficient data for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of remdesivir in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19.” - “In a randomized clinical trial, there was no observed difference between the remdesivir and placebo groups in time to recovery or mortality rate in these subgroups.” - “Because there is uncertainty regarding whether starting remdesivir confers clinical benefit in these groups of patients, the Panel cannot make a recommendation either for or against starting remdesivir.” In only one of the clinical trials did remdesivir show any benefit, and that was a moderately reduced time to recovery. Is remdesivir a cure for Covid-19? There is zero evidence for that. The web-page I linked above has links to the NIH guidelines for (1) Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine and (2) Hydroxychloroquine Plus Azithromycin. Conspicuously absent is a guideline for Hydroxychloroquine plus Zinc, which Dr. Risch and other doctors recommend. They say zinc enables HCQ; without it HCQ is minimally effective. Dr. Risch's Newsweek op-ed: https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: How in hell can someone patent a fucking virus? The 'researcher' did not think to include a link to the patent site from which she took screenshots. This item is accessible via the Patent number, in this case 10,130, 71. Direct link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10,130,701.PN.&OS=PN/10,130,701&RS=PN/10,130,701 [Added: How to find the above link on your own ... start at the USPTO website: https://www.uspto.gov/] Edited August 5, 2020 by william.scherk Added screenshot narrative laying out how to get to the link provided. For those who are afraid to click a link to the US Patent and Trademark Office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 I don't want to go to the link. Are you capable of explaining what you think you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 Many pathogens have been patented. Seven year old article: "The outbreak of a novel coronavirus in the Middle East is not only raising worldwide health concerns but triggering questions about the ability of organizations to patent the genetic sequences of diseases for profit. ... "The virus was identified in September 2012, three months after the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, acquired a sample of it. The centre has taken out a patent on the virus’s genetic sequence. "While Saudi officials and the WHO have said the patent will impede the process of containing MERS-CoV and developing treatments, Erasmus has defended the move. "Albert Osterhaus, a virologist at Erasmus, told Bloomberg News that patenting the virus was a "normal thing to do." "Indeed, the patenting of genetically modified or isolated viruses is nothing new, says David Schwartz, a patent lawyer and partner at the Canadian intellectual property firm Smart & Biggar. "You can’t patent a disease condition per se, such as cancer or influenza," says Schwartz. "But if you’re talking about patenting a lifeform like a bacteria or virus, if altered by man, the answer there is yes." https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/can-you-patent-a-disease-1.1355379 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: I don't want to go to the link. Are you capable of explaining what you think you have? Jon, I just had the same thought. What does refining a search have to do with my question about patenting a virus? Philosophically, where does that stop? Using life forms and partial life forms, by logical extension, will end up one day at someone patenting the human tooth. Or the big toe. Or apples. Or amoebas. Or rattlesnakes. The sky's the limit. For copyright, remember that through legal shuffling, the song "Happy Birthday to You" got copyrighted and the folks involved made a shitload of money at it. But back to the thought, I don't understand William's point. I appreciate the technical research instruction, though. If I ever need to so that, I know where to look. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, I just had the same thought. And we have his answer: no, he is not capable of explaining what gotcha he thinks he has. He wants instead to leave the impression he has a great gotcha simply by pointing to a link. Such a dumb fucking loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: "You can’t patent a disease condition per se, such as cancer or influenza," says Schwartz. "But if you’re talking about patenting a lifeform like a bacteria or virus, if altered by man, the answer there is yes." Jon, In other words, we can patent a new breed of dog if we make one? That's just plain wrong on so many levels... I know a dog is not a lifeform similar to a bacteria or virus, but we all know how the law always expands to include more and more cases. So, eventually, how about an enhanced human being through genetic manipulation--meaning once that new race can reproduce with the altered gene? We can patent such a human race? This whole line of thinking needs to be challenged. