I'd like to share an insightful observation from one of Britain's most renowned writers of the 20th century, George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (1903-1950). He was highly regarded for his prose and perspectives on social injustice, totalitarianism, and other political issues: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." (From "Why I Write", Penguin Books, Great Ideas 'Collection')
Thanks for this Luc! You're 100% right! Language is an effective weapon and they know how to wield it well. Don't know if you've seen my analysis on Orwell (and Huxley), but here it is! Curious to your thoughts if you haven't seen it already: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-brave-new-world-of-1984-part
100% agree Gwyneth! I would venture to say that most of the population knows they're lying and the BS is evident. I read sometime last year that only like under 20% of people who got vaccinated the first time plan on doing so again -- which means 80% have woken up to the BS. Even though the media won't say it, we can all see that the Emperor has no clothes on!
Really thought-provoking stuff. It begs the question: after so many years of deception, won't the lie and the truth start to sound equally absurd? After a while, 'the truth' ceases to mean anything at all.
Melissa! Yep exactly! The whole point is that there's so much information out there, truth, lies, ideas, etc., that the population has no idea what to believe, understand or comprehend. Truly is the Brave New World as we know it, but the good news is, we have that inner guide, and when we pay attention to it, we can sift through the lies and BS sent our way.
Yes, the story about dinosaurs is a lie, many Christians would tell you that. So, do you believe in a geocentric solar system or a flat earth? Thanks for any response.
Hey Dean, thanks for this comment! I would argue a combination of both but more so of a flat earth as when we say "solar system," that means that we have planets "out there." I would argue that our view of planets also needs to be refined and that planets are nothing more than "wandering stars" within the firmament, which is why I would lie more with a stationary level earth.
When I tell people that I personally don’t know whether the earth is a globe or a basin or a ice locked pond, they quickly google pictures of earth from space and show me dozens of “photos” of an absolutely beautiful stunning marble that resembles what we have been told earth looks like before we supposedly ventured into outer space.
The images of earth from space always look, to me, like some of the topographical globes we had in the 50’s with some swirling wispy white clouds painted over it.
With what can be done with computer graphics and animation and various artistic programs, how can I truly trust that these images from NASA or even the Russian or Chinese “space programs” are legitimate photographs of the earth from outer space?
The bit where they say that they have to keep it a secret until 2050 reminds me of Civilisation the computer strategy game, where the game ends in 2050 with tech like nano, AI etc.
Like you said they put truth and clues in movies, games and stuff. I watched a Youtuber uncover some mindblowing evidence of our reality being a simulation, and he presented some evidence that we will be undergoing a kind of reset around 2050. So that ties in with that.
We might not be certain about what will happen but like you said we have our inner guidance system to guide us as we connect more and more within ourselves :)
Good analogy with that game. Reminds me of when the government and the FDA insisted that the “safety data for the vaccines” be kept secret for 75 years.
And now no one brings up the obvious question, “why, if you have good data regarding safety, wouldn’t you want it released and published immediately?”
Why would you want the data you based your decision to move forward on vaccines to be hidden for a human lifetime?
During MRSA and C-Diff outbreaks in hospitals, billing departments tried billing the government and insurance companies for those expenses incurred in treating those patients when in actuality, the hospital was the source of the infection. When government and insurance refused to pay stating that they are not responsible for hospital acquired infections, thus began great interest in figuring out how to reduce those infections, and mask studies took on a new life, which eventually proved worthless.
As an example, this study might nicely accompany your earlier article regarding why one wears a mask……or not.
The 478 emergency department, medical unit, and pediatric nurses in this Canadian study who were randomized to use a surgical mask when providing care to patients with febrile respiratory illness during the flu season caught seasonal flu at about the same rate as those who wore fit-tested, N95 respirators (23.6% versus 22.9%, P=0.86).
For H1N1 influenza, surgical masks again met noninferiority criteria versus the N95 respirator (8.0% versus 11.9%, P=0.18).
Design may have accounted for the discrepancy between the trials, at least in part, suggested Srinivasan, who co-authored an editorial accompanying the JAMA study with an IOM committee member colleague.
"These types of studies are very difficult to do," he told MedPage Today.
