The Coming CBDC – Guest Blog from All Israel News

The Coming CBDC – The End of Money As We Know It – Part I
by Cookie Schwaeber-Issan – November 29, 2022 – All Israel News
[minor editing and additional links by c.a.post]

For years most of us have heard about an impending threat to do away with our monetary system as we know it.  Yet perhaps because it sounds like end-time, apocalyptic doom and gloom stuff, it is easy to ignore.

Well, continue to ignore it – but at your own peril, because it might be implemented a lot sooner than any of us think.

Up until now our monetary system has been overseen by government authorities which print paper currencies and determine its value.  This money, called fiat currency, is not backed by any commodity, such as gold.  Its advantages include giving economic players greater control over the economy, as well as being easy and cheap to produce, and convenient to use.

But in recent days the monetary system has been misused and mishandled in such a seemingly deliberate way that it’s almost as if it’s been orchestrated cleverly to facilitate the establishment of a new system.  For example, despite warnings by many experienced and savvy economists, the U.S. government chose to print too much money and gave massive handouts, factors which definitely contributed to high inflation and the current dismal economy.

 According to Business Insider, “Fiat money is currency that’s backed by the public’s faith in the government or central bank that issued [it], but it has no intrinsic value, unlike commodity currency which is linked to the price of a commodity.  Instead, fiat money derives its value from the trust people place in the government that issues it.”

Simultaneously, you might have noticed that there seems to be a push to no longer trust the present monetary system, which was one of the major reasons for the birth of cryptocurrency – a currency not based on a fiat monetary system.  Crypto is not issued, controlled or backed by any government or bank.  However, cryptocurrency has had its share of problems, the latest being the total collapse of the FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange, which has caused many investors to lose millions.

If fiat money and cryptocurrency are problematic, what’s the solution?  Introducing Central Bank Digital Currency, known as CBDC – the digital form of fiat currency. 

Rather than printing money, a central bank would issue electronic coins that are guaranteed and backed by the government.  You’d be furnished with a digital wallet or bank account and directly interact with the central bank.  Sounds great, right?  But wait, there’s more!

What exactly is that “direct interaction”?  The CBDC will be able to create a reliable profile of each individual based on their spending and saving habits.  In other words, pretty much all of your transactions will be observed, noted and assessed.  Then you will receive recommendations based upon your individual habits.  While that might sound helpful, it’s also a major invasion of one’s financial privacy.

How long does anyone think it will take before personal monetary choices are evaluated as good or bad?  And what will the consequences be if you are deemed to be making purchases seen as undesirable by your government?  In other words, central banks will be able to take money out of people’s accounts to conduct monetary policy.  The truth is, CBDCs are government’s attempt to protect its privileged position and to exert more control over people’s money.

All one needs to do is to take a look at the credit system China imposed upon its citizens – a system of rewards and punishments that accord with “moral ranking” by the Chinese Communist Party.  Individual behavior can be monitored to determine who shares the government’s values and who doesn’t.  And what determines a bad score?  Anything from purchasing too many frivolities to being accused of sharing misinformation.

What happens to those who violate the terms?  They can be banned from traveling, purchasing property or getting a loan.  In China, “Once you’re in a low category, it makes [life] difficult.  Such a system could further divide society, creating classes of people depending on their social credit.”

So much of this is reminiscent of the COVID-19 green pass, which, if you think about it, was also based on a social credit system.  If you complied with the government directive of being vaccinated, you were able to take part fully in all that society offers – going to restaurants, traveling, being permitted into events and so on.  Those who refused the vaccine were relegated to eating at home or remaining homebound entirely.  Here in Israel, the government considered requiring the unvaccinated to identify themselves by wearing a colored bracelet just to obtain mall access – a plan quickly struck down due to public outcry.

There is no doubt that the CBDC will be presented as a much more effective way to safeguard your money.  It will be touted as being in your best interest, and a way to make life less complicated.  Of course, that’s how it has to be portrayed in order to convince people to leave a system they’ve used all their lives.

City.Journal.org warns that “Few likely paid much attention when, on March 9, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing the government to begin developing a Central Bank Digital Currency to be issued by the Federal Reserve, alongside a framework to regulate private cryptocurrencies.”  On Sept. 16, the Biden administration “released a framework outlining the regulation of digital assets including cryptocurrency and other items of value that exist only in digital form,” a framework which suggests the creation of a CBDC, according to Jim Probasco, writing for Investopedia.

City.Journal.org wrote in March that CBDCs have the potential to become an unprecedented totalitarian nightmare.  Why?  Again, we have only to compare it to what already exists in China: jaywalking, speeding or other infractions land citizens heavy fines – fines which can be deducted automatically by the centralized bank account.

Who will stop the government from deducting whatever else it wants from your account?  Because, in effect, it’s a “joint account,” where access is available to your governmental benefactor.  The options would be endless in terms of what could be moved from one account to another.  And if the system is linked to desired standards and values, including many you don’t share, what happens to your financial outlook?  Doesn’t this smack of programmed behavior or forcing a desired outcome?  After all, being able to access your money is paramount.  Controlling each person will be made simple.

We’ve already had a foreshadowing of this, when PayPal recently threatened to fine users who, by their standards, were guilty of spreading misinformation – a totally subjective parameter.  They would only have to seize the funds accessible to them in your personal PayPal account.  Or, what about the freezing of 280 personal bank accounts in Canada, during the Ottawa Freedom Convoy trucker protest in February?

The bottom line is that the CBDC has the frightening potential to curtail financial freedom, with the added bonus of making sure everyone is fully compliant with whatever we are being told to do.  If you aren’t, losing access to your own money might be the consequence.  In short, the new slogan could be, “My Money, If I Only Follow Your Demands!”

CBDC: What Will The Consequences Be If Israel Adopts the Central Bank Digital Currency? – part II
November 30, 2022

You might be surprised to learn that in June, the Bank of Israel shared details about its first set of technical trials for a central bank digital currency.  CBDC One trial tested smart contracts, raising the issue of who should be allowed to write and police them.

In September, Israel teamed up with Norway and Sweden to explore the implementation of a centralized digital currency, engaging together to test technical systems through which this might work.  The teams are expected to reveal their findings during the first quarter of 2023 as they relate to retail payments.  So, the short answer is ‘yes.’  Israel is not only thinking about jumping on the CBDC bandwagon – along with 100 other countries exploring this direction – but already has begun to investigate and engage in trial enactments to determine its viability.

In fact, Israel began imagining the viability of CBDC as far back as 2017, conducting a pilot test in 2021, and already considering the possibility of calling the digital shekel currency “SHAKED” (the Hebrew acronym for Digital Shekel).

But as mentioned in Part I, there is no doubt that such a dramatic change in our monetary system would have to be preceded by a slick, enticing and attractive campaign to convince everyone that this is being done with their best interests in mind – taking into consideration their protection, benefit and convenience.

