Dr. David Martin – (Covid is) A Manufactured Illusion

Dr. David Martin has done a detailed review of the 73+ patents relevant to Covid and the facts are shocking and speak for themselves.

I’m allergic to conspiracies but this one smells real to me.

Everything we are being told by our “leaders” about Covid is apparently wrong.

I watched this July 9 video presentation three times before posting it because it’s so evil that it’s hard to digest and accept.

Click this link to watch the video from it’s Odysee source:


Here is a copy on YouTube which may disappear soon:

Here is a document with references for fact checking Martin’s claims:

Not mentioned by Martin but additive to the case against our “leaders” is:

  • aggressive undermining and censorship of Ivermectin, an inexpensive and safe drug for prevention and treatment;
  • no promotion of inexpensive and safe methods for strengthening immune systems;
  • irrational policies such as vaccinating people who have recovered from Covid;
  • no debate of Dr. Bossche’s theory that a mass vaccination campaign during a pandemic with a non-sterilizing vaccine may create more dangerous variants that are immune to the vaccine and a vaccine degraded natural immune system;
  • no investigation of the virus source nor measures to prevent a recurrence.

I feel like I’m having a seriously deranged dream.

If anyone is able to re-spin the data Martin presents into a pro-social or benign scenario, I would be grateful to hear your ideas.

92 thoughts on “Dr. David Martin – (Covid is) A Manufactured Illusion”

  1. Wise words from Eric Weinstein today. Click to read his excellent multi-tweet thread.


  2. Ilargi is good today. Nothing about what we are being told makes sense.

    It’s very popular these days to talk about the Pandemic of the Unvaccinated, but what if what we’re really looking at is a Pandemic of the Vaccinated? When the breeding ground for a virus doesn ‘t change much, there is not much reason for it to mutate. That reason comes for instance in the form of a vaccine, especially one that is non-sterilizing (doesn’t prevent further infection) and is used on an enormous scale.

    Instead, they’ll have you believe the opposite: that the unvaccinated (80% of whom are safe to begin with) cause a virus to mutate, and the vaccinated stop that mutating, even if they continue to infect people around them. There is no logic in that.

    And there’s that question again: what DO the vaccines do? What do they do that is beneficial to us, and which vitamin D and any of an assortment of fully harmless repurposed drugs, research into which was suspended or banned to make the vaccine EUA’s possible, could not have done, and possibly better? For one thing, the vaccines don’t grant you immunity. None. If that’s not enough yet, let’s at least start there.



    1. Hi Steve, thanks for dropping by.

      This was my first exposure to Martin and I know nothing about him. I hope Martin is a hack but my bullshit detector did not sense that in his presentation.

      Another friend also sent me that link debunking some of Martin’s previous work. I see there are some red flags in his past but I did not see those red flags in this presentation. The article was written a year ago and did not address most of Martin’s current points. The debunkers also discredit themselves by stating the virus did not originate from a lab which is almost certainly false.

      Have you watched Martin’s presentation?


      1. I bet there are way more red flags if we dig into, Fauci, Gates, all the stakeholders in the pharmaceutical companies & research bodies, people within the governmental agencies that are involved and have been involved in this “virus” and “vaccine” technology.
        None of this whole situation passes the smell test, and we all should be questioning and digging into how we got here.
        There’s never been a doubt in my mind that this was set upon us. It was always a question of who did, why, and who gained from it.


        1. He may be correct but reaching in his conclusions as far as intentional release is concerned. It’s one thing to say they had hubris and took risks in viral research, while planning to profit from disease, it’s another to reach the conclusion that they would purposely release something for eugenics or big pharma, health insurance profits. The wealthiest capitalists often do do things that are literally actively killing us, for profits. Their greed is unquestionably evil from what I know in multiple areas of our lives. But releasing a virus designed to mutate faster than natural viruses and engineered for human infection (which is what the wuhan lab messes around with) seems to defy their own self interest. There were rich people who died from this too. The richest corporations became richer, it didn’t really hurt the .01% badly, but thats what capitalists do, they take advantage of everything, no matter how morally reprehensible, so it’s not an admission of guilt the way they behaved. It’s more like negligent homicide or something.


          1. I agree with you. Some people think the real vaccine, Omicron, may have been intentionally released by a white hat actor but I have not studied this theory enough to have an opinion.


