The WHO guidelines call for non-pneumonia deaths to be excluded with Covid19 stats. So, what does the CDC do? They include non-pneumonia deaths with Covid19 fatalities.

The result is that deaths reported by the CDC are more than double the WHO reporting guidelines. If you dig into the CDC stats, there were, therefore, only some 86,000 actual Covid19 deaths of which less than 10,000 were for deaths attributable to only Covid19.  For example, if one died of lung cancer but also tested positive for Covid19, the CDC requires hospitals and physicians to record it as a Covid19 death.

It’s all irrelevant anyways. Remember, Fauci said that over 2 million would die in the U.S. and that was the reason for the lockdowns. So, if we had followed the WHO guidelines, it would have been reported that less than 100,000 died so far from Covid19. If Fauci had said in the beginning that 100,000 would die (or even 200,000 for that matter), it would not have caused the mass panic and there would have been no lockdowns.

Lockdowns were never necessary.  Just ask Sweden.


Besides, the lockdowns were not expected to reduce the overall number of deaths. The same number of people would have died anyway, according to the experts. Lockdowns were only supposed to smooth the curve so that hospital emergency rooms wouldn’t be overrun. That’s not even an issue any more, yet many states have still not returned to “normal.”

According to California Governor Gavin Newsome, the state will not return to normal until there is an effective vaccine.  In other words, vaccinations will be mandatory. Here’s a few other things that you need to know about vaccines:

  • Viruses mutate quickly. The result is that vaccines, in effect, have a very short shelf life.
  • If something goes wrong with a Covid19 vaccine, Big Pharma has immunity. So, they have no incentive to ensure that the vaccines are safe.
  • Speaking of unsafe vaccines, the U.N. admits that polo vaccines from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are actually spreading polio throughout Africa.
  • Bill Gates admits that flu vaccines are ineffective for the elderly.

As always, caveat emptor.


“#Vaccines, for #BillGates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including #Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control over global health policy….” – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.




One of the hot topics making the news recently is the origins of COVID19. At this point, there doesn’t seem to be much doubt that COVID19 started in China. However, that’s not the biggest news with regards to COVID19. The bigger news is that COVID19 is apparently man-made, at least according to research by Dr. Luc Montagnier who has won the Nobel Prize for medicine.

The U.S. government has launched a full-scale investigation into the origins of COVID19 which they believe can be traced to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Interestingly enough, the U.S. government provided funding for the coronavirus research that was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The funding was provided by the National Institute of Health (CDC). The director of the NIH is the very same Dr. Fauci who is spearheading the U.S. response to COVID19. Does anyone see anything wrong with this obvious conflict of interest?

Just recently, a $20 trillion lawsuit has been filed against the Chinese government by Freedom Watch, claiming that the coronavirus outbreak is the result of a biological weapon developed by the Chinese government. The objective of such a biological weapon would not be to kill people, per se, but rather to strike fear in people that would be very much associated with a global pandemic. The end game would be mandatory vaccination programs and world government.

Bill Gates has been very much in the news with regards to COVID19. He has been suddenly appearing everywhere in the media to share his outspoken views about the crisis. If you are wondering why Bill Gates, who is not a doctor, gets quoted on COVID19, here’s why:

  • Bill Gates is spending vast sums to develop a COVID19 vaccine, and says that countries should remain locked-down until a vaccine is developed (at least 18 months).
  • Bill Gates is pushing for governments to require mandatory vaccinations.
  • Bill Gates supports a powerful group called ID2020 which is promoting a “digital certificate” to store medical information (including vaccines received) which would grant vaccinated individuals access to rights and services. 
  • Just prior to the COVID outbreak, Bill Gates co-hosted “Event 201” which was a tabletop simulation of a coronavirus pandemic that would presumably kill millions.

After all, it was Bill Gates who told a TED conference that the biggest world problem was overpopulation and that the solution to that problem was vaccines. If you want to know why Bill Gates views overpopulation as something akin to an ELE, you need to read up on the Georgia Guidestones. Beware, though, as the rabbit hole is very deep, and remember… sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.


“#Vaccines, for #BillGates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including #Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control over global health policy….”Robert F. Kennedy Jr.



Although not a scientist, I still occasionally opine on things scientific… without ever using any sort of scientific method. Oddly enough, science sometimes does the very same thing, itself. That’s how we got theories like the flat earth, the sun rotates around the earth…and the current poster child, The Big Bang Theory.

Some say that there’s a number of glaring scientific deficiencies in astronomical theories. Not being a scientist, though, it’s not something for me to expound on. I work on logic, with lots of intuition liberally applied.


How did we get here?