So, how predictable are the words of Bank of Israel’s CBDC project manager, Yoav Soffer, who claims that, “under the right conditions, the Digital Shekel could ‘allow for more freedom.’”  He assures us that there is justification since, “It is in the public interest to fight the illicit black economy and tax evasion.”  But when confronted with the warnings of critics who claim that CBDCs will monitor people’s spending habits and could have far-reaching political consequences for those who may not support the government, Soffer is quick to say, “Israel’s CBDC policy would be in the ‘public interest’ and subject to that country’s democratic processes.”

That abstract comment opens up a plethora of questions, such as:

• What happens if democracy, as we know it, changes into a more autocratic system under the control of one person?  Does anyone remember that it was one person who made the exclusive deal between Israel and Pfizer, on behalf of the Israeli people, eventually to mandate the deal for all Israel’s citizens?
• What happens if digital banking requires a certain code of behavior and ethics by its citizens – one which might be unacceptable to many?
• What happens to your hard-earned funds for which you labored throughout your entire life?  Do they become limited or are they even accessible without full compliance with the new digital monetary system?
• What happens if you belong to a group, or contribute to a group, seen as undesirable or unsupporting toward government actions?  Will you be fined or penalized for your association with them?  Will you be afforded a defense, or any type of democratic hearing, or will money be arbitrarily withdrawn from your account?
• Will you be obligated to comply with certain medical or social demands intended to prop up your standing or which, if you choose to opt out, will injure your ability to access your funds?

This leads to my next questions:

• Do Israelis have any right to privacy as it concerns the use of their own personal funds?  If part of the function of a central bank digital currency is to track usage, and analyze spending habits to determine their legitimacy and worthiness, whose money is it ultimately?  The moment your spending choices come under question, it has ceased to be solely your money.
• Given the fact that Israel boasts the most ethical army in the world, as well as being one of the few countries to swiftly offer humanitarian help to any country that needs and desires it, why would we decide to join a global banking system which intends to spy on the spending habits of its citizens, as well as be the judge and jury as to how we might conduct ourselves concerning our life choices?

For now, Israel has not spoken much about the possibility of launching a digital currency, but the Bank of Israel continues to research and be active in its development and planning.  However, given its claim that the digital shekel “will not pose a threat to the national financial system,” it might not be too long before CBDC is widely introduced to the Israeli public as a fait accompli.

Lastly, it should be noted that “blockchain,” the technology under which cryptocurrencies operate, will serve as the basis for a central bank digital currency.  Blockchain is defined as “a technology which allows assets to be exchanged electronically, recording the facts and details of a transaction without the ability to make any changes to those records later.  It is information recorded in a distributed ledge with identifiers for the sender, recipient, time and transfer amount.  In effect, it is an unbroken sequence of blocks, so that anyone can track the entire transaction history of a particular asset, all the way back to its origin.”

Try digesting that definition for a few minutes!

It might be the best and most convincing argument as to why CBDC is likely to turn into giant government overreach into personal wealth, giving it the capacity to become the ultimate puppet master when it comes to making people do whatever it is that it demands from them.  Seize their money, and now you own them.  Whether they eat, pay their bills or are allowed to participate in life is now in the hands of the ones who can see their payment history and determine if they get a passing grade.

So why should that threaten anyone?  Just a reminder to Israel . . .  in the words of one of our own prophets, Micah 6:8, “The LORD has told you what is good, and this is what He requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”  Israel needs to think carefully as to whether CBDC can be enacted and, at the same time, allow us to follow the wise counsel given to God’s chosen people!

Cookie Schwaeber-Issan A former Jerusalem elementary and middle-school principal and the granddaughter of European Jews who arrived in the US before the Holocaust.  Making Aliyah in 1993, she is retired and now lives in the center of the country with her husband.

Intermezzo Guest Blog by Alabastersky – Deceived

This guest blog has been edited somewhat with a paragraph deletion, links added and minor changes; if you wish to read Lisa’s original, you can find Alabastersky’s “Deceived: The New Religion” here.  People, we must learn to love Truth more than anything.  Our Father guarantees that if you love the truth you will not be deceived.  Galatians 6:7 commands, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”  The Bible would not give us a command without the ability to fulfill it!  As for those who are deceived, this is because they did NOT love the truth: “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

From Alabastersky:
It occurs to me that as we plummet headfirst more into darkness each day, that we compromise and allow deception to reign. There are those who become so far removed from truth along the way that they will begin to not only believe but to embrace the lie so much that they themselves are convinced by it. The deceivers actually begin deceiving themselves!

I’ll give you some examples. The New Testament of the Bible tells us much about the Pharisees. We always see them waiting to trip Jesus up, or catch Him in some blasphemy, or in an act violating their traditions. They truly seem to be a demonized and hateful bunch, and Jesus often appears saddened and annoyed by them. But I believe their zeal was not only born out of a perceived threat of loss of control over the people, but also out of an actual belief that Jesus was a crack-pot blasphemer who was leading God’s chosen people astray. It was a combination of these two (and probably other motivations not mentioned). But as we can clearly see now, and for anyone who wishes to study it, Jesus fulfills every Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah’s [first coming]* – every single one.
[*Editor’s Note, the only ones remaining are about End Times events.]

Jumping forward to today, I’ve often wondered how multitudes could be allured into buying wholeheartedly into the one world religion of the antichrist that the Bible describes in Revelation 13, but believe the sincere zeal of the Pharisees gives us a clue. From this chapter in Revelation, we learn that the antichrist (or beast* as he is called), together with the false prophet* (or second beast) perform miracles that are so great that they deceive even possibly the very elect (see Matthew 24:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). So we know from this that there is great allure and attraction for people to become followers of the beast who sets himself up not only as the Messiah but also as the fulfillment of all other religions, but is in fact the very antithesis of truth.
[*Editor’s Note: these leaders will NOT be called “antichrist,” “the beast” nor “the false prophet” in the media.]

This allure of deception was confirmed when I saw New York’s Governor on a news broadcast recently stating that she needed “apostles” to evangelize people to get the vaccine because “Jesus taught us to love one another,” and that people who’ve gotten the shots are “the smart ones” while those who refuse to get it “aren’t listening to God and what God wants,” Whose god, I wondered, and why isn’t she taking individual circumstance into consideration? I also have to ask if she herself hears “God” when it comes to the murder of innocent unborn (and even just born) babies?

Now if you honestly believe that the vaccine is the best thing for you, then by all means, go for it. That is your choice, and I’m not here to stop you. But if for various reasons there are those of us who do not believe it is the best thing, why is the government working so forcibly to mandate that it is not our choice? One has to consider that if a government (any government) can force you to take the jab, then they can also force you to take the mark of the beast. Compromise is made in small steps, and the lines we cross in the midst of compromise can be dangerously deceitful.