            1. I dont think I’ve heard of your terminology here. Do you mean people consider the virus a vaccine, so like induced natural immunity? Or do you/they mean the vaccine against the omicron variant? As for released by a white hat actor, there is no way to know right now. From my research it seems US science diplomats from the US embassy sounded the alarm in 2018 about how the Wuhan lab was not using the appropriate safety precautions. I cant find the report now, but I read that during the Obama administration international watchdogs also said they were not using proper safety protocols for what they were working with, specifically their coronavirus research. Whatever I read that I cant find now said that was in part why our government gave them tons of money, to secure their labs. But it seems they pocketed the money and continued business as usual. Which is why I believe this was gross negligence, not intentional release, although when you know you are making highly contagious viruses and dont take every precaution, it’s super negligent of the homicidal variety. We need to have a serious conversation about this, question the cost benefit of gain of function and they are making it out to be a conspiracy theory.


              1. Some people believe Omicron prevented a lot of sickness and death because it is less virulent (deadly) than the original Wuhan virus and more contagious, and thus outcompeted and replaced the original virus in the population with a benign variant.

                Some people also claim they do not see an evolutionary path from the original Wuhan virus to Omicron.

                Hence speculation that Omicron may have been engineered and released by someone who understood the mRNA vaccines did not work as advertised.

                I understand why the US government is silent since they funded the Wuhan research to side-step their own gain of function research ban but I find it mind boggling that non-US governments have not demanded steps be taken to prevent a recurrence.

                It seem leaders of almost every country have lost their minds and integrity.


                1. I’ve looked at the evolution of the virus. No, there was nothing surprising about its evolution. Thankfully it got less virulent over time, although one of the scary things about it, is its ability to bypass the immune system, so people who had no symptoms end up getting long covid damage. Bypassing the immune system might be one lab leak sign because they design them to do just that. Many people had some natural immunity by the time omicron came around so if the vaccines were not working as we were told, that might be a more logical explanation for better outcomes over time.


    2. A partial answer to Steve’s question, summed up nicely by Penn Jilette, “Smart people learn to believe things that are counterintuitive,” he said. “Black holes, string theory, germs, trips to the moon, radio waves—they’ve had practice believing crazy s–t.”


    3. I’m not saying Martin is legit however it is unwise to attempt to use factcheck.org to debunk anything. As has been disclosed in the past few months such “fact check” organizations are being funded by oligarchs who have a vested interest in the spotlight being deflected away from them.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. @ludlum – You’d do yourself and everyone else a favor by giving an example or two to support your conclusion. Without facts and reason all you did was make an ad hominem attack. Very poor form. Martin’s patent submission/rejection/approval timeline is illuminating and solid. His open frame reading analysis of the variants is brilliant. Martin covered a lot of ground and did what very good people do: he gave the reasons for what he described.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Martin is a flip flopping disinformation operative. According to his own website “He served as Chair of Economic Innovation for the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization and has served as an advisor to numerous Central Banks, global economic forums, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, and national governments.”. There is no virus. Never was and isn’t now and won’t be in the future but they have the chumps dancing like marionettes on a string.


    1. Thanks Martin. I know nothing about Fuellmich and he said little during David Martin’s presentation but Fuellmich did make a quick comment that population control may be an objective of Covid which triggered my wack job detector. I assumed that a conspiracy crank would welcome someone like Martin to their podcast, just as they do Bossche, but that does not necessarily discredit Bossche or Martin.


    2. I’m struggling to understand it too. these same people wrote about taxpayer funding GOF research at WIV and are also slamming work by Reiner Feullmich and Geert Vanden Bossch at the same time. not sure where their interest lies. Would require deeper investigation into Medika Life funding and management team. it often doesn’t take much diving to discover conflict of interest.


  3. Another friend today sent me this private message on David Martin’s thesis:

    I am in the process of reading it. It chimes with what I have learned from other sources since February 2020. NIH led by Collins and NIAID led by Fauci financed gain of function research over many years before the Wuhan outbreak. Baric and Shi worked together and published their work in the 2016 article re: uprated SARS. A US hospital administrator obtained a copy of the agreement with Moderna whereby Collins, Fauci and Baric would benefit financially from the company’s development of a vaccine. This is all about greed, hubris and psychpathology.