The driving factor in effectiveness is how frequently and intensely the wearer is exposed to infection, he said. So one possibility is that masks may have been enough for Canadian nurses in generally lower risk settings, but not for the high-risk Chinese healthcare workers.
In Surgery: Masks Unmasked
Lack of evidence has also plagued surgical masks in their traditional setting, and where their use is still nearly universal: the operating room.
But not for lack of study.
In fact, three large, randomized controlled trials were conducted in the 1980s to determine once and for all if surgical masks actually did prevent surgical wound infection.
Here, where bacteria were the major concern in wound infection, the enemy targets were larger and might not require the fine filtration necessary to keep a respiratory virus away, researchers theorized.
But the trials "showed absolutely no efficacy" for that original purpose, MacIntyre noted.
"Really, the surgeon might as well wear nothing on their face," she said.
Still, the CDC recommends a mask in the operating room, citing long-standing tradition and the benefits of protecting nose and mouth from splashes of blood and other bodily fluids.
MacIntyre noted that a face shield is a better option against splashes because surgeons have to wear eye protection with a mask anyway.
But mask wearing "is so inculcated into the practice of medicine that it's going to be very hard to change," said John G. Bartlett, MD, former chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins.
Tradition and aesthetics play a role in the issue. Patients would not accept a surgeon who doesn't wear a mask because they are so ingrained as a symbol of a safe surgical environment, Bartlett said.
And since the masks are fairly inexpensive and easy to wear, it hasn't been worth challenging the status quo, he declared.
Nor are there likely to be more studies to decide the issue one way or the other, added Rupp. "Those studies are difficult to do because the percentage of patients who develop a surgical site infection is very, very low. So the impact of wearing a surgical mask is difficult to demonstrate," he said.
Masks for the Masses
Unlike the operating room, where it would be impossible to stop people from wearing masks, there are few places outside the hospital where it hasn't been hard to persuade people to put them on.
Like you said, Lies are lies……….unless of course social pressure/cues suggest otherwise.
I'd like to share an insightful observation from one of Britain's most renowned writers of the 20th century, George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (1903-1950). He was highly regarded for his prose and perspectives on social injustice, totalitarianism, and other political issues: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." (From "Why I Write", Penguin Books, Great Ideas 'Collection')
Thanks for this Luc! You're 100% right! Language is an effective weapon and they know how to wield it well. Don't know if you've seen my analysis on Orwell (and Huxley), but here it is! Curious to your thoughts if you haven't seen it already: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-brave-new-world-of-1984-part
And yet "We", that pesky gadfly of a populace, keep calling out their lies and pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
100% agree Gwyneth! I would venture to say that most of the population knows they're lying and the BS is evident. I read sometime last year that only like under 20% of people who got vaccinated the first time plan on doing so again -- which means 80% have woken up to the BS. Even though the media won't say it, we can all see that the Emperor has no clothes on!
Really thought-provoking stuff. It begs the question: after so many years of deception, won't the lie and the truth start to sound equally absurd? After a while, 'the truth' ceases to mean anything at all.
Melissa! Yep exactly! The whole point is that there's so much information out there, truth, lies, ideas, etc., that the population has no idea what to believe, understand or comprehend. Truly is the Brave New World as we know it, but the good news is, we have that inner guide, and when we pay attention to it, we can sift through the lies and BS sent our way.
Thanks for this comment, greatly appreciated!
Yes, the story about dinosaurs is a lie, many Christians would tell you that. So, do you believe in a geocentric solar system or a flat earth? Thanks for any response.
Hey Dean, thanks for this comment! I would argue a combination of both but more so of a flat earth as when we say "solar system," that means that we have planets "out there." I would argue that our view of planets also needs to be refined and that planets are nothing more than "wandering stars" within the firmament, which is why I would lie more with a stationary level earth.
Thanks again for the question and hope my response helps! For more information, here's a series I did on the topic: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-spirituality-of-flat-earth
When I tell people that I personally don’t know whether the earth is a globe or a basin or a ice locked pond, they quickly google pictures of earth from space and show me dozens of “photos” of an absolutely beautiful stunning marble that resembles what we have been told earth looks like before we supposedly ventured into outer space.
The images of earth from space always look, to me, like some of the topographical globes we had in the 50’s with some swirling wispy white clouds painted over it.