I’m still trying to figure out why those who have been vaccinated need to be protected from those who have not been vaccinated. If the vaccine is as good as they claim, why would that be necessary? If the vaccine is as good as they claim, why, according to CDC data, did the virus almost flat line as far as new cases in the US prior to the vaccine, and then suddenly and aggressively spike after people began being vaccinated? I’m curious to know why there is a higher risk of catching covid after vaccination than there is before, by the very people who have been vaccinated? I’m curious to know why countries like Australia never took the extreme measures they are taking now for covid against such things as the flu, since the flu has higher death rates than covid?  I’m curious about a lot of things, and I know I don’t stand alone in my curiosity.

But I digress… The point I am hoping to make about the governor of New York’s appeal is that she, much like the Pharisees, has bought into this secular empire religion, and as a result not only perceives a threat of loss of control over the people, but also truly believes that those who act in an individual manner against the government-dictated social norms are crack-pots who are leading people astray.

Take that with another news article regarding a letter from a [national] teachers organization, that requested for parents who engaged in protests to be designated as domestic terrorists and treated as such, as if the government has final authority over our children. For anyone who is a Christ-follower, all of this appears to be the height of hypocrisy and lunacy, but to those who swallow the lies “hook, line, and sinker,” they are just as sincere in their belief in the deception as we are in the grounded and absolute truth of the Bible.

This goes along with a book my husband was reading recently, Hitler’s Cross by Erwin Lutzer, which analyzes what happens when a country forgets God, and declares the state in place of God in regards to what you are allowed to believe, and what happened to the church and Germany as a result. In the book he describes one of Hitler’s top enforcers, Heinrich Himmler, who believed in reincarnation. In his warped idea of spirituality based on a mix of Norse mythology, Hinduism, racism, and the occult, he believed that the Jewish people were “lower than the animals.” As a result he also sincerely believed he was actually doing the Jewish people a favor by annihilating them, so they could return on a higher rung of life than before. How absurd! Sin, hatred and the evil in which it is rooted has no bounds. Those who combine an almighty state with total control and a warped spirituality, and racism in whatever form, who deny Judeo-Christian values, advocate for loss of freedom, and the right to one’s life, and deny the right to decide what entails one’s own physical health, are crossing the line from welfare to tyranny.

THIS is why it is so important to know and understand our enemy is not flesh and blood but are the rulers and powers, principalities and forces of this present darkness (see Ephesians 6:12). This is also why it is important to stand and not compromise.

Letting go of our will in order to seek and fulfill His will instead has nothing to do with conformity. We need to understand that unity and conformity are not one and the same. We can all unite as one nation without conformity, keeping our individuality and God given rights. There is nothing more powerful [against tyranny] than being who God created us to be! That is why our founding fathers emphasized being created equal, with equal opportunity. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome, and the sooner we return to that understanding, the faster all this racist nonsense being propagated by those wishing to divide and conquer through fear will come to an end.

Know this, the truth and understanding of which I speak is only imparted through the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that when we hold to His teachings, then we will know the truth, the truth will set us free (see John 8:31-32). Jesus said He IS the truth (John 14:6). You can know Him too. He is found by everyone who sincerely seeks Him, and He will set you free!

 

Guest Blog from Thompson Engles

Thompson is a Christ-follower that impresses me like the sons of Issachar who understood the times and what Israel should do (1 Chronicles 12:32).  This does not mean I agree with everything he writes, but I trust him as a brother that cares for the Church of the living God, and for the lost who need Jesus.  The following is a repost of his most recent blog with some minor edits of British spelling and grammar (I am the Grammar Police and I have a badge to prove it. 😂)  But seriously, his not-so-random thoughts here are worth reading, if for no other line than this: “The protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected.”
___________________________________________________
Random Thoughts on Issues of the Day (Part 4)
by thompsonlengels5484

“The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data.”– Department of Health.

The writer is not a stoic or in any way seeking to undermine the pain of those who have lost their loved ones through Covid. I’m truly saddened by all these. May the God of all comfort, comfort us who are under this crucible of suffering, I, among them.

Welcome to a time before a nightmare. A Gestapo regime is here — “Where are your papers?” Because many will think this is about vaccines, let me set the record straight. If you want to get the jab, by all means, take it! It’s your choice and I’m not going to view you different because you’ve taken the vaccine. No.

My chief contention is on compulsory government vaccine mandates – and the obvious hate passed to the unvaccinated. I’ve been called many awful names when I share my unpopular view(s) during these hard times. I’m not bitter and afraid of any man.

But I’ll not keep silent when something needs to be said. I’ll not, truthfully, follow something that does not make logical sense.

You know, ”fear is an extremely powerful psychological tool, that has been used by politicians always,” notes a holocaust survivor; “the Nazis were particularly adept at it.”

The times we are living in is in many ways carbon copy of what took place before the holocaust. The government, again, as I’ll keep on emphasizing, is not for the people but against its people.

The government is the real virus.

We now have a class of “subhuman” fellows, that is, the unvaccinated. The vaccinated are scared of the unvaccinated. It is the unvaccinated fella, who, they say, is the reason why Covid is still here. “It is not the responsibility of the unvaccinated to protect the vaccinated.” That’s the vaccines job!

Plainly put, The protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected.

Again, the issue here is not about vaccines; it is about totalitarian regimes taking place right under our noses. And if we speak against such signs, we’re labelled immediately to be conspiracy theorists. Let me show you how a totalitarian regime will look like, or looks like:

You’ll need to produce papers 24/7. We’ll need papers to enter restaurants, bars, concerts, casinos, conventions and hotels and to board a train, plane or bus. We’ll need papers to enter a supermarket, or we’ll starve to death. We’ll need papers to visit our families. All for the crime of being unvaccinated!

And God forbid, you’ll need papers to go and worship God with other brethren in your local church.

The scary thing about all this is people are led by emotions rather than pausing to reflect on what’s really happening. Others, of course, know what is happening but are scared to speak up. Others fear losing people’s good opinion of them. They do not want to offend anyone, just impress.

Not that we offend because we desire to do so, but because for some things to be heard; we need to say what others aren’t saying. Call the elephant in the room.

I’d not want my children or anyone to grow under the Gestapo’s. Children are now being trained to be suspicious. “They might be infected, they might infect me.” Of course, that’s the Media’s job — to pass out fear! Why? Because fear sells!

On issue of vaccine passports. Again, an absolute desire for a totalitarian survelliance state. It’d be good if folks would care enough and study history. Also, I’d challenge men and women instead of being rushed to forcing men to follow everything the state says, to also take time and carefully be informed.

Do not let the state make you a villain to your own family. That’s what Satan wants — the destruction of families!

Some of you reading this may have a medical knowledge or perhaps, practicing medicine! I’d remind us of the oath you took — to protect lives. Not by use of propaganda and fear.

To the elders of a church and to the brothers of Christ. It is not Scriptural of you to refuse entry into your services a subgroup of society (unvaccinated) based on their medical choice. Only Jesus Christ has the authority to regulate the terms of corporate worship, not the government!

These, in a sense, tell you are to make no distinction between those who call out in faith, either on race or medical choice.