    And geopolitical rivalry – make no mistake, gain of function research to find vaccines to future viral threats is a cover story for bioweapons research. The Chinese military went public about their ambitions in this area in 2005. The Russians, Brits and the Americans and the Canadians have all been working in this area since shortly after WWII after they found what the Germans and the Japanese had been up to. There have been hundreds of accidental releases of biological agents which is why Fort Dettrick was closed. Can you imagine – the stupid bastards were mailing anthrax spores between labs.

    Gain of function research has to be shut down and the Fauci cabal jailed in order for the message to be crystal clear.


  4. Trying to figure out who David Martin is. My take is he’s intelligent but deficient in physics, has good intentions, and may be a little crazy.

    Seems to have made a living consulting on intellectual property, which might explain his apparent skills at patent sleuthing.

    He has some woo woo ideas about extracting abundant clean energy and mineral resources from a different way of exploiting coal. Don’t ask me for more details. I tuned out when he said the laws of thermodynamics are bullshit.

    He’s trying to build an online community that avoids left/right politics with the goal of saving humanity. Kind of like Peak Prosperity but based on The Secret rather than Peak Oil.

    He has solid evidence of Fauci’s lies and sees through the Kabuki theatre of Rand Paul challenging Fauci (skip to 3:30)

    He’s not my cup of tea, but I suspect is more correct than wrong on the Covid profit motive since the skills needed to unpick the puzzle are in his wheelhouse of competencies.


    1. If I were any of you, I would check out an interview of sherry tenpenny by Paul chek on the histore of vaccines (3hrs), and also the histore of vaccines by clint Richardson. (Ca3hrs I Think), then when your groundwork is done, I recommend you to see “the story besind covid 19 also by clint Richardson (9hrs15mn). Seeing these is quite revealing even taking into account that all the facts might be biased or misunderstand (I’ll let you be the judoen of that).
      The length of these videos is quite a mouthfull, but when you have delved into Them, you have quite an overvirkelighed of the vaccineworld..
      From there you Can move into the economic World etc. But you Will need at least as much time to get a bearing and discernment on that too.
      Who has that kind of time? Well you have to give yourself permission to take it, afterwards you’l be a more discerning person.
      And you Will easily see through many things that are going on right now…..
      …. look at google f.inst. The amount of unbiased articlrs and links have been enormously diminished all over the World…..Should make you Think and reassess what modern life you want to live…..


    1. It’s really quite sad.

      A hell of a lot of what Martin said was intelligent and persuasive, but…

      All of Martin’s work at assembling evidence against the pharmaceutical companies will be ignored because people will focus on his claim they are colluding to cull the population and rightly write him off as a wack job.


      1. With all the evidence coming out regarding population control and the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’, why does the topic of population control automatically discredit someone as a wack job?


        1. Martin did a good job of compiling evidence to show that the pharmaceutical industry has probably behaved very badly in pursuit of profit. We know from history and prior convictions that there is good reason to believe Martin is correct on this point.

          Martin presented no evidence to support a population cull hypothesis. If he were sane (ie not a wack job) he would know that he needed compelling evidence before making such a claim.


        2. It doesn’t, getting health advice from individuals or groups that believe the planet’s biggest problem is overpopulation is a bad idea, taking their ” vaccine ” is madness.


  5. Here’s my 13 word summary of a 62 page report: Preventing the system from collapsing is a ratchet that ensures a worse collapse.


    “We took evidence from a wide range of prominent monetary policy experts and practitioners from around the world. We concluded that the use of quantitative easing in 2009, in conjunction with expansionary fiscal policy, prevented a recurrence of the Great Depression and in so doing mitigated the growth of inequalities that are exacerbated in economic downturns. It has also been particularly effective at stabilising financial markets during periods of economic turmoil. However, quantitative easing is an imperfect policy tool. We found that the available evidence shows that quantitative easing has had a limited impact on growth and aggregate demand over the last decade. There is limited evidence that quantitative easing had increased bank lending, investment, or that it had increased consumer spending by asset holders. Furthermore, the policy has also had the effect of inflating asset prices artificially, and this has benefited those who own them disproportionately, exacerbating wealth inequalities. The Bank of England has not engaged sufficiently with debate on trade-offs created by the sustained use of quantitative easing. It should publish an accessible overview of the distributional effects of the policy, which includes a clear outline of the range of views as well as the Bank’s view.”