It has been my observation that scientists sometimes violate their own rules. That is, they simply fail to observe (and measure). So, just how is it possible that something so basic to the scientific process is so completely ignored? Well, Robert Lanza, a scientist himself, offered up an explanation of sorts, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”

Speculative extensions of nature and hypothetical entities, those are big words.  What exactly did he mean by that? Speculative extension of nature has to do with the fact that science has pushed beyond what’s observable in nature. When that happens, you can no longer observe…so they speculate and hypothesize instead…and then pass it off as valid scientific theory. So, today, cosmological theories dealing with such things as black holes, singularities and dark matter, are just that – theories, and speculative theories to boot. None of them are based on observation and so none of them have followed the scientific method.

Aside: Einstein, himself, published a scientific paper saying that the existence of black holes would violate his Theory of Relativity.  Other scientists have since concurred that gravitational collapse is impossible.

Even scientific geniuses like Einstein recognized the struggle to find certainty in their own work. As Einstein stated, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” In other words, the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Yet, it didn’t keep Einstein from trying (The Theory of Relativity, for example).

By definition, theoretical science produces theories, not proof.  Part of the problem is that these theories are generally based on mathematics and their formulae exist only on chalkboards, rather than being based on experiments performed in the laboratory as one might expect. Worse, these very formulae use fudge factors like eternity, dark matter or Einstein’s infamous “cosmological constant.”  Einstein, himself, referred to the problem with math, as follows: “As far as mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” 

So, what we wind up with is theories in search of some relevant facts. This is exactly backwards when compared to the proper process of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, even the scientists working on these theories often decry the state of affairs. For example, with respect to singularities, Professor Andrew Strominger of Harvard University, said that, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.” That’s because scientists can’t even say for certain what a singularity is. I mean they believe that it exists because its part of their formulae, but no one has ever observed a singularity. As for The Big Bang Theory, Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, stated, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” In other words, as Prof. Strominger admitted, there are a lot of things that scientists don’t understand, and yet, strangely, they still describe them in a very precise way. That explains Richard Dawkins statement to a recent TED conference that now he has proof that evolutionary theory is correct.  The implication is that he must not have been certain in the past even though he said that he was.

Aside: Of course, since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter. So science has developed some new, exotic theories to try and explain away the problem (see below).


The theory of everything

So, now that you understand a little bit of the process as to how science works, let’s tackle what Einstein and Stephen Hawking spent their whole careers searching for (in vain) – the Theory of Everything. Again, I’m not a scientist so I come from a totally different point of view. For me, such a theory can only be valid if it explains the basis of life. After all, a theory of everything, by definition, must explain how life operates and where it came from.

Back in the nineteenth century, world-renown microbiologist Louis Pasteur helped develop the Law of Biogenesis. Today, Pasteur has been relegated by many to the dustbin of science, although his theory is as valid today as it was then. What’s so important about his work is that Pasteur proved that it was not possible for life to have evolved from a bunch of dead chemicals (read: primordial soup). Life could only come from life. Even George Wald, an ardent evolutionist, eventually admitted that it had been scientifically proven that spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible.

So, any theory which deals with the origins of the universe (e.g. The Big Bang Theory) has to allow for the evolution of life, especially that of man. Needless to say, The Big Bang Theory does not provide such an explanation.  Darwin, you understand, simply said that we evolved, randomly mutated as it were. Richard Dawkins expounded on Darwin’s theory saying that,”… life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA….”

So, for Dawkins, DNA is superior to man, and why not.  DNA is a miracle. There are trillions of cells in our body each encoded with DNA instructions on how to operate and grow our bodies.  Bill Gates has said that, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” More importantly, the work of Russian molecular biologist Pjotr Gariaiev, who was part of The Human Genome Project, has shown that DNA is self-organizing, self- directing and self-replicating. Further, neuroscientist David Eagleman duly noted that the brain’s neural circuitry uses algorithms undreamt of in modern science.  So our bodies are operated by a “living” biological system whose programming is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, in one sense, Dawkins is right in that the level of sophistication of DNA virtually makes it a life-form unto itself.  

Aside: Yet, Dawkins never explained who created DNA. Inexplicably, science has been unable to identify the origins of DNA or the intelligence behind it.  Up until recently, most scientists even said that DNA was 90% junk – in other words, useless.

All of which brings us to consciousness, which is the nothing short of the trade secret of cosmology. Physicist Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness. ” Yet, cosmologists usually eschew research on consciousness. Why?  That’s a big question but, for starters, consciousness infers Intelligent Design which is totally incompatible with evolutionary theory. Then, there’s all the sacred cows in cosmology which would have to be jettisoned (along perhaps with peoples’ careers). I, for one, wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but I sincerely doubt that the scientific community would ever allow such a thing to occur.