The gospel should be proclaimed to all men — vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Therefore, to refuse members access to corporate worship would be to betray our Savior and openly disobey His great commission.

To members (and also leaders) of a local congregation: Do not coerce the conscience of others. The conscience is one of the innermost expressions that animates an individual, and that allows them to worship God as well as obey a legitimate governing authority.

The conscience is the immediate contact of God’s presence in a person’s soul, and so an individual forced to act in a way that is objectionable to their conscience will never be at peace, either before God or before the state.

A government that endeavors to force or coerce an individual who is striving to honor God will find that they only encounter resistance.

A government should never coerce conscience, but rather respect the important function that it carries in aiding a person to worship God freely and live obediently before the state.

So then, on issues of vaccines, as stated above, if some  people have made the decision and have already taken the jab, that is their right, and it cannot be abrogated. But those who are not ready, or hesitant, also have their valid reasons why they are not in a rush.

Their conscience binds them to wait, and their Savior advised them not to make decisions before they have counted the cost.

This is a principle of wisdom, that everyone applies to many aspects of their lives.’ The government, or any other corporate body or individual, be it in public or private, should not coerce the conscience of its people.

Neither, I say, should the state or any other person, label those who question these things as unloving. To conclude that is a fallacy devoid of sound reasoning.

You’re wise and know how to apply.

Unmasking Masks – Intermezzo Guest Blog by Dr. Peter Weiss

“Don’t wear masks, now wear masks. Wear two masks, since two is better than one. Vaccines will set you free, until they don’t. Therapeutics that can treat COVID-19 are frowned upon, and you must be evil if you even suggest the possibility.”

Surgical masks mainly protect patients from droplets from the surgeon and the surgeon from blood splatter from the patient. They were not designed to protect against viruses. We upended our world with ineffective policies that have unintended consequences.
by Peter Weiss, August 11, 2021

I admit, I was nervous. I had about 30 minutes before I was needed in the operating room. My patient had active COVID-19, but needed emergency surgery. This was back in August 2020, pre-vaccine and mid-hysteria. I pushed the button for the basement. I hate basements.

As I walked in, the nurse was ready for me. I had to be form-fitted for my N95 mask. Form-fitting is critical for preventing any viral particles from sneaking in from the sides of the mask. I put the first one on. She then had me put a plastic hood over my head and upper body. She hooked up a tube and asked me to let her know if I sensed any bad smell or had any sour taste in my mouth [testing the mask]. Within five seconds, I was sick from the sour taste in the back of my throat. She quickly stopped and we repeated the same test with another N95. This time, it took 30 seconds. Luckily the third N95 fit, with no sour taste or smell even after three full minutes.

I was ready. I donned a form-fitted N95 mask, a bubble suit, double gloves, and goggles. It felt like I was in a bad movie, but this was really happening.

It’s now a year later and what have we learned about masks? Everything and yet nothing.

I was a co-author of a paper on N95 masks that was published in 2007 in the American Journal of Public Health. It was written by my brothers and niece, as well as myself. Yes, we’re all physicians. Dr. Martin Weiss was the lead author. It was titled “Disrupting the Transmission of Influenza A: Face Masks and Ultraviolet Light as Control Measures.”

One takeaway message from that article, which was written during the H1N1 scare, was that N95 masks can block 95 percent of particulate aerosols from penetrating into the mask, and we need to manufacture them now. They can block particles as small as 300 nanometers in size, which could block the COVID-19 virus.

Even though COVID is small enough to slide through the N95, the mask still has dense nanofibers that can catch droplets. In the operating room, it’s the best we have unless we have a full N100 respirator. Still, the N95 can capture the virus when expelled from an infected person, according to an article published in Nature Medicine in April, 2020.

The sad part is that our call for mass production of these masks back in 2007 went unheeded. We also stated that the goal is vaccines and therapeutics. While we have vaccines, therapeutics are lagging far behind. Even discussing therapeutics is frowned upon now.

Today, we’re constantly bombarded by recommendations and even orders to wear masks when outdoors. Los Angeles County, New York, and St. Louis all are implementing indoor mask mandates — again.

There was a time when we were told to wear them outside, even if alone. The problem with the best of intentions is that they can often lead to poor judgment. What constitutes a mask in the setting of COVID-19 restrictions? It’s worth unmasking masks.

Let’s start with N95, as I described above. To be effective, it has to be form-fitted. Not all N95’s fit properly, and they can leak viral particles. They’re actually called respirators, not masks. A mask mainly keeps the wearer from ejecting droplets or spray that affect others. A respirator provides two-way protection and can keep the wearer from catching aerosol particles from others.

There is even a N100, which does what it implies. N100 can block out the COVID, but good luck wearing it for any length of time. N95 respirators aren’t comfortable, and I have trouble wearing them for long periods of time. You really don’t want your surgeon uncomfortable. A number of colleagues and I have had to stop surgery to wipe our faces and readjust our masks.

Surgical masks are made of three plied layers of synthetic microfibers and extra-fine synthetic fibers, which block out much larger particles, but do a poor job of blocking the much smaller particles associated with COVID-19 viral transmission. The COVID-19 virus is extremely small, 60-140 nanometers, which is 1/1000th of a micron. A paper, “Filtration Performance of FDA-Cleared Surgical Masks,” stated that “The results suggest that not all FDA-cleared surgical masks will provide similar levels of protection to wearers against infectious aerosols in the size range of many viruses.” It was published in the Journal of International Society of Respiratory Protection in 2009.

Surgeons wear surgical masks for two reasons. First, we don’t want any blood or bodily fluid to hit us in the mouth, and second, we don’t want our saliva or drool to spill into the wound. We don’t wear them for viral protection. To be fair, there are a few articles that claim some surgical masks reduce viral transmission, from the person wearing the mask, but that’s assuming that droplets are the main cause of transmission when they may not be. Some believe aerosol spray is the major factor.

Those studies also assume that there’s no leakage from ill-fitting masks, since those were controlled environment studies. Aerosol spray is the extremely small viral particles that an infected person would give off when breathing. Droplets would be slightly larger, but still minuscule, and found in the kind of spray you see in a sneeze or when someone is speaking or coughing. (A side note: Masks with ties are more effective than masks with loops since they give a better seal.)

We hear a lot about “droplets.” Droplets aren’t some raindrop-size spit coming out of a person. Scientists usually mean something less than five microns (1/5,000 of an inch). The vast majority of COVID-19 is spread in much much smaller aerosol spray of 1/1,000 of a micron.

Dr. Kevin Fennely published a paper in The Lancet in 2020, stating that most viral pathogens are found in small particles. This conflicts with the view that larger droplets are responsible for most viral transmission. There have been other studies showing that very small particles (under 5 microns in size) may contain as much as nine times as much virus as larger particles (droplets). It’s also postulated that these smaller particles may be more dangerous, since they can penetrate deeper into the lungs. As a side note, when a droplet falls to the ground, it becomes aerosolized and is still a problem.

