CHINA: Fake News vs. Real News

[Thinking]

On 11/17/2021 at 12:49 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

So am I right that if the spikiness of the S protein allows it to penetrate cells so as to infect, the spikiness of the antigen produced upon stimulation by the shot is just as architecturally dangerous, even though not infectious? And so, that is why you do want to take out the virus should it appear, but you want to do so through safer means, the ones being discredited? And that, unless and until the virus appears, meanwhile the spikiness of the shot inflicts damage of its own?

Yes you are right.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Alleviating poverty and bringing quality of life issues to the average person has always been the primary stated goal of communism and socialism

For the most part, is this not the primary stated goal of any system of human rule—to benefit the people?

I like the challenge to a mindset, However, here is an Eastern European joke that once made the rounds. (home-grown, not injected from the West for reasons of sabotage):

A man has been advised by his party leader that as a result of his exemplary citizenship, he is now on the list to purchase a car, and that he can expect it to arrive in ten years. The man asks the leader if it is possible to know what day it will arrive. The leader checks his records and tells him the day.

The man then wants to know if his car will arrive in the morning or afternoon? The party leader frowns. “What kind of a question is that!” he barks. Apologetically, the man responds that he meant no offense but only wanted to know because the plumber is coming that morning.

This, from the GC professor who spoke of the hundreds of circulating communist jokes of which there are two theories: 1) that they eventually brought down the Russian and Eastern Europe system, 2) that they constituted a release valve to blow off steam and thereby enable the systems to stand as long as they did.

Another GC prof points out how several Asian economies have in recent times grown at a rapid clip of 8% per year for many years—S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan (which abruptly ceased its spurt n the 90s) The rate in the West is about 2%, it’s spurt was in the Industrial Age. Now China has joined the ranks of rapid growth, and it is the first communist government to join the ranks of this rapid economic growth.

it began with Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, who told farmers that yes, they had to meet their quotas of produce, but anything beyond was theirs to do with what they wanted—buy, sell, barter, whatever. Formerly whatever excess they produced also went to the state, with the result that they produced very little beyond quota. It is with this new incentive that the economy began to rocket. 

The first of any experiment in government takes the arrows, and succeeding ones benefit from analyzing what went wrong. In this case, the Chinese communists could easily point to the stupid white people of Russia for screwing up their application of Marx. Whether they did or not, I don’t know. I think you may be overplaying the race card.

I’ll grant that governments are always seeking to undermine each other. I recall reading how Russia’s ‘meddling’ in the US election was largely motivated by payback that the US had meddled in theirs. And my Bible student speaks of a crisis of conscience upon coming to feel he was being used. In the military, he was part of the humanitarian squad genuinely planning aid to whatever country he was sent to. However, there was always accompanying him the special ops team, and he says, “you didn’t ask what they were doing.”

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It is the reason there is often such a public impetus for, and public acceptance of communism and socialism in countries that have remained communist.

This may be the devil you know vs the devil you don’t. Many Russians came to regret their instant plunge into capitalism with its predatory practices unleashed that they were totally unprepared for. But I still have long heard, and I think it is true, that while many flee from the East to the West, sometimes taking great risk to do so, the reverse is not true.

And what has become of that Chinese tennis player? The one who just released a statement that she is fine and happy as a pig in mud and nobody believes it for a second because it is a complete reversal from her normal style?

[Edit: Turns out that I increased my ‘rank’ with this comment. There is nothing that motivates me more than an ‘attaboy.’ It is comparable to those ubiquitous WT pictures of the self-congratulatory fellow thumping his chest with one hand while motioning to his mansion, fancy car, boat, and stacks of money with the other]

[JW Insider]

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

China - was following a capitalistic investment program to alleviate poverty - that is true (although they were not altruistic in their goals but more about modernization and industrial growth of the central government ///// but they always wanted to return to the pure communism which they have done now.

I up-voted your comment because there are so many points I agree with. But naturally that means I have to comment on a few points, too. 😉 A lot of people point to any successes that China has had economically and will either continue to predict colossal, impending failure every couple of years, or they will merely explain it away by claiming it wasn't communism that produced the successes; it was capitalism.

