Protecting Your Family From COVID-19 by Dr. David Price
The UK government believes China lied about it’s COVID19 disease and mortality statistics, thus misleading the entire world.
British officials are quietly accusing China of spreading disinformation about their success with the virus while simultaneously downplaying its number of cases “by a factor of 15 to 40 times.”
No one who knows the Chinese Communist Party has believed otherwise. The CCP has been a lying parasite on the world trade system since it entered the WTO. Having lost the trade war, which would have merely rationalized their trade positions, the CCP then covers up the worst virus attack the world has seen since the Spanish Flu.
Covered it up or created it. It is reasonable to suspect the CCP either created or bred COVID19 in its Wuhan BSL-4 lab and then advertently or inadvertently released it, knowing it would spread throughout the world.
This letter to Nature argues that COVID19 was not manufactured in a lab: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Maybe that’s good science and maybe it’s even true that the virus was not “the product of purposeful manipulation” of the splice and dice kind, but it still could have been found in nature and bred in a lab for high contagiousness and enough lethality to paralyze the world.
I am not a virologist and the above is speculation. Furthermore, I am not trying to sensationalize what has happened. I am saying it’s a simple fact that not telling the world the truth about your own epidemic will cause a worldwide pandemic. And that is tantamount to an act of war.
An unnamed British official said “there has to be a reckoning when this is over.” A very nice way to say the CCP is finished. I pray there will not be kinetic war, but something dire is going to happen. The CCP’s handling of COVID19 is sinister, aggressive, hostile, and unforgivable.
First they came for “inner” Mongolia, but the world said nothing. Then they came for Tibet, Falun Gong, Tiananmen Square, the Uighurs, and Hong Kong, and the world still said nothing.
Relevant: The Coronavirus and the Culture War
Perspectives on the Pandemic | Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford University | Interview
I have been reading Ioannidis for years. He is my personal favorite on science bias, medical studies, and epidemiological matters. This interview provides a very good overview of covid19. Well-worth viewing. ABN
When we consider psycholinguistics from the point of view of interpersonal communication (especially psychologically rich communication) we can identify a unit of communication that springs from the working memory as it indexes deeper and more extensive information stored elsewhere in the mind/brain.
This unit of communication is used to start a conversation and then maintain it.
For example, my partner recently had a performance review at her job. This morning I asked her about it. When I asked her, I intended to start a conversation. Along with my intention, I knew a few things:
- that she would be interested in the topic
- that she would have new information
- that I knew a good deal about it but not as much as her
- that we would almost certainly engage in a conversation that is of practical as well as psychological interest to both of us
In raising the subject, I held an amorphous notion in my working memory roughly described by the text just above. I embarked on the subject with a pointed yet open-ended question, “So how is the job review going…”
That question signaled in my mind, and it turns out in may partner’s as well, that I wanted to converse with her about her job review.
I want to call what I did there the initiation of a convertation,(which is the word conversation with a “t” in place of the “s”). I am using a special term because I want to isolate and describe it as a psycholinguistic unit of major importance to both speech and psychology.
I submit that a convertation, which the above is merely a single example of, is a major psycholinguistic unit; a major piece of psychology and language both together and separately.
A convertation springs from the working memory where it appears as an index of much more. Many convertations could be described as “gambits,” but gambits are only one type.
Loosely speaking, a convertation includes an intention, a purpose, somewhat defined content, and open-endedness. In the example above:
- My intention was to converse with my partner, listen to her speak, enjoy the morning, have fun talking with her, and find out how her job review was going.
- My purpose was to get new information and assess how the review was affecting her and if I had any role to play in it.
- The content (once it began) of now our convertation was the job review and my partner’s psychological responses toward it. Less important but also significant were my psychological responses to hers.
- The open-endedness could be anything sparked by the original premise of the convertation.
In the case above, everything went smoothly. My partner was not stressed by the review. It seemed to be going well. I felt some relief but was not surprised. At some point, we began a discussion of why her employer did the review the way they did. Lastly, I said our talking constituted a good example of what I mean by convertation.
Convertations can be fruitful and very pleasant as in the above example. Or they can be fraught with dangerous misunderstandings, misplaced emotions, psychological and linguistic harm.
Sometimes a convertation constitutes an entire conversation. Sometimes a convertation is a sub-unit of a larger conversation. If you isolate convertations and view them as units in themselves, sharper distinctions can be made about how and why people speak to each other.