    “No central bank has managed successfully to reverse quantitative easing over the medium to long term. In practice, central banks have engaged in quantitative easing in response to adverse events but have not reversed the policy subsequently. This has had a ratchet effect and it has only served to exacerbate the challenges involved in unwinding the policy. The key issue facing central banks as they look to halt or reverse quantitative easing is whether it will trigger panic in financial markets, with effects that might spill over into the real economy.”

    Answering the report’s overarching question, former Bank of England governor Mervyn King’s Bloomberg Opinion piece was titled “Quantitative Easing Is a ‘Dangerous Addiction’: QE is not a cure-all. Central banks have seemed to assume that any adverse shock justifies another round of bond buying. QE has become a universal remedy for almost any macroeconomic setback. But only certain shocks merit a monetary-policy response. The explanations provided by central banks to justify the scale of QE in 2020 changed over the course of the year, and failed to distinguish between shocks that justified a monetary response and those that didn’t… QE poses risks for central-bank independence. The committee looked closely at the relationship between QE and the public finances. QE has made it easier for governments to finance exceptionally large budget deficits in the extraordinary circumstances of Covid-19.”

    I am not alone in recognizing the Dangerous Addiction – the central role QE has played in dangerously fueling massive government indebtedness, market dysfunction, speculative assets Bubbles, and inflation. The debate has begun. Tragically, it’s too late.


    1. Uh, I hate to tell you, but “growth” isn’t happening unless the Fed continues doing what it’s doing. The surplus energy isn’t there.


      1. Exactly. The money supply has to grow or else our debt laden system will crash. Problem is real stuff can’t grow as fast. Hence we’re worsening the eventual pain because we’re unwilling to face reality.


        1. Our growth constrained economy is like a bomb with a burning fuse and the only way to extend the fuse is to add more explosive (QE). Having evolved to deny unpleasant realities we can’t even discuss our energy constraints nor the implications of our response.


          1. Nice essay by Tim Morgan today that says roughly the same thing with more and better words.


            In this sense, then, growth is over, and “de-growth” has begun. But there’s a world of difference between an economy getting gradually poorer and an economy careering towards a cliff-edge. If we continue our frantic pursuit of growth, the likelihood is that our options will diminish, as resources are exhausted, population numbers continue to increase, environmental and ecological deterioration accelerates and a rickety, Heath Robinson financial system reaches the point of self-destruction.


    1. More rice isn’t going to help if you get burned out in BC or I get burned out in Oregon. The future is looking more like Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” every day. You can run but you can’t hide.


  6. Gail Tverberg, who I respect, and who is one of the last people standing doing original research on the implications of energy depletion on civilization, today summarized her opinion of the vaccines.


    Vaccines and drugs in general have historically been held to a very high standard. Deaths and serious injuries should be very rare.

    The vaccines for COVID-19 have been held to a much lower standard, because of the “emergency.” It is now becoming clear that the lower standard allowed by declaration of an emergency no longer makes sense:

    1. The vaccines are very narrowly focused and not very long term. They don’t give adequate protection against variants such as Delta. Vaccinated people can catch the variants and pass them around to other vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

    2. There are many more injuries and deaths than from any other vaccine. In fact, a comparison with a Medicare and Medicaid data base by someone who specializes in forensic studies of this type shows that there are many more deaths than reported to VAERS.

    3. COVID-19 is more treatable than we were ever told. Ivermectin, in particular, is cheap and can keep many people out of the hospital.

    4. It is becoming very clear that we can never reach herd immunity through vaccination with the current vaccines, because their focus on the spike protein is too narrow and because the antibodies that they produce are too short lived.

    I suppose that if people are assuming that COVID-19 will almost certainly kill them, then they would be willing to tolerate a fairly high level of adverse events from the vaccine. But once it becomes clear that the vaccine is not very good and COVID-19 is quite treatable, then the lower standard allowed for COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t make sense.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The latest from Geert Vanden Bossche (DVM, PhD). “A last word of caution to all those pretending the Covid-19 pandemic is toning down” https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/a-last-word-of-caution-to-all-those-pretending-the-covid-19-pandemic-is-toning-down

    I am totally unqualified to comment the “truthiness” of Bossche’s assertions. My BullS$%t detector is pretty good but I have been fooled before on a few issues, and I lack the background here to think that my blink intuition can be relied on for any judgement in this case. But Bossche writes and thinks logically, it seems, and has put it all out there for all to see and read. So the possibility that Bossche is correct in at least some of his ideas fascinates me. If he is even partially correct, it would mean we are on the verge of one of the greatest fails in history.