It does seem to be a hybrid approach, but so-called "pure communism" is always supposed to make use of the "conditions on the ground" as it were. Marx thought it would look very different in every country where it was attempted. From the beginning, communist theory has always agreed that communism does not need to avoid capital and investment and SHOULD accommodate such ideas with specific regulations to avoid the vicious cycle of inequalities. This is one of the reasons that Marx was against anything like "Marxism" that would grow into a specific set of rules that would be the same anywhere.

Whether the internal goals of China were as altruistic as the stated goals is too hard to tell. I'm a skeptic about altruism in governments and expect that having individuals with most kinds of power over others will quickly result in corruption and abuse everywhere. The stated goals and "rules" of communism are supposed to make it more difficult for any specific individuals to gain too much personal economic gain at the expense of others. But there is always corruption anywhere.

Using a corporate example, in the USA it's common for the head of a company to make 100 to 1,000 times as much as the lowest wages paid in the same company. (A very few companies can have a 10,000x difference, or more.) This was true of the financial services company I worked for, until it was bought by a French company, which had gained a solid financial footing all over the world by acquiring companies and reducing the total number of corporate "officers" and highly paid board members, and changing the pay scales to only a 40x difference between the highest officers and the lowest salaries. (e.g., $2 million vs. $50,000). But then the officers of primary company began to find ways to take advantage of stock options, leverage, buy-backs, etc, to increase their own top compensation, and then open up tech support in India, etc to reduce the lowest wages, effectively bringing the difference back up near 1,000x (e.g. $10 million to $10,000/year). 

But when this same company wanted to open up some lines of business in China, which I helped research as part of my job, we discovered that China wanted something far less than a 10x difference in local pay-scales, and required profit-sharing measures among even the lowest level workers, and all of the workers would be treated as shareholders with a vote in the labor policies, and a couple of communist party members would probably be included, and the systems in place had to have more auditing against fraud. Also, China, after several years, would have the right to renew or reject the company's footprint in China, and would be allowed to compete with the company using observed processes and data collected. Of course, some Western companies realize that they can still make large short-term profits in a few years and they go ahead with starting up in China even under their restrictions. But those companies will often come back and complain that China stole all their proprietary processes and "intellectual property." Of course, it's exactly what they had agreed with in the first place. (And many of the Western companies had already stolen that intellectual property from other Western companies before they opened up operations to China anyway.)

As an aside, this same company that I worked for (for 20 years) began using an Indian company for most of its consulting, and ended up privately suing that same company for stealing intellectual property. It's fairly well-known now that companies like TATA in India consult for US companies and then go back to India and start up companies in India taking what they learned. The US doesn't make a big deal about it for India however because they are an "ally."  

[Arauna]

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

does seem to be a hybrid approach

Sweden is more capitalist than capitalistic countries - Yes they have a social system in services to their people but they make a lot of money on manufacturing and exports. ...... for a peaceful country they really sell a lot of weapons.

[TrueTomHarley]

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

for a peaceful country they really sell a lot of weapons.

“Taking care of business”

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

However, here is an Eastern European joke that once made the rounds. (home-grown, not injected from the West for reasons of sabotage):

The joke might have been home-grown, but I don't believe there were any Eastern European communist countries that had not been the victim of Western sabotage. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This, from the GC professor who spoke of the hundreds of circulating communist jokes of which there are two theories: 1) that they eventually brought down the Russian and Eastern Europe system, 2) that they constituted a release valve to blow off steam and thereby enable the systems to stand as long as they did.

Clever professor. Like evidence for a conspiracy theory that ends up supporting the same theory whether it is proved right or wrong.

I have a feeling that most of those jokes, even though based on local truths, were told in the West to gain camaraderie and approval with their new Western audience. I have noticed an elitist bias behind a lot of the Russian and Eastern European humor. But I'll probably have trouble explaining what I mean by this. I think about how Jimmy Kimmel or Steven Colbert will commiserate with the poor in some of their "we" jokes where they are obviously not included in the "we" who suffer from this or that indignity that is the topic of the joke. But a kind of self-deprecation gains acceptance, approval, "sympathy." And this is required to make the joke work for the average audience.

I don't know if you remember a Ukrainian born comedian named Yakov Smirnoff, who was already a stand-up comedian in Ukraine (USSR) in the 1970's. He later (in Missouri) taught a course called "The Business of Laughter" and of course he made a successful business of making fun of communism from about 1977 and which peaked in the mid 1980's.