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have built a high-speed camera that can capture actual brain signals as they occur.
…The new imaging technique combines two-photon fluorescence microscopy and all-optical laser scanning in a state-of-the-art microscope that can image a two-dimensional slice through the neocortex of the mouse brain up to 3,000 times per second. That’s fast enough to trace electrical signals flowing through brain circuits. (High-speed microscope captures fleeting brain signals)
The following article makes a strong case that the coronavirus (COVID19) was a bio-engineered pathogen created at the Chinese Wuhan BSL-4 lab and that it most likely escaped from the lab due to negligence.
This report is the product of a collaboration between a retired professional scientist with dozens of peer-reviewed publications and 30 years of experience in genomic sequencing and analysis, who worked at the Theoretical Biology Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and later helped design several ubiquitous bioinformatic software tools, as well as a former NSA counterterrorism analyst. It considers whether the Wuhan Strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) is the result of naturally emergent mutations against the possibility that it may be a bio-engineered strain – directly altered by genetic manipulation, subject to artificially-guided evolutionary selection, or both – most likely released into the public by accident since China’s rate of occupational accidents is about ten-times higher than America’s, and some twenty-times more than Europe’s, the only other regions with high-level virology labs.
Raising the odds of an accidental release, researchers from China’s only BSL-4 lab in Wuhan were reported to have particularly sloppy field research methods, being both bled and peed on by local bats that host coronaviruses remarkably similar to the Wuhan Strain COVID-19. And they’ve also been reported to smuggle used research animals out of their labs, selling them for cash on the street. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in mid February the Chinese Ministry of Science sent out a directive to all its labs emphasizing the important of carefully handling bio-infectious agents and alluding to slack oversight and past lapses, even mentioning coronaviruses specifically. (Logistical and Technical Exploration into the Origins of the Wuhan Strain of Coronavirus (COVID-19))
There are good links and a video available in front of and within the above article.
I vastly prefer the hypothesis that the virus was negligently released from China’s Wuhan BSL-4 lab. And there is good circumstantial evidence for this.
But there is also good circumstantial evidence that the virus was deliberately released by the CCP as payback for losing the trade war. Either way, gross negligence or deliberate hostility, the Communist Party of China at the very least owes the world a real and thorough explanation, a real apology, and probably very massive reparations.
If the virus was an act of war against the entire global community, I don’t know what to say or what will happen next.
It would be a fiasco if preventative measures are far in excess of what is warranted; a hoax if a deliberate agenda lies behind the fiasco; the real thing if our worst projections are born out by facts we do not yet have.
John Ioannidis makes a strong argument that we should wonder if the global response to the virus is a fiasco:
…The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. (A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data)
That the US response is a hoax or possibly a hoax is explained by sundance, a well-regarded conservative blogger:
…There’s been a debate about possible political motives surrounding the panic he has created; the massive economic damage he has inflicted; and the conflicting assertions of National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci.
CTH identifies the motives as sketchy. He appears to use his position to advance theories and yet position himself to avoid scrutiny.
Sometimes within a 24 hour period Fauci will make a statement, then contradict the initial assertion, then attempt to cloud his own conflict with obtuse and wordy explanations. (Political Health – The Motives of a Very, Very, Political Dr. Fauci…)
If it’s the real thing, a real pandemic with unusually high mortality rates, then we still have many unknowns to consider. Chief among them is the question of whether the virus is a bioweapon or not. If it were a man-made bioweapon, its chemical and RNA structure should reveal that. If the virus evolved naturally, it still could have been used as a weapon.
If it was a weapon, was it released due to negligence or design? If by design, who did it? Since the virus first appeared in Wuhan, which is also the site of a virus research lab, the most likely explanation is it escaped into the general population due to negligence.
Other explanations are, the CCP did it deliberately as payback for losing its parasitic privileges in world trade; the US did it to finish the CCP off; someone else did it, possibly Russia or Israel (because Iran has also suffered badly).
Of course, there are many other possibilities worth considering. Variations on the coivd19 story read like prompts for playwrights.
From a Buddhist point of view, there is much to be gained from this catastrophe, no matter how it eventually comes to be seen. Life, death, impermanence, emptiness, the value of mindfulness, wisdom, and compassion are all stimulated producing heightened awareness and sensitivity to the miracle of existing at all.