Those who believe that droplets are the main source for COVID-19 infections should also then support social distancing, but not the six feet we’re told. To be accurate, it should be anywhere from 18 to 27 feet. No one really knows where this six-foot social distancing “rule” came from. It most likely arose from the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends social distancing at one meter (39 inches). This was based on work by a researcher from 1930 who studied the spread of tuberculosis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently changed the social distance requirements in schools from 6 feet to 3 feet (slightly less than 1 meter).

So, in effect, we’ve upended our entire world to enact policies with limited impact, meaning that the cost associated with implementing them isn’t offset by the proposed gains.

COVID-19 is bad. It’s absolutely horrible, especially if you’re older and have underlying medical conditions that make you more vulnerable. The good news is that, for most of us, it will only be a mild infection, such as the flu. The chance for a young person under 40 to die from COVID-19 can be as low as 0.01 percent and even lower if vaccinated.

The unintended consequences of the draconian measures from this pandemic are tragic. A recent report by The Well Being Trust says there could be 75,000 more deaths by what is called “death by despair” (suicide, drugs) because of COVID-19. Those 75,000 will be young people, not the elderly. In other words, people who aren’t really at risk from COVID-19.

We’re beset by misinformation and confusing recommendations from our government. Vaccines are amazing, I’m a believer, yet some politicians, such as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, publicly stated that they wouldn’t trust any vaccine coming out under former President Donald Trump, until they were in charge. Don’t wear masks, now wear masks. Wear two masks, since two is better than one. Vaccines will set you free, until they don’t. Therapeutics that can treat COVID-19 are frowned upon, and you must be evil if you even suggest the possibility. This isn’t a reliable information environment.

How we tell a medical story is critical for success. It’s the way we tell a cancer patient or a surgical patient how we’ll treat them that sets up a plan for success.

And that plan should be based on a rational balance of cost, reward, and freedom. We don’t force a cancer patient to get a treatment that will make them suffer and a similar argument could be made for the vaccine.

Even though I’m a believer in the vaccine, I understand those who aren’t and respect the right of a healthy 18-year-old woman to decline receiving it. For the 36 million people who have had COVID, there’s no need for them to get the vaccine, since they have natural immunity. For how long, we don’t know, but research suggests durable immunity. It’s simple to test and find out if you still have antibodies against COVID-19.

Back in 2007, we suggested that the nation stockpile N95 masks. No one listened. We’re now incapable of manufacturing those masks. They’re all made in China. So now, we can wear a cheesecloth mask, and we’re told that we’re saving our nation.

I personally have no problem with wearing a mask if and when it’s truly needed. It just has to be the right mask, an N95 or greater. And yet, these masks are distinctly uncomfortable and add an additional strain on your system. They make it harder to breathe, or in research terms, impede gaseous exchange. I often have to stop surgery to adjust my mask and “catch my breath,” I’ve been wearing masks for all of my professional life, so it’s easier for me. I’m not everyone, though.

The issue we have is defining when is mask-wearing warranted? Forcing vaccinated people, or those who have recovered from COVID-19 to wear a mask, makes little sense, other than making some people feel more secure. Forcing a 2-year-old to wear a mask is asinine, to say the least.

On top of that, mandates don’t work. The implied new goal of reducing the COVID-19 death rate to zero is unrealistic and will never happen. This is now endemic. If we mandate mask-wearing to “save” lives, then we might as well mandate prohibition, since there are an estimated 95,000 deaths per year from alcohol-related incidents. Many of those are from drunk drivers killing innocent bystanders or passengers. The same argument can be made here. Solutions need to be realistic, not ridiculous.

Our nation should be able to mass-produce something as simple as N95 respirators and distribute them to the nation when and if needed for some future catastrophe. There will surely be more pandemics coming. My point is, if we need a mask, make it something that works.

Cloth masks, or even surgical masks, are like tying a rope around your waist while driving and claiming it’s a seat belt.

It also isn’t too much of an exaggeration to say wearing a Gucci style face-covering, such as Nancy Pelosi has, is like asking an X-ray technician to wear their grandmother’s kitchen apron when taking X-rays.

Dr. Peter Weiss has been a frequent guest on local and national TV, newspapers, and radio. He was an assistant clinical professor of OB/GYN at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA for 30 years, stepping down so he could provide his clinical services to those in need when the COVID pandemic hit. He was also a national health care adviser for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Intermezzo Guest Blog: Will Vaccine Passports Control Your Daily Life?

Former Clinton Adviser: Mandatory Vaccine Passport Could Lead to ‘End of Human Liberty in the West’ – by Jack Phillips  March 29, 2021

Former Clinton adviser Naomi Wolf said that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine passports that have been proposed in recent days would be the “end of human liberty in the West if this plan unfolds as planned.”

“‘Vaccine passport’ sounds like a fine thing if you don’t understand what those platforms can do. I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what this platform does,” Wolf, who’s also an author, told Fox News on March 28. “It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data. Once this rolls out, you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all.”

Wolf said such data can be “merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency,” adding that “Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans.”

Wolf noted that it happened in Israel, “and six months later, we’re hearing from activists that it’s a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world.”

“It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass, it is — I can not stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

Going a step further, Wolf likened such plans to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surveillance of its population and promotion of a “social credit score.”

A handout image shows the Excelsior Pass, a platform that lets New Yorkers present proof of COVID-19 vaccination at events. (Office of Gov. Andrew Cuomo)

“How does [the CCP] keep a billion people under the thumb of a totalitarian regime?” she asked. “The CCP can find any dissident within five minutes, and that can happen here literally within months.”

Wolf referred to reports about Biden administration officials proposing the idea. The Washington Post and CNN — citing anonymous, unconfirmed sources — have suggested that the administration is working toward developing a national vaccine passport standard. New York state has proposed its own “Excelsior Pass” that would be used in large-scale venues such as Madison Square Garden. The plan has been lambasted by civil liberties groups and proponents.

On March 29, White House press secretary Jen Psaki addressed the claims, saying the administration doesn’t see a federal mandate for vaccine passports. “We believe it will be driven by the private sector,” she told reporters.

In other countries, such passports have already been created. Israel set one up in February to grant people access to gyms and hotels, Iceland now uses a passport to allow foreign travel, and Saudi Arabia has an app-based passport for people who are inoculated.

“The thing underpinning all of this is, what are you going to use it for?” said Melinda Mills, director of the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science at the University of Oxford, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Is it for international travel? Is it for getting a job? Is it for buying milk?”

Intermezzo Guest Blog: Science, Politics, and COVID: Will Truth Prevail?

This is a rather lengthy guest blog, over 3000 words, compared to my usual blogs of about 1000, but Dr. Atlas is well worth a little extra time to read.
by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 18, 2021, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

The COVID pandemic has been a tragedy, no doubt. But it has exposed profound issues in America that threaten the principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.

First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.