Mostly Yakov Smirnoff was right about the difficulties in getting "elite" and/or Western goods in Russia/USSR (automobiles, jeans, etc.) But he also ended up spawning a lot of jokes about standing in line to get a potato, which were just pure propaganda that the West wanted to hear. I think that his feedback loop influenced his early material about the disturbing level of Western consumerism ("What a country!") and pushed it into more and more parody of communism.

I don't want to give the impression that I think communism will usually be successful. It's an experiment in government, and experiments fail at least as often as start-up businesses. The rest of the world provides competition in ideologies. Communism will have a natural appeal to the oppressed, but to even try the experiment they will have to fight the elite classes who want to keep oppressing. The rich and the elite have all the control of both military and economic power. In the rare case when the poor are desperate enough to risk a bloody battle, and the rarer cases when they win, the elites will want back in power and will continually look for opportunities. Or they will leave/flee because they hate the idea of no longer being elites. Or to avoid leaving/fleeing they might even help split their country into two parts.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Now China has joined the ranks of rapid growth, and it is the first communist government to join the ranks of this rapid economic growth.

I agree with this, but wanted to point out that Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua had also raised the "well-being" of the average citizen. They raised the education level, the life expectancy, the health, the services, the food supply. Cuba and Venezuela have provided doctors and services to neighboring countries suffering disasters. They have housing and food programs, even vaccine-sharing programs with neighboring countries that are constantly being undermined and sabotaged by the US. The ones who leave these countries, often leave because they feel they no longer have the opportunity to prove themselves elites. In many cases the racism is not so hidden, too, because now the poorer majorities, made up of various ethic minorities, are considered to be on equal footing. Many Cubans in Miami give evidence of this idea all the time. The coup leaders that the US supports in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc., are always the ones who pass for "white" and the local rhetoric in their favor uses the most vile racist terms for the darker skinned leaders (like Maduro, etc.)

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Many Russians came to regret their instant plunge into capitalism with its predatory practices unleashed that they were totally unprepared for.

I would consider that their plunge into capitalism was a deliberate and successful sabotage by the USA to weaken their economy and position in the world.

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, NoisySrecko said:

I understand you claim not to be an expert, and you consider your sources to be trustworthy. The majority of the scientific community agrees mRNA to be safe. Are these sources you consider trustworthy, academic in nature? Have they acquired a per-review? 

To the extent that the majority of the scientific community is under the influence of big money, they have lost much credibility.

There is a former pharma executive online who states that for every dollar Pharma spends on educating you through drug ads and otherwise, they spend six times that amount “educating” the medical field. There is another Pharma VP who says: “Look, nobody has any money. Government doesn’t. Researchers don’t. Universities don’t. But Pharma has lots of money.” 

“Conduct a study for us,” Pharma says, “here’s tons of money to fund it.” If the results come back favorable to Pharma, they can expect more funding for other studies. If the results come back unfavorable, they will never hear from Pharma again. “No money has changed hands,” the VP says. “No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do,’ as he goes on to claim this practice is universal.

The above is said of new drugs. The regulatory hurdles for vaccines, even in normal times, are lower. In abnormal times, such as now, they are lower still. The existing vaccines were ushered in at “warp speed” under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This US emergency provision can only be done legally if there truly is a emergency—that is, if there is no existing alternative treatment for Covid-19. Thus, it becomes very important to certain parties to demonstrate that existing alternative treatments (read primarily hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) are no good and/or cause injury.

19 hours ago, NoisySrecko said:

Are these sources you consider trustworthy, academic in nature? Have they acquired a per-review? 

Yes. Some of them are medical doctors who felt impelled to do something to help their patients. Initially, there was no guidance whatsoever from health agencies upon a Covid-19 diagnosis other than get bed-rest, keep hydrated, and come to the hospital if it gets real bad—by which time it was too late. Most patients put on ventilators died.

So these doctors, mostly on their own & then they shared their results with colleagues, began experimenting with existing drugs to see if any could prevent the hospitalization that usually spelled death. They discovered and then shared with others their 80% or so success rate. One of them shared his regimen with the White House, and this is why when Trump was diagnosed with Covid, he was very soon up and running again.* Another pleaded before Congress—I heard him—that these drugs be made widely available. He stressed that he was not against vaccines, which then were only in the early stages of being developed and rolled out. He was only interested in saving his existing patients in the interim.