    We have a highly mutable, “new” virus with a low mortality rate for those below the age of 65 or so, circulating across the globe in a population approaching 8 billion people. The global industrial economic and social “system” has reacted to this challenge to its internal homeostasis by using the tools of that system (vaccines developed from “super” science, produced and delivered by “efficient” capitalism, etc.) to tamp down this disturbance.

    But to a hammer everything looks like a nail. What if the best approach is to NOT use the tools of this science and technology driven industrial system?

    That is my interpretation of what Bossche is saying: We have to accept some death, accept some natural evolutionary selective pressure on the human population, to achieve herd immunity through natural infection. This will result in the lowest amount of death over time. (Of course, we protect the highly vulnerable with prophylactics and vaccines, and manage the health outcomes of those who get a severe case of the disease.)

    I suppose only the passage of time will reveal the answers.

    The next pandemic might come from a virus with a much higher mortality rate. What will we do then? If fossil fuels production is in rapid decline, we might not have the luxury of temporarily shutting down parts of the economy and papering over that shutdown with the printing of fiat money. (We might not now….) Restated, the choice of re-directing economic resources (energy) towards the prevention of death, or accepting evolutionary selective pressure on the human population, might be much more stark.

    From Bossche:

    “….mass vaccination campaigns should not be conducted during a pandemic of a highly mutable virus,…”

    “It is critical to understand that a rapid decline in viral infectivity rates that is not achieved by natural infection but merely results from expedited mass vaccination campaigns will only delay abrupt propagation of emerging, fully vaccine-resistant viral variants and hence, only delay the occurrence of a high wave of morbidity and mortality.”

    (see my recent contribution: ‘Why the ongoing mass vaccination experiment drives a rapid evolutionary response of SARS-CoV-2’).

    “Based on all of the above, it becomes already apparent that mass vaccination campaigns conducted in the midst of a pandemic of more infectious variants will rapidly and dramatically weaken instead of strengthen the population’s overall immune protection status and, therefore, not contribute to generating herd immunity.”

    The following seems to be a change in Bossche’s original position? “As the more infectious alpha, beta, gamma or delta variants emerged prior to the deployment of mass vaccination campaigns, the latter can, indeed, not be at the origin of these variants.”

    “There can be no doubt that, at this stage, the pandemic is gearing up for breeding vaccine-resistant ‘supervariants’, a phenomenon that is at risk of fueling an even larger wave of morbidity, hospitalization and, unfortunately, also death, not at least in the vaccinated part of the population.”

    “The ongoing mass vaccination campaigns must immediately be abrogated because the vaccines fail to block viral transmission and their large-scale use during a pandemic of more infectious variants will inevitably lead to vaccine resistance of circulating Sars-CoV-2 variants. Instead, mass chemoprophylaxis campaigns should be conducted at regular intervals to reduce viral infectious pressure and transmission and prevent more infectious viral variants from fueling the breeding and dominant propagation of more infectious, vaccine-resistant variants. Furthermore, people should boost their health status whereas early treatment of patients who come down with Covid-19 disease (for more information, please consult, for example, prof. Dr. P. McCullough’s presentations and publications Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection – PubMed (nih.gov)
    ) would not only prevent severe disease and hospitalization but also enable these patients to more rapidly acquire broadly protective Abs facilitating killing/ elimination of virus-infected host cells and, therefore, diminish viral transmission and contribute to herd immunity. The above-mentioned interventions have been summarized in Fig. 3.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks. There’s at least one important point I do not understand in Bossche’s hypothesis. Historically viruses tend to mutate into more infectious but less deadly variants. Delta seems to be following this trend. Do you understand why Bossche is worried that we are creating more future suffering and death?


      1. Hi Rob

        I am already way out over my skis talking about virus etc. but here goes with my attempt to understand the issue and answer your question above.

        Bossche does not explicitly say more future suffering and death, but I think that is the correct interpretation of the outcome he is predicting with a global mass vaccination program using “leaky” vaccines . “There can be no doubt that, at this stage, the pandemic is gearing up for breeding vaccine-resistant ‘supervariants’, a phenomenon that is at risk of fueling an even larger wave of morbidity, hospitalization and, unfortunately, also death, not at least in the vaccinated part of the population.”