The pandemic also brought to the forefront things we have known existed and have tolerated for years: media bias, the decline of academic freedom on campuses, the heavy hand of Big Tech, and — now more obviously than ever — the politicization of science. Ultimately, the freedom of Americans to seek and state what they believe to be the truth is at risk.

Let me say at the outset that I, like all of us, acknowledge that the consequences of the COVID pandemic and its management have been enormous. Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

But there is also an unacknowledged reality: almost every state and major city in the U.S., with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person schools, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least last summer. And despite any myths to the contrary, social mobility tracking of Americans and data from Gallup, YouGov, the COVID-19 Consortium, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have all shown significant reductions of movement as well as a consistently high percentage of mask-wearing since the late summer, similar to the extent seen in Western Europe and approaching the extent seen in Asia.

With what results?
All legitimate policy scholars today should be reexamining the policies that have severely harmed America’s children and families, while failing to save the elderly. Numerous studies, including one from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Benavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannides have shown that the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures used in almost every state was small at best — and usually harmful. President Biden himself openly admitted the lack of efficacy of these measures in his January 22 speech to the nation: “There is nothing we can do,” he said, “to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”

Bizarrely, though, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented.

Besides their limited value in containing the virus, lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of suspending in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. A recent study confirms that up to 78 percent of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over a three-month period. If one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to go to the hospital, and others — all well documented.

Beyond hospital care, the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs. Given that many schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases have gone unreported, since schools are commonly where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment shock from lockdowns, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and women. That translates into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths.

We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from the lockdowns, because the effects will continue to be felt for decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic response analyses, even for diseases with far higher death rates.

To determine the best path forward, shouldn’t policymakers objectively consider the impact both of the virus and of anti-virus policies to date? This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor.

“There is a land full of wonder, mystery, and danger. Some say, to survive it, you need to be as mad as a hatter. Which, luckily, I am.” — Mad Hatter
Optimistically, we should be seeing the light at the end of the long tunnel with the rollout of vaccines, now being administered at a rate of one million to 1.5 million per day. On the other hand, using logic that would appeal to Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, in many states the vaccines were initially administered more frequently to healthier and younger people than to those at greatest risk from the virus. The argument was made that children should be among the first to be vaccinated, although children are at extremely low risk from the virus and are proven not to be significant spreaders to adults. Likewise, we heard the Kafka-esque idea promoted that teachers must be vaccinated before teaching in person, when schools are one of the lowest risk environments and the vast majority of teachers are not high risk.

Worse, we hear so-called experts on TV warning that social distancing, masks, and other restrictions will still be necessary after people are vaccinated! All indications are that those in power have no intention of allowing Americans to live normally — which for Americans means to live freely — again.

And sadly, just as in Galileo’s time, the root of our problem lies in “the experts” and vested academic interests. At many universities — which are supposed to be America’s centers for critical thinking — those with views contrary to those of “the experts” currently in power find themselves intimidated. Many have become afraid to speak up.

But the suppression of academic freedom is not the extent of the problem on America’s campuses.

To take Stanford, where I work, as an example, some professors have resorted to toxic smears in opinion pieces and organized rebukes aimed at those of us who criticized the failed health policies of the past year and who dared to serve our country under a president they despised — the latter apparently being the ultimate transgression.

Defamatory attacks with malicious intent based on straw-man arguments and out-of-context distortions are not acceptable in American society, let alone in our universities. There has been an attempt to intimidate and discredit me using falsifications and misrepresentations. This violates Stanford’s Code of Conduct, damages the Stanford name, and abuses the trust that parents and society place in educators.

It is understandable that most Stanford professors are not experts in the field of health policy and are ignorant of the data about the COVID pandemic. But that does not excuse the fact that some called recommendations that I made “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.” That was a lie, and no matter how often lies are repeated by politically-driven accusers, and regardless of how often those lies are echoed in biased media, lies will never be true.

We all must pray to God that the infamous claim attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels — “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” — never becomes operative in the United States of America.

All of the policies I recommended to President Trump were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the economic, health, and social harms of anti-COVID policies for those impacted the most — small businesses, the working class, and the poor. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections for those most at risk, particularly the elderly. At the same time, almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical and mental health, as well as the deaths attributable to the draconian policies implemented to contain the infection. That is the goal of public health policy — to minimize all harms, not simply to stop a virus at all costs.

The claim in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) opinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Scott Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. alone” is patently false and absurd on its face. As pointed out by Dr. Joel Zinberg in National Review, the Great Barrington Declaration — a proposal co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford — “is closer to the one condemned in the JAMA article than anything Atlas said.” Yet the Great Barrington Declaration has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public health practitioners.

When critics display such ignorance about the scope of views held by experts, it exposes their bias and disqualifies their authority on these issues. Indeed, it is almost beyond parody that these same critics wrote that “professionalism demands honesty about what [experts] know and do not know.”

I have explained the fact that younger people have little risk from this infection, and I have explained the biological fact of herd immunity — just like Harvard epidemiologist Katherine Yih did. That is very different from proposing that people be deliberately exposed and infected — which I have never suggested, although I have been accused of doing so.

I have also been accused of “argu[ing] that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects.” To the contrary, I have repeatedly called for mitigation measures, including extra sanitization, social distancing, masks, group limits, testing, and other increased protections to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus. I explicitly called for augmenting protection of those at risk—in dozens of on-the-record presentations, interviews, and written pieces.

My accusers have ignored my explicit, emphatic public denials about supporting the spread of the infection unchecked to achieve herd immunity — denials quoted widely in the media. Perhaps this is because my views are not the real object of their criticism. Perhaps it is because their true motive is to “cancel” anyone who accepted the call to serve America in the Trump administration.

For many months, I have been vilified after calling for opening in-person schools — in line with Harvard Professors Martin Kulldorf and Katherine Yih and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya — but my policy recommendation has been corroborated repeatedly by the literature. The compelling case to open schools is now admitted even in publications like The Atlantic, which has noted: “Research from around the world has, since the beginning of the pandemic, indicated that people under 18, and especially younger kids, are less susceptible to infection, less likely to experience severe symptoms, and far less likely to be hospitalized or die.” The subhead of the article was even clearer: “We’ve known for months that young children are less susceptible to serious infection and less likely to transmit the coronavirus.”

When the JAMA accusers wrote that I “disputed the need for masks,” they misrepresented my words. My advice on mask usage has been consistent: “Wear a mask when you cannot socially distance.” At the time, this matched the published recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). This past December, the WHO modified its recommendation: “In areas where the virus is circulating, masks should be worn when you’re in crowded settings, where you can’t be at least one meter [roughly three feet] from others, and in rooms with poor or unknown ventilation”—in other words, not at all times by everyone. This also matches the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health document Prevention and Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: “When consistent distancing is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infectious droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”

Regarding universal masks, 38 states have implemented mask mandates, most of them since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general population mask usage has shown little empirical utility in terms of preventing cases, even though citing or describing evidence against their utility has been censored. Denmark also performed a randomized controlled study that showed that widespread mask usage had only minimal impact.