The end of science

So, what we’re stuck with are a bunch of theories that have never been observed, let alone proven. For example in his much-discussed book, The End of Science, John Horgan talked about the limitations of science as it goes into areas that are unobservable (e.g. what lies beyond space and time). In order to remain relevant, science seems to feel obliged to try and go further back – back beyond The Big Bang. Otherwise, what we would all be left with is the incredible miracle of the universe instantaneously appearing out of nothing, and from nowhere. Oddly enough, the only people who might believe such a miracle would be the creationists, because that’s what they said that God did.

Accordingly, we now have a bunch of new theories that attempt to explain that while The Big Bang really was the beginning of our universe, it was not the very beginning of life. Life apparently came from other worlds (the Multiverse). However, if true, that only changes the question of how our universe was created to a question of how the Multiverse was originally created. Since that question will most assuredly never be answered, it will make it possible for anyone, indeed everyone, to espouse their favorite theory.  Since science will presumably not address the issue of life having to be created by life, it might even lead some people to posit that DNA might be some artificial form of intelligence, and that it created itself! Are you listening R.D.?

As shocking as that may seem, what’s more shocking is that Dawkins has actually admitted that DNA might have been the result of an “intelligent designer.”  Really, he said that?  Yes, in an interview with Ben Stein.  Check it out for yourself on YouTube.  It sort of harkens back to the Directed Panspermia theory of Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA.

My conclusion is that the objections to Intelligent Design by scientists are usually based on ideology, rather than science.  As I’ve always said there are many different disciplines in science but really just two kinds of scientists – those that believe in a Creator and those that don’t.  Accordingly, science has developed a series of cosmological theories that I believe really have only one point – that the universe does not have an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, for some, DNA cannot be explained away in the usual fashion.  Genetics is moving so fast that it’s beginning to eclipse science in other disciplines, like cosmology and biology, with respect to the origins of man.


So that’s my take on everything from the Big Bang to the human genome. Like I said, my thinking is not scientific – but maybe that’s a good thing. After all, what would children’s books say if there was no Big Bang Theory. I might have to read a fairy tale to my kids entitled Once Upon a Bang-less Night.



“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

– Max Planck, physicist





Your right, Patrick Henry didn’t quite say it that way, now did he.  However, today it seems that one can more and more hear a similar refrain across the political landscape.  Proponents of liberalism have become extremely outspoken in their efforts to radically transform America.  One could almost say that liberalism has become a religion.

Jonah Goldberg, in his book “Liberal Fascism”, branded all liberals as fascists and all fascists as progressives.  Now, that covers a lot of territory.  Take fascism for example.  In my opinion, fascism is something that is generally misunderstood and exists on both sides of the political divide.  Labels like this, therefore, don’t mean all that much.  The bigger question is do people support the ideals of the founding fathers that this country was based on, or not?

I recently heard someone compare liberalism to radical Islam and Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers.  The comparison apparently was that they both like to destroy things by blowing them up so that they can then take over.  I wouldn’t go quite that far but I would say that liberalism isn’t merely about ideology; rather, it’s a means to an end.

In order to properly understand liberalism, one really shouldn’t consider it to be anything like a religion, even if the liberals due tend to be rather fanatical in their beliefs.  Liberals intentionally promote agendas that are like motherhood and apple pie; that is, who could say no to them.  Theoretically then if it were possible, the state could provide for all of man’s needs.  The problem is that man would no longer be the engine driving the world and the center of creation – the state would.

To liberals, this would be nirvana, though.  Man subjugated to nature – and the state.  As for God, he would no longer exist – like so many other truths  relegated to the dustbin of mythology.  With respect to freedom and individual rights, they would essentially disappear; only the state, and corporations, would have rights.  The Constitution would no longer be necessary either since it promulgates that man’s unalienable rights flow directly from God.  Without God as the source of moral authority, the state(read, the liberals) would, in effect, become God.  People like Bill Gates and Bill Maher would be absolutely ecstatic.  They, and the rest of their intellectual, progressive buddies, could then proclaim the new Ten Commandments of the Georgia Guidestones to the rest of the world.

So the next time that you hear someone suggesting that the government solve all of our social ills, be wary.  Free handouts don’t grow on trees and they don’t really come from the government either since “we the people” produce the nation’s wealth.  First, read the fine print as there are usually conditions attached – conditions such as you have to give up your personal freedoms.  Why isn’t there a Patrick Henry around when you need one?

Everyone’s looking for some sort of environmental nirvana and yet almost no one has any idea what that would practically look like.  But really folks, the two words environment and nirvana don’t even belong together in the same sentence.

Myself, I’m more than sympathetic to environmental causes as I’ve been a social activist for environmentally friendly water, food and air for a long time.  But it’s not always just about the environment, especially when politics enters the picture.  In my opinion, what’s really happening is that the environmental issues are being hijacked by a global governance agenda.