        This article supports the idea that virus tend to trend towards less virulence. At least, certain kinds of viruses. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.13896 “SARS-CoV-2 virulence evolution: Avirulence theory, immunity and trade-offs”
        “Lethality, or fatality ratio, is the probability for an infected host to die in a given context. For SARS-CoV-2, lethality was rapidly shown to be 10 times that of seasonal influenza and also to strongly depend on age (Verity et al., 2020). “…some predict the virus population will evolve towards avirulence, ….. current trends do not follow this expectation.” “Theory stemming from Theobald Smith’s law of declining virulence more than a century ago (Méthot, 2012) postulates that we should expect SARS-CoV-2 to evolve to cause avirulent infections in humans. “A model by Lavine et al. (2021) elegantly explains why SARS-CoV-2 could become a seasonal virus causing little mortality at the population level.”
        But, we are not using “perfect” vaccines and the mass vaccination campaign is as a result creating selective evolutionary pressure on the viruses to become more transmissible or more virulent. This article discusses the concept of perfect versus leaky vaccines. ‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses (healthline.com) “Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.

        The source science article: Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens (plos.org)

        “Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population.”

        “If the vaccine is sterilizing, so that transmission is stopped, no evolution can occur. But if it is non-sterilizing, so that naturally acquired pathogens can transmit from immunized individuals (what we hereafter call a “leaky” vaccine), virulent strains will be able to circulate in situations in which natural selection would have once removed them [2]. Thus, anti-disease vaccines (those reducing in-host replication or pathogenicity) have the potential to generate evolution harmful to human and animal well-being; infection- or transmission-blocking vaccines do not [2–9].”

        “Note that the possibility of vaccine-driven virulence evolution is conceptually distinct from vaccine-driven epitope evolution (antigenic escape), in which variants of target antigens evolve because they enable pathogens that are otherwise less fit to evade vaccine-induced immunity. The evolution of escape variants has been frequently observed [4,10].”

        So we have this second problem, Immune Escape
        For some pathogens, natural or vaccinal immunity is ‘perfect’ or ‘sterilizing’, that is, prevents future infections entirely (for example, measles). In others, immunity is lost, either as a result of pathogen evolution or because immunity itself wanes (for example, typhoid).

        In extreme cases (for example, influenza), antigenic evolution (to escape host immunity) can lead to secondary infections that may be as severe and as transmissible as the primary infection.

        My insert: “Antigenic escape – Wikipedia “Antigenic escape, immune escape, immune evasion or escape mutation occurs when the immune system of a host, especially of a human being, is unable to respond to an infectious agent, or, in other words, the host’s immune system is no longer able to recognize and eliminate a pathogen such as a virus. “

        “However, primary infections from many pathogens, such as RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and the endemic coronaviruses, lead to ‘partial immunity’, which does not necessarily prevent secondary infections but still limits their transmissibility and/or severity.”

        …………..For pathogens that evolve rapidly to evade host immunity (for example, influenza), local elimination and global eradication is distinctly difficult.
        ……….It is not yet clear whether there is an evolutionary limit to strain infectiousness…

        My attempt here to understand the issue shows me why the public has to rely on public health officials to get the science right, and the policy. The subject matter is too complex for the layman. And yet…we have global scale life and death issues involved making it hard for policy makers to be objective, a very incomplete model of this problem based on assumptions about human behavior and a new virus, and massive financial incentives and disincentives for for corporations and governments, and the tribal politics of political affiliations. The questions of what is objectively correct and what actions should be taken are hard ones to answer.


        1. Thanks kindly, that was helpful. It is very complex.

          And yet some things are simple, like for example, take vitamin D, lose weight if you’re obese, and treat symptoms early with Ivermectin, and yet our leaders can’t even handle the simple issues.


  8. Dr. William Rees has written an excellent new paper summarizing our overshoot predicament:

    “Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition”


    I replied to him as follows on a private forum:

    Very nice paper Dr. Rees, thank you.

    Similar warnings have been ignored in the past, as will be this excellent warning.

    The depth and breadth of our predicament is obvious to any person that chooses to look, and yet I observe that 95+% aggressively choose not to look.

    This denial behavior is universal and crosses all political and religious beliefs. It is also not confined to our leadership and elites as your paper implies.

    Our species aggressively denies all evidence of its extreme overshoot. The question is why?

    The best and most plausible explanation I have found is Ajit Varki’s Mind Over Reality Transition theory (MORT).