This is the reality.
Those who insist that universal mask usage has absolutely proven effective at controlling the spread of the COVID virus and is universally recommended according to “the science” are deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It is they who are propagating false and misleading information.

Those who say it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must also explain why many top infectious disease scientists and public health organizations question the efficacy of general population masking. Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for instance, wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data. . . . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”

Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics in May 2020, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020 — soon after Twitter censored a tweet of mine highlighting the quote — the WHO had published the fact that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”

My advice on masks all along has been based on scientific data and matched the advice of many of the top scientists and public health organizations throughout the world.

The Politicization of the Search For Truth
At this point, one could make a reasonable case that those who continue to push societal restrictions without acknowledging their failures and the serious harms they caused are themselves putting forth dangerous misinformation. Despite that, I will not call for their official rebuke or punishment. I will not try to cancel them. I will not try to extinguish their opinions. And I will not lie to distort their words and defame them. To do so would repeat the shameful stifling of discourse that is critical to educating the public and arriving at the scientific truths we desperately need.

If this shameful behavior continues, university mottos like Harvard’s “Truth,” Stanford’s “The Winds of Freedom Blow,” and Yale’s “Light and Truth” will need major revision.

Big Tech has piled on with its own heavy hand to help eliminate discussion of conflicting evidence. Without permitting open debate and admission of errors, we might never be able to respond effectively to any future crisis. Indeed, open debate should be more than permitted — it should be encouraged.

As a health policy scholar for over 15 years and as a professor at elite universities for 30 years, I am shocked and dismayed that so many faculty members at these universities are now dangerously intolerant of opinions contrary to their favored narrative. Some even go further, distorting and misrepresenting words to delegitimize and even punish those of us willing to serve the country in the administration of a president they loathe. It is their own behavior, to quote the Stanford professors who have attacked me, that “violates the core values of [Stanford] faculty and the expectations under the Stanford Code of Conduct, which states that we all ‘are responsible for sustaining the high ethical standards of this institution.’” In addition to violating standards of ethical behavior among colleagues, this behavior falls short of simple human decency.

If academic leaders fail to renounce such unethical conduct, increasing numbers of academics will be unwilling to serve their country in contentious times. As educators, as parents, as fellow citizens, that would be the worst possible legacy to leave to our children.

I also fear that the idea of science as a search for truth — a search utilizing the empirical scientific method — has been seriously damaged. Even the world’s leading scientific journals — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and Nature — have been contaminated by politics. What is more concerning, many in the public and in the scientific community have become fatigued by the arguments — and fatigue will allow fallacy to triumph over truth.

With social media acting as the arbiter of allowable discussion, and with continued censorship and cancellation of those with views challenging the “accepted narrative,” the United States is on the verge of losing its cherished freedoms. It is not at all clear whether our democratic republic will survive — but it is clear it will not survive unless more people begin to step up in defense of freedom of thought and speech.
____________________________

Scott W. Atlas is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He previously served for 14 years as professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center. He earned his B.S. from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign and his M.D. from the University of Chicago School of Medicine. An ad hoc member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, he was a senior health care advisor to a number of presidential candidates in 2008, 2012, and 2016. From July to December 2020, he served as Special Advisor to President Trump and as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. He is the editor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine, now in its fifth edition, and is the author of several books, including Restoring Quality Health Care.

Intermezzo Guest Blog: Dr. Victor Hanson on Biden’s Amerika

Razor wire and fences still surround the U.S. Capitol at sunrise. (Photo: Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images)

The World Goes On While America Sleeps
Victor Davis Hanson / @VDHanson/ February 12, 2021
Dr. Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.  You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.

The Democrat-controlled Senate spends thousands of collective hours conducting an impeachment trial against a citizen who is no longer president.  The acquittal is predetermined, as in the first impeachment effort a year ago — and known to be so to the Democratic prosecutors.  The constitutionally mandated presiding judge — the chief justice of the Supreme Court — refused to show up.  Chief Justice John Roberts apparently believes an impeachment trial of a private citizen is either a waste of time or unconstitutional — or both.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is busy ferreting out purportedly extremist Republican House members.  For the first time in memory, one party now removes committee members of the other.  Yet for each Republican outlier, there is a corresponding Democratic firebrand member who has either called for violence or voiced anti-Semitic slurs — and yet will not be removed from House committees.  So the asymmetrical tit-for-tat continues.

The subtext to this madness is that the Democratic Congress, the new administration, the administrative state, and the political left are obsessed with dismembering the presidential corpse of now citizen Donald Trump.  Apparently they fear that one day he will rise from the infernal regions to wreak his revenge.  Meanwhile, life in America goes on.

Yet few of our leaders are very worried about the existential crises left unaddressed by their obsessions with the ghost of Trump.  Take the debt.  It is now nearly $28 trillion, and it is growing by almost $2 trillion a year.  No one in Washington talks about reducing the annual budget deficit.  Nor do officials find ways to balance the budget.  The idea of paying off the monstrous debt remains a fantasy.  Instead, our elected representatives argue over whether to borrow another $1 trillion, or more likely $2 trillion, without worry of where it comes from or how it will be repaid.

But money is not completely a construct.  We will eventually pay for our profligacy either with steeper taxes, higher inflation, 1970s-like stagflation, or permanent zero interest.  Or eventually America will renounce its debt and destroy the credibility of the U.S. government.  Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless hours of once-productive labor are diverted to unproductive ideological censorship, career canceling, and indoctrination.

Our allies, such as democratic France, warn America that it is cannibalizing itself — and becoming dangerous to others.  Our enemies, such as the totalitarian Chinese, are delighted with our suicidal wokeness.  The cost is not just the expense of cleaning up the billions of dollars of destruction from the summer riots, the thousands of memorials and statues destroyed and defaced, and the hundreds of schools and buildings to be renamed.

Far more consequential is the suppression of creative thinking — from humanistic study to scientific research.  The Islamic world, as the historian Bernard Lewis once observed, stagnated in the 19th and 20th centuries once radical Islamists began squelching all free inquiry.  Humanities and science were perverted from 1932 to 1945 in Germany by the pollution of Nazi racial censors.  What was written or advanced in communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is largely discredited, given that commissar hacks determined the rules of publication and research.  Something similarly frightening is now occurring in the United States.

Scholars, journalists, artists, and educators feel they must mouth politically correct platitudes.  They constantly hedge their public discourse in fear of career cancellation.  They strain to synchronize their research with some approved woke ideology to save their livelihoods.  When professors must write “diversity statements” and hire, promote, and fire on the basis of race, the model is not the U.S. Constitution, but something out of contemporary China.

No one pays much attention that our capital is now weaponized with soldiers in camouflage and barbed wire.  Not since the Civil War has Washington resembled such a vast police state.  Ex-military officers who once warned Trump not to deploy federal troops to ensure the safety of the White House from Antifa and Black Lives Matter demonstrators now are silent about a veritable army deployed in Washington.