These doctors describe how they were aghast that, not only were the drugs not made widely available, but they were targeted for elimination. They describe their bewilderment that studies were undertaken administering these drugs at levels known to be toxic. Of one Brazilian study that came to be heralded as proof that these cheap drugs that had been around forever were dangerous, one of these doctors writes: 

“The Brazilian authors of this study must have known they were treading on dangerous territory by purposely causing many deaths. Coming from a poor area of the country, they may have felt they could get away with sacrificing their patients without local reprisals. They simply gave lethal doses of chloroquine to patients to prove that the drug and its derivative hydroxychloroquine were too dangerous to treat Covid-19”

This is an outrageous charge and these doctors were slow to make it. But a lethal dose is a lethal dose. Malfeasance is clearly demonstrated at many levels. It is assessing the motivation behind the malfeasance that is perilous and causes different docs to come to different conclusions, not always agreeing with each other. A prominent view, however, is that this campaign to discredit the drugs that demonstrably work amounts to mass murder and is the equal of previous genocides. Hundreds of thousands of people died who didn’t have to.

Didn’t many of Hitler’s medical experimenters wind up in South America? Of course, they’d be dead by now, but culture doesn’t die in an overlapping generation. I can’t picture rank and file technicians knowingly administering an experiment that kills people, but I can imagine them simply doing what they’re told, with no suspicions at all as to what their higher ups were concocting. Moreover, JWI I am sure will empathize with how poor people with the wrong skin color make good fodder for forward progress. Aren’t there examples in the US involving blacks and indigenous populations?

20 hours ago, NoisySrecko said:

Are these sources you consider trustworthy, academic in nature?

Some of the answer to this hinges on what you consider “academic.” The aforementioned doctor who sent his results to the White House and saved Trump also sent those results to certain official sources. These sources rejected the material because it was not a scientific study. “I understand it is not a scientific study,” he said, “it wasn’t intended to be, but it is still data.”

Scientific “studies” like the above Brazilian one are trumping actual data. They are infringing upon what these doctors consider sacred, the doctor-patient relationship. The “studies” have been used to go over the heads of doctors, who prescribe, say—Ivermecitn—and then the pharmacies refuse to fill it. (and in some cases report the doctor). What is “academic” is trampling what is real.

20 hours ago, NoisySrecko said:

Have they acquired a per-review? 

Some of them are widely published prior to going into this area of medical apostasy. I heard one of them say that he holds an advantage over some of his colleagues in that he has been published in some many journals that he will be difficult to take down.

All of them have been taken down, however,  on the mainstream outlets such as Facebook and YouTube. They are reduced to their own websites, where they aggregate breaking developments. How much they are actually reduced is a matter of debate. Most of them are reluctant beacons who never sought to be public figures. Their palpable integrity and manifest good motive draws people to their information. I consider them very credible. I mean, these are not the people who think Sandy Hook was a hoax.

___ * Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback, caused a major brouhaha when it was revealed that his prior claim of being “immunized” didn’t mean he was vaccinated. He was relying on something else, and then he came down with Covid-19. Of course, he missed the next game. But the one after that he led his team to a 17-0 victory. 

Doing my bit for “science,” I pointed out that it would have been 34-0 had he gone the conventional route.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The “studies” have been used to go over the heads of doctors, who prescribe, say—Ivermecitn—and then the pharmacies refuse to fill it. (and in some cases report the doctor). What is “academic” is trampling what is real.

The Ivermectin blow-up over Joe Rogan's prescription from a doctor made headlines reverberating into the late night comedy shows and, of course, embarrassed CNN to no end. (Actually, it should have been to no end, but they went right back to lying about Ivermectin.)

Most people know this, I'm sure, but when Joe Rogan got Covid he looked for a doctor that would prescribe Ivermectin and some of the other non-standard medications. CNN has pushed the Ivermectin = Horse-Dewormer lie for so long that they couldn't help making fun of Rogan and ran headlines that said things like "Despite Warnings Joe Rogan takes Livestock Medicine" or words to that effect. Joe Rogan invited Sanjay Gupta (CNN Medical Reporter) on his show, and called CNN out on the lie. Gupta could only admit that the CNN had made a mistake.

(Ivermectin is, of course, a medicine designed for humans to treat various tropical ailments in humans, and the two doctors who developed it won Nobel prizes for it in 2017. Calling it a horse medicine is about the same as calling penicillin a pig medicine because it is sometimes recommended for pigs/swine.)