    In addition to explaining our strong tendency to deny unpleasant realities, MORT also explains why only one species has emerged with sufficient intelligence to visit the moon, and why God emerged simultaneous (and only once) with behaviorally modern humans about 200 thousand years ago.

    You conclude that we need citizens to vote for better leaders. That strategy will not work because our citizens deny reality as strongly as our leaders.

    The first step I think must be to confront our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities, as we’ve done in the past with other problematic genetic behaviors, like our tendency to become addicted to nicotine and alcohol.

    Here is the best and most recent summary of the MORT theory by Ajit Varki:

    Here is an easy to digest video presentation by Ajit Varki:

    Here is my summary which elaborates on implications of MORT that Ajit Varki is not comfortable discussing in public:

    Theory (short)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s simply an amazing motion graphic. I observed that at year zero the population of North America was significantly less than the current population of my hometown metropolitan area (Omaha, Nebraska). Also at year zero, Asia was already inhabited by almost 125 million humans (well over a third of the total current USA pop.)!


      1. I’m fascinated by why Asia’s population is so high. One part of the answer I think is that the climate and soils permit 2 or 3 harvests per year. Another part of the story for the big increase over the last hundred years was the introduction of the sweet potato which grows well on crappy land high up the river valleys.

        Basically more calories means more people.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Rob,
      This was an excellent clip. It should be required viewing for all leaders and for all vaccine proponents. Would they? Doubt it, because their tribe tells them what to believe and they being good functioning homo sapiens (yeah, wise??) believe the reality of their tribe and will deny to their death any possible alternatives. I appreciate the Weinsteins for their adherence to the scientific method even when it hurts them financially – they are like Chris Martenson and are honorable. Very few people are willing go where the scientific method takes them – it’s just easier to deny reality (we’ve got the brain that evolution designed for that!!).

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Some idiot in my local government proudly announced they have bought a battery powered Zamboni for the community ice rink as a contribution to fighting climate change. I wrote this letter to the editor:

    A battery operated Zamboni is not part of a meaningful plan for reducing emissions. It’s part of a make-believe plan.

    If you want to reduce CO2 emissions then close the ice rink and play outdoor games that do not require a huge ice making machine, and heaters to warm the air cooled by the ice, and powerful lights to illuminate the interior.

    We need to start behaving like adults.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Take off you hoser! If I hadn’t already put away a six-pack, I’d grab my earmuffs and a doughnut, hunt you down and kick your precious ass for suggesting we close the ice rinks. Hockey is sacred man! Right up there with poutine and beavers.


      1. 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Yep, we’re totally committed to fighting climate change as long as we don’t have to stop having kids or change our lifestyle. I especially like cars with dual bumper stickers that say “baby on board” and “no more pipelines”.


  10. acetylsalicylic acid -> Aspirin
    acetaminophen -> Tylenol
    ibuprofen -> Advil
    ivermectin -> ???

    Liked by 1 person

    1. For which we will charge you, your insurer or the federal government $20,000 a treatment (maybe only $15,000 if you mandate everyone coming into the hospital has to accept the treatment – OH, and say nice things about us!!!).

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Rob,
      The Martenson video should be required viewing before anyone is allowed to discuss Covid. As I said above, Martenson is an honorable person – he goes where the science takes him. He initially called for suspension of travel when the pandemic first hit because we didn’t know how lethal it would be (not very if you have no co-morbidity). He isn’t calling for it now as so far the delta variant appears far less lethal AND we have treatments. I think Martenson avoids the politics of left/right because both of those extremes fail to follow the science. I wish all sites (like this one) would get over denial of unpleasant facts and discuss our predicaments in an open and logical (and scientific) manner. My kudos to you for making this site one I really look forward to reading ALL THE TIME!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for the kind words AJ.

        We seem to have lost all of our common sense.

        How is it possible that one of the key guys involved in funding the lab that created and leaked the virus is the guy we’ve chosen to trust on how best to fight the pandemic? You can’t make this shit up.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Report: 250 Million Americans Still Need Guests On Their Podcasts This Week

    WASHINGTON—According to a report out today, 250 million Americans are still scrambling to find someone to appear on their podcasts this week, as the guests they would normally book either just appeared on last week’s episode or are too busy hosting their own shows. “I’ve been trying to book my brother-in-law, who occasionally watches Mad Men and could probably fill some time talking about that, but he just called and said he has to guest-host his buddy’s podcast,” said Robert Healy, host of The TV Robcast and one of the quarter billion podcasters nationwide who cannot secure a guest with whom to engage in 45 minutes of inane banter about politics, food, stand-up comedy, or rock music. “I could run a ‘Best Of Robcast’ special, but I did that last week, and I want to keep it fresh.” The report also stated that no podcasters will consider simply not releasing an episode this week, as not one of them wants to risk losing any of the 14 listeners they have been steadily cultivating for the past year and a half.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. As someone who has 19 Twitter followers, I laugh. I will say I don’t market it and don’t tell too many people I know.