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 A dog, sure. They patented a mouse. It is mentioned in the CBC article I linked to earlier. They genetically modified the naturally-occurring mouse genome, making it more susceptible to cancer, and patented that new line of mouse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 20 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: A dog, sure. They patented a mouse. It is mentioned in the CBC article I linked to earlier. They genetically modified the naturally-occurring mouse genome, making it more susceptible to cancer, and patented that new line of mouse. Jon The government has to get out of the God business. Nature owns life forms. Not government appointed people. This whole thing--the way it is now--is a eugenicist's wet dream. Once people become property again, not of agricultural slaveholders, but technocratic crony corporate slaveholders, the world of property law opens up on the newly formed chattel. And that will lead to the need for "technological advances" by the "creative destruction" of the market. Later, rather than be crude like the Nazis with gas showers and ovens that stank and made a mess, they will find something painless and clean to use to kill unwanteds and then start propaganda horseshit like commercials about "Having that conversation..." or "Reimagining the future of humankind..." and "Making the transition process lovingly comfortable..." (meaning transition to death for the victims, of course). All the eugenicists need to do--or at least believe they need to do using this legal abomination of "lifeform is property" form of thinking--is nudge a little bit more each day and they know they will get there. This needs more and more exposure and resistance. This is evil. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 Perverse incentives are set up when someone owns a pathogen. Since they created it, they probably also had time to develop vaccines for it and/or cures for the diseases it causes. All they need now is legal immunity for the additional diseases caused by the vaccines and cures, for which they also have treatments to sell. I'm kidding, they have already taken care of obtaining total legal immunity for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon The government has to get out of the God business. Nature owns life forms. Not government appointed people. This whole thing--the way it is now--is a eugenicist's wet dream. Once people become property again, not of agricultural slaveholders, but technocratic crony corporate slaveholders, the world of property law opens up on the newly formed chattel. And that will lead to the need for "technological advances" by the "creative destruction" of the market. Later, rather than be crude like the Nazis with gas showers and ovens that stank and made a mess, they will find something painless and clean to use to kill unwanteds and then start propaganda horseshit like commercials about "Having that conversation..." or "Reimagining the future of humankind..." and "Making the transition process lovingly comfortable..." (meaning transition to death for the victims, of course). All the eugenicists need to do--or at least believe they need to do using this legal abomination of "lifeform is property" form of thinking--is nudge a little bit more each day and they know they will get there. This needs more and more exposure and resistance. This is evil. Michael Basically sounds like BLADE RUNNER..."More Human Than Human..." "4 year lifespan..." "Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto. Rachael is an experiment, nothing more." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 I just saw a YouTube comment on Matt Christiansen's stream: "I heard corona deaths exploded in Lebanon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 7 hours ago, Dglgmut said: I just saw a YouTube comment on Matt Christiansen's stream: "I heard corona deaths exploded in Lebanon." D, LOL... It was one hell of an explosion, too. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 ‘Pestered’ Belgians sue Bill Gates, Neil Ferguson, and the Belgium government over coronavirus restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 7, 2020 Author Share Posted August 7, 2020 Here is another reason for teachers to be leery about going back to school with even partially filled classrooms. Most kids don’t get sick but they can pass it on to others and their families. Peter “The New York Times:” Even Asymptomatic People Carry the Coronavirus in High Amounts by Apoorva Mandavilli 4 hrs ago . . . . Of all the coronavirus’s qualities, perhaps the most surprising has been that seemingly healthy people can spread it to others. This trait has made the virus difficult to contain, and continues to challenge efforts to identify and isolate infected people . . . . A new study in South Korea, published Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, offers more definitive proof that people without symptoms carry just as much virus in their nose, throat and lungs as those with symptoms, and for almost as long . . . . Discussions about asymptomatic spread have been dogged by confusion about people who are “pre-symptomatic” — meaning they eventually become visibly ill — versus the truly asymptomatic, who appear healthy throughout the course of their infection. The new study is among the first to clearly distinguish between these two groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 On 8/1/2020 at 2:23 PM, Jon Letendre said: I am starting to wonder if hydroxychloroquine cures and prevents many diseases, even some we have been told are incurable and unpreventable. ... such as cancers ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Fifteen years ago Fauci's NIH said Chloroquine worked against SARS-CoV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Because ... Scamdemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Fifteen years ago Fauci's NIH said Chloroquine worked against SARS-CoV. Chloroquine for SARS-CoV in vitro is quite different from hydroxyhloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in humans. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 4 hours ago, merjet said: Chloroquine for SARS-CoV in vitro is quite different from hydroxyhloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in humans. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/ No Shit, Sherlock Holmes! Did she say otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 5 hours ago, merjet said: Chloroquine for SARS-CoV is quite different from hydroxyhloroquine for SARS-CoV-2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/ Merlin, I don't want to go into the merits of whether Fauci said this or that, but, now that I have studied a lot of propaganda techniques, on skimming over that Snopes article, I can see that it is one nasty piece of work. The propaganda techniques are too well developed for that to be an accident. Those guys trained themselves well and they do this on purpose. I would be interested in finding someone who can discuss this stuff in plain English without all the bullshit piled on top. But until that happens, I have to keep swatting at flies (hat tip to Nietzsche) instead of actually learning anything. Snopes doesn't even hide their call to turn off your brain and trust Big Brother, either. Here is a direct quote at the top of their "debunking" efforts: Quote ... please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. The liars. Trust the liars. It left out China. Please follow China... Bah... (btw - I am not criticizing you, meaning you, Merlin. I am bashing Snopes.) I don't feel like taking that thing apart. It's like dissecting a turd. You can learn much by doing that, but you have to put up with the stink while you do it. Just so no one has to take me on faith, here is just one item among a whole bunch. A quote from the article: Quote Are hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine the same thing? No. Although these drugs are similar (they are both derivatives of a 4-aminoquinoline [4AQ] nucleus), they aren’t interchangeable. Snopes even quotes fucking CNN as backup. So what's the problem with this statement? Look at the context. Isn't Snopes supposed to be debunking a widespread falsehood? Yet... drumroll... I don't know anybody who is claiming hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine are the same thing and are interchangeable. In fact, in almost all material that is critical of Big Brother China/Gates's version of the pandemic, I have specifically read--over and over--that hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine are NOT the same thing and NOT interchangeable. Let me repeat that. Big Brother China/Gates's critics (the ones I have read and watched) say hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine are NOT the same thing and NOT interchangeable. They always say that when the issue comes up. Now here comes Snopes presenting it as if the critics are saying the opposite so it can debunk them. And why does Snopes think it can get away with this horseshit? Look more carefully through a gotcha filter (which the general public does not use) and you will see Snopes is only talking about Bryan Fischer. It's not even talking about the question it claims to check since nobody is making the implicit follow-up claims it is debunking. I won't get into Bryan Fischer, who looks like an extreme-right fringe person (probably a bigot of the more elementary kind) in this whole dust-up--he seems to me at first blush to be a leftover from the time fringe Christian authoritarians had a lot of power. From looking at his Wikipedia page, I can guarantee that his views are NOT the views I have read and watched by the Big Brother China/Gates's critics, and I stress, NOT the views of Dr. Simone Gold. It's real easy to use this form of reasoning against the left. Just find someone who says that people who oppose the government forcing everyone to get vaccinated are racists. Then debunk that person while pretending the more crazy views of the person represent the thinking of EVERYONE who supports Big Brother China/Gates. That would be so silly, most thinking people don't bother. Yet here is Snopes doing it for it's pet propaganda issues as a normal research routine. I could spend a lot of time going through that piece of Snopes trash item by item in a manner similar to what I just did. In fact, if I took that piece of garbage seriously, I would need to do that to tease out what is relevant and objective from all the bullshit. But who has time for that crap? Snopes is not a good source for fact-checking. Even when its apple looks bright and shiny, there will be at least one big-ass worm in it. Snopes used to be a decent source. Now it is nothing but propagandist garbage. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Fauci's NIH in 2005: "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread." and "Chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now