But that’s far from being just my opinion.  U.S. Senator James Inhofe wrote an entire book on the subject entitled, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” and the then French President Jacques Chirac, when addressing the U.N. about the Kyoto Protocol, said that it was the first step towards a one-world government.

The history probably dates back to 1968 when Paul Ehrlich published his well-known book “The Population Bomb.”  The book reflected the mind-set of the world’s elites who were feeling threatened by the burgeoning population of Third World countries.  They felt that increases in population in Third World countries would lead to environmental issues and political instability which in turn would negatively impact the industrialized world’s access to invaluable resources in those countries.  It’s the age-old story of consumption in rich nations leads to a plundering of resources in poor countries. As a result, a world-wide effort to curb population was kicked off by the U.N. and most major industrialized nations (affecting almost exclusively Third World countries).

The global warming issue, itself, went center-stage in 2006 with Al Gore’s famous, and subsequently discredited, hockey stick slide which purported to show how man was destroying the environment (primarily with CO^2 emissions).  As science now admits, the earth is actually cooling and scientists are currently forecasting that the planet is heading towards a mini ice-age instead.

So now the rhetoric has changed from one of global warming to climate change, although most scientists will tell you that climate change is simply part of the natural weather cycle of the planet.  In other words, there is nothing on God’s green earth that man can do to change it.  However, that won’t stop people from trying.  People like Bill Gates, that is.

At the 2010 TED Conference, Bill gave a speech entitled, “Innovating To Zero.”  In his speech, he unveiled a formula for managing global concerns.  The key is to reduce CO^2 emissions by 80% (no different than Al Gore) and he intends to accomplish this by reducing world population accordingly.  Towards this end, Bill’s foundation is spending billions of dollars producing vaccines for Third World countries which he plainly states will help curb world population.

So what’s next?  Well, here’s the end game:

  • Carbon taxes would be assessed, ostensibly to fight climate change
  • The Law of the Sea Treaty with the United Nations to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. This would give the United Nations jurisdiction over U.S. off-shore territorial waters and would include a United Nations tax on oil and gas revenues produced from these territories (which cost will no doubt be passed on to the American consumer).
  • Ultimately, mandatory taxes would be allowed directly from the United Nations on U.S. citizens.

If any of those things come to pass, you can kiss your way of life good-bye; global governance would have become a reality.  So the next time someone wants to tell you that they want to curtail food production because of the endangered sex life of the tsetse fly, look under the covers to see who is pulling the strings and for what reason.  I almost guaranty you that the issue won’t be about the environment – just someone’s idea of political nirvana.

Death by Proxy


Healthcare reform mania has faded into the background, although I must admit that I think about it now and then when I have to go to the doctor.  I still bemoan the fact that we have chosen a course of action that has already failed in counties like, say, Canada or the UK. It’s also now academic that countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are looking for free-market alternatives while we’re looking to implement nationalized healthcare.  Nonetheless, it appears to be a road that we will have to travel, and no doubt endure.

The highlight for me in the healthcare debate was Sarah Palin coming out with her “death panels” comment. Not surprisingly, she was roundly criticized by the liberal media for her claim that Obama’s healthcare reform would result in the medical needs of the elderly (and others, like her handicapped son) being reviewed by bureaucrats and a decision rendered as to whether or not they were worthy of healthcare, based on a subjective judgment of the person’s level of productivity in society.

But then along came that great humanitarian Bill Gates. Bill’s foundation, you may know, is spending billions of dollars (that’s billions with a B) to fund the production of vaccines for third world countries. All this in the name of reducing world population.  You see, at the 2010TED conference, Bill gave a speech entitled “Innovating to Zero” in which he unveiled a formula for managing global concerns.  One of the key components of his formula is the number of people in the world, which he proposes be as ideally as close to zero as possible. Thus, innovating to zero. Bill said that vaccines (his vaccines) would be a big driver in holding down world population.  Sounds pretty much like eugenics to me.

But Bill wasn’t finished, not by a long-shot. Recently, at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Bill brought up the issue of choosing to spend money on school teachers instead of on dying patients.  He said, “But that’s called death panel and you’re not suppose to have that discussion.”  Death panels?  Sounds like the liberal media got it wrong again.  I’m sure that they will be immediately apologizing to Sarah Palin, or in any event soon…or maybe not at all.

So I don’t know if this whole thing is someone’s idea of a sick joke or just an Orwellian nightmare.  Either way, when I go to the doctor next time, I expect that I will have to take a ticket and stand in line.  The only question is whether or not I will be allowed to live.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

–    Norman Thomas, American socialist