  12. Just came across this essay discussing ivermectin and thought it was good.

    View at Medium.com

    I think there is a link between denial and open mindedness. Why is that I can read Dr Martin’s thesis and think “this could be true” and also think “this dude is a nut job and this is probably total bullshit”. I have no trouble holding both those views.

    Why is that I can think that ivermectin probably works but after reading the above essay no longer be quite so certain and be not distressed by this.

    Mike Stass had over 40 comments on his blog when he reposted your article (his previous 20 posts averaged 5.6 comments and the highest was 14). One of his readers vowed that he was never going to read his blog again. He clearly hit a nerve with some. Why?

    I think the ability to be open to opposing ideas is linked to denial. To me the fascinating question is whether this is genetic or is it a consequence of the environment in which we live.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you very much!

      That’s a very good paper that seems to make an honest effort to review scientific arguments for and against Ivermectin. We need more of this.

      The air is very poisoned now. I caught myself getting angry and was tempted to dismiss the whole thing when they said things that I do not believe are true. Like for example, Bret Weinstein has claimed Ivermectin is 100% effective, he’s much more cautious than that. And Bret Weinstein is “vaccine hesitant”. Also not true, he’s fully vaccinated with many other vaccines. The difference is that the Covid vaccines skipped normal long term testing, are non-sterilizing with serious potential long term consequences, their effectiveness seems to quickly fade with time, and there may be some negative side effects. I managed to fight off these emotions and I think on balance the article is an honest attempt to present both sides of the Ivermectin argument.

      You can’t undo a vaccination. You’re all in for life. That might explain why some of Stasse’s readers are angry about Martin’s presentation. Like you, I’m able to see that Martin is probably competent and rational on patents, and is probably a nut job on other issues.

      I’ve lost all trust in our “leaders” and pretty much don’t believe a word they say. They still haven’t told people to take vitamin D and lose weight. The guy who funded some of the Wuhan lab research is in charge instead of being shamed and fired. We could have put the whole Ivermectin debate to bed a year ago, and maybe saved many lives, if our leaders behaved like intelligent rational observers to promising results and ordered a proper evaluation.

      I’ve got Ivermectin in my cupboard and will take it if I get sick because there’s no down side and plenty of evidence that it might help. I will not take Ivermectin for prophylaxis because we do not have any safety data on long term use and we’ll probably have to live with Covid variants for many years.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Nate Hagens posted a nice Twitter thread today with 16 ideas for improving our future of less material wealth and more climate chaos. He concluded his thread by asking for additional ideas. I responded as follows:

    Democratically supported rapid population reduction policies, like for example, a birth lottery, because nothing else will help in the long run. In the short term we should increase the interest rate to shrink the economy.

    My suggestion was deleted.

    If we did not deny the reality of our overshoot predicament, it would be immediately obvious to all rational caring peace loving people that our only good path is rapid population reduction.

    Unfortunately most people do deny reality and we can’t even discuss the only good solution.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m unclear about who did the deleting? Was it the Nat Hagens? (If so I would be profoundly disappointed). Was it Twitter? (which would not surprise me as Big Tech needs everyone to stay on the same script). Either way I agree with you that we are in a very bad situation when you can’t even discuss humane rapid population reduction. Denial reins supreme.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Nate confirmed to me that he did not delete my tweet. Perhaps some politically correct Twitter bot deleted it? If that’s the case, censorship is getting completely out of control. I quit Facebook a couple years ago, perhaps I’ll do the same with Twitter soon.


  14. This comment string abundantly illustrates the fact that today’s college graduates are largely incapable of evaluating an evidence-based case. Evidently, they are taught in school that there is no objective truth, and that one believes what the authority figures of one’s own tribe tell one to believe, and dismiss the authority figure of other tribes. Obviously, there is no room for science or any sort of critical thinking in the mental universe they inhabit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s