CNN's Sanjay Gupta had to go back on CNN right after this and allow Don Lemon to interview Gupta in order to restate the case as falsely as possible to do damage control for CNN.

Saturday Night Live weighed in with their support for CNN with a very unfunny skit about Joe Rogan taking horse dewormer.

Of course, the main reason that Joe Rogan had to be taken down is because Ivermectin apparently worked just fine in helping him get over a bad case of Covid in a matter of hours. (Analogous to the CIA's need to crush any small nation that succeeds with a ruling ideology that differs from their recommended dose of pseudo-democracy or a puppet dictatorship.) Another reason is that CNN is very jealous of people like Joe Rogan who isn't even that smart (my opinion) but can garner an audience even larger than CNN among demographics younger than 65.

Of course, Pfizer's problem with Ivermectin is that it only costs about 4 cents for a dose of Ivermectin and it is easy to make. It's a 3CLPro inhibitor (3-chymotrypsin like protease inibitor) and therefore, if taken as an early treatment for covid, will inhibit the virus from replicating in the body, making it easy to fight off without hospitalization or death.

Just last week Pfizer announced its patented version of a 3PCLPro inhibitor, which will likely cost much more than 4 cents a dose.

A good explanation of this was provided by John Campbell, PhD, who has taught medicine and trained nurses. For a while his explanation was given a warning by YouTube/Google, although the so-called fact-checkers ended up only pointing to info that agreed with his findings.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Clever professor.

I think it is more in the line of stating a universal truth that applies everywhere.

It is seen among our own people. Nobody would ever say that being a Witness does not entail sacrifice. A legitimate concern therefore becomes how do you not undermine people’s resolve to stay steadfast and continue to make them. Hence, the constant admonition to stay “upbuilding.,” sometimes to the point where it can seem forced. Others will think that if the friends can yuk it up here and there, it serves as a relief valve to the discipline and self-sacrifice Christianity implies.

[TrueTomHarley]

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Another reason is that CNN is very jealous of people like Joe Rogan who isn't even that smart (my opinion) but can garner an audience even larger than CNN among demographics younger than 65.

Rush used to say (no, I was not a regular listener, but if I was driving somewhere, I would often have him on the car radio) that the mainstream media types seethed with jealousy over Trump because he could do what they could not.

He could hold an audience at rapt attention for hours, speaking entirely extemporaneously. ‘Do you know how hard that is to do?’ Rush would say. They, in contrast, were so tedious that attention to them waned in no time at all.

By the way, he’s got his own makeshift network, which somehow snuck onto Twitter the other day. Using the Geico lizard (which I assume he has permission to do) he texted: “Save 15% on anything with Trump.”

The guy just won’t go away. To those who carry on about the ‘dignity’ of government, his conduct is deeply offensive. But to those who think such dignity was discarded long ago, it is side-splitting hilarious.

[Pudgy]

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Rush used to say (no, I was not a regular listener, but if I was driving somewhere, I would often have him on the car radio) that the mainstream media types seethed with jealousy over Trump because he could do what they could not.

He could hold an audience at rapt attention for hours, speaking entirely extemporaneously. ‘Do you know how hard that is to do?’ Rush would say. They, in contrast, were so tedious that attention to them waned in no time at all.

By the way, he’s got his own makeshift network, which somehow snuck onto Twitter the other day. Using the Geico lizard (which I assume he has permission to do) he texted: “Save 15% on anything with Trump.”

The guy just won’t go away. To those who carry on about the ‘dignity’ of government, his conduct is deeply offensive. But to those who think such dignity was discarded long ago, it is side-splitting hilarious.

Rush died on February 17 of this year. You may have noticed there was a major shift in the space-time continuum, and crazy people, bat-crap crazy people, insane crazy people, beyond the dreams of asylums everywhere, accelerated their take over of the world.

[TrueTomHarley]

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

How much they are actually reduced is a matter of debate.

Just received an update notification from Robert Kennedy’s website:

“Thank You for Making My Book the #1 Overall Bestseller on Amazon!”

The book is entitled, “The Real Anthony Fauci.” I probably won’t read it. I’ve read enough of this stuff. But his website is excellent. He is among the aggregators of information I spoke of.

He is the son of Robert F Kennedy, the Senator assassinated in 1968. As an attorney he was for many years the darling of progressives for uncovering environmental dangers. Then he decided that one of those dangers was vaccines, after which he became their pariah.