With what can be done with computer graphics and animation and various artistic programs, how can I truly trust that these images from NASA or even the Russian or Chinese “space programs” are legitimate photographs of the earth from outer space?
The bit where they say that they have to keep it a secret until 2050 reminds me of Civilisation the computer strategy game, where the game ends in 2050 with tech like nano, AI etc.
Like you said they put truth and clues in movies, games and stuff. I watched a Youtuber uncover some mindblowing evidence of our reality being a simulation, and he presented some evidence that we will be undergoing a kind of reset around 2050. So that ties in with that.
We might not be certain about what will happen but like you said we have our inner guidance system to guide us as we connect more and more within ourselves :)
Good analogy with that game. Reminds me of when the government and the FDA insisted that the “safety data for the vaccines” be kept secret for 75 years.
And now no one brings up the obvious question, “why, if you have good data regarding safety, wouldn’t you want it released and published immediately?”
Why would you want the data you based your decision to move forward on vaccines to be hidden for a human lifetime?
That obvious question is so obvious.
During MRSA and C-Diff outbreaks in hospitals, billing departments tried billing the government and insurance companies for those expenses incurred in treating those patients when in actuality, the hospital was the source of the infection. When government and insurance refused to pay stating that they are not responsible for hospital acquired infections, thus began great interest in figuring out how to reduce those infections, and mask studies took on a new life, which eventually proved worthless.
As an example, this study might nicely accompany your earlier article regarding why one wears a mask……or not.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/infectioncontrol/16278
The 478 emergency department, medical unit, and pediatric nurses in this Canadian study who were randomized to use a surgical mask when providing care to patients with febrile respiratory illness during the flu season caught seasonal flu at about the same rate as those who wore fit-tested, N95 respirators (23.6% versus 22.9%, P=0.86).
For H1N1 influenza, surgical masks again met noninferiority criteria versus the N95 respirator (8.0% versus 11.9%, P=0.18).
Design may have accounted for the discrepancy between the trials, at least in part, suggested Srinivasan, who co-authored an editorial accompanying the JAMA study with an IOM committee member colleague.
"These types of studies are very difficult to do," he told MedPage Today.
The driving factor in effectiveness is how frequently and intensely the wearer is exposed to infection, he said. So one possibility is that masks may have been enough for Canadian nurses in generally lower risk settings, but not for the high-risk Chinese healthcare workers.
In Surgery: Masks Unmasked
Lack of evidence has also plagued surgical masks in their traditional setting, and where their use is still nearly universal: the operating room.
But not for lack of study.
In fact, three large, randomized controlled trials were conducted in the 1980s to determine once and for all if surgical masks actually did prevent surgical wound infection.
Here, where bacteria were the major concern in wound infection, the enemy targets were larger and might not require the fine filtration necessary to keep a respiratory virus away, researchers theorized.
But the trials "showed absolutely no efficacy" for that original purpose, MacIntyre noted.
"Really, the surgeon might as well wear nothing on their face," she said.
Still, the CDC recommends a mask in the operating room, citing long-standing tradition and the benefits of protecting nose and mouth from splashes of blood and other bodily fluids.
MacIntyre noted that a face shield is a better option against splashes because surgeons have to wear eye protection with a mask anyway.
But mask wearing "is so inculcated into the practice of medicine that it's going to be very hard to change," said John G. Bartlett, MD, former chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins.
Tradition and aesthetics play a role in the issue. Patients would not accept a surgeon who doesn't wear a mask because they are so ingrained as a symbol of a safe surgical environment, Bartlett said.
And since the masks are fairly inexpensive and easy to wear, it hasn't been worth challenging the status quo, he declared.
Nor are there likely to be more studies to decide the issue one way or the other, added Rupp. "Those studies are difficult to do because the percentage of patients who develop a surgical site infection is very, very low. So the impact of wearing a surgical mask is difficult to demonstrate," he said.
Masks for the Masses
Unlike the operating room, where it would be impossible to stop people from wearing masks, there are few places outside the hospital where it hasn't been hard to persuade people to put them on.
Like you said, Lies are lies……….unless of course social pressure/cues suggest otherwise.
Thx for your article.