President Joe Biden has signaled that all new pipeline construction is over.  Fracking on public lands is taboo.  The border is to become wide open.  Federal immigration law is now effectively nullified.  Americans may soon have to be tested for COVID-19 before flying into or out of the country.  But illegal immigrants will not be COVID-19-certified when — illegally — they cross the border.  Iran is bankrupt, isolated and roundly despised by most of the countries in the Middle East.  Now America is doing its best to resuscitate the most radical and anti-American regime in the world — at the expense of our allies in the Arab world, Israel, and America’s own interests.  While we are busy devouring each other, China is smiling because once-feared American capitalists have become laughable Keystone Cops.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com.

Intermezzo Guest Blog: On Being Infected With Covid-19 On Thanxgiving

Basement Isolation Reflections
By Karla Duerson

When [insert certain circumstance here] then I will be happy, fulfilled, satisfied.
If only [insert certain circumstance here] then I could live meaningfully, fulfilled.
When all the kids are finally gone . . .
If only he would stop antagonizing his sister . . .

These subtle whispers can rob reality right out of in front of my nose.  Life is happening right now.  That’s it!  Yet the zest and spice of life are illusive.  The mundane quotidian lulls me.  Sometimes I want to shirk responsibilities.  I back away from complexities and challenges.

I work a lot.  I do a lot.  I think a lot.  I take care of people a lot.  I get tired.  Sometimes I daydream about being alone.  “When all the kids are finally gone . . .”

Well, now covid-19 has brought me closer to aloneness than I have been in a long time.  No one is talking to me.  No one is interrupting me.  I have very few tasks to complete.  Strange.

The strangest covid-19 symptoms are those that have robbed my senses.  I cannot taste coffee!  I cannot smell chocolate chip cookies.  I cannot touch my children.  My vision was even affected for a day.

My friend said, “Taste, smell, touch – God gave us these to enjoy life.  When one or all of them go away, it really is a wake-up call to His goodness!”

Well put, my friend.  This world is an explosion of God’s breathtaking artistry!  Tree-lined mountain tops, a home-cooked meal, gifted flowers in a pretty vase, Wylies’s round little cheeks, and Neva’s brown silky hair, Guy’s strong growing arms.  The world above in space, the world below in the sea, the world all around us on the terrain is remarkable beautiful.

How can I stay awake to that splendor?  How can I ward away dullness, ingratitude and boredom?  One of our very young participants on our Simple Church Zoom call suggested the end of Paul’s letter to the Philippians:
“Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!  Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.  And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

Well, sitting in the bed in the basement for the fourth day in a row while listening to the hustle and bustle of the activities going on above, concerning myself about everyone’s well-being without being able to lift a finger, and longing to cuddle and comfort my people, this brought me to tears.  I love it when children share.  

Even more, Gavin reminded us of the next part of the letter:
“I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.  I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.  I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.  I can do all this through him who gives me strength.”

I will learn the secret that Paul did because just like my BSF notes stated last week, “God intends hardships to draw us closer to Him, so we become more content with His presence and provisions.”  So, “whether in plenty or in want,” I will learn to be content and that I “can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.”

I am in the basement.  Topside, in the upstairs of my home, I am in plenty.  Either way, I have Christ who empowers me to see, to touch, to taste, to hear, to smell His wonder-filled world, to truly live!

Read more of Karla’s writing at www.karladuerson.blogspot.com

On a lighter side, be sure to check out Gavin’s take on Black Friday:

Inside Joke – Black Friday

And for some thought-provoking apologetics, check out the CSLewisDoodle on “Good Infections”:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw-kYN6wWXWDyp_lB0wnlxw
C.S.Lewis Doodle

Intermezzo: Covid-19: to Fear or Not to Fear, Part 1

An Inhaled Cortico-Steroid (ICS) medicine is now being presented as a possibly effective treatment for Covid-19 Coronavirus.  However, the nature of clinical research is to always tread carefully and wait for conclusive results before broad acceptance of an outcome.  This is especially true for entrenched researchers with reputations to protect.

Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Primary Care and ER doctor in Odessa, Texas does not have that pressure of certainty before espousing a cure for Covid-19, but rather a concern for his and others’ patients, going so far as to call ICS “a silver bullet.”  His less than “clinical trial” technique of treating his 12 patients with Inhaled Cortico-Steroids (ICS) is impressive and is being widely investigated, even before his paper has been peer-reviewed. (https://www.recoverytrial.net/)

Few researchers will go out on the limb Dr. Bartlett does until thorough-going and detailed studies have been done to not only proffer results but to understand mechanisms.  You can get a copy of his paper pre-publication by emailing Debbie Georgatos at https://americacanwetalk.org/contact/.

 

But Dr. Bartlett is a practitioner, and not a researcher, and his interest is in saving the lives of his patients.  His only purpose in getting his results into print seems to come from his deep concern for others’ patients that can benefit from EARLY ICS treatment. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-patients-defend-dr-bartlett-s-silver-bullet-medicine-regimen/ar-BB16v52a

The Recovery Trial referenced above has already reported death reduction by one-third, and this is in severe cases!  As of June 16, 2020 the researchers concluded, “the survival benefit is clear and large in those patients who are sick enough to require oxygen treatment, so dexamethasone should now become standard of care in these patients.”

Reading several journals about the dexamethasone, aka Budesonide, inhaler therapy, the evidence to support much wider use of ICS inhalers or nebulizers is growing, and I hope Dr. Bartlett will be recognized for his contribution to the research that may save thousands of lives, not to mention the relaxation of overblown fears.  (If you want to read an interesting novel in your spare time [🙄 haha], check out State of Fear by Michael Crichton, how politicians and eco-terrorists use fear to advance their agendas.  The concepts presented here parallel much of the fear associated to the Wuhan Virus.)

A scientific American article is particularly encouraging.  However, it warns about self-medicating with ICS at home, and I would echo this, to do so under a doctor’s supervision.  One of the absurd tales of woe associated to Hydrochloroquine was of a man who took the drug without medical supervision and died.  That said, if you ever suspect you have the Wuhan Virus, find a doctor like Dr. Bartlett who will supervise your use of ICS! 😊  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-steroid-could-be-cheap-and-effective-treatment-for-severe-covid-19/

Per Dr. Bartlett’s concern, NIH is already recommending ICS, but only for severe cases, and recommending against using in patients that do not require supplemental O2!  Why?  They state that they are waiting for further analysis and for more results from the Australian/UK study to be completed.  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/dexamethasone/

I could only find one study in England that disputes these findings, but they only used the Inhaled Cortico-Steroid on Covid-19 patients with COPD or Asthma which would be significantly confounding conditions.  https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200622/Inhaled-corticosteroids-have-no-effect-on-COVID-19-mortality-say-researchers.aspx  Furthermore, the abstract at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.20135491v1 admits that unmeasured disease severity may have skewed their results.

Interestingly, another study the British are doing at Queensland University College in conjunction with Oxford University is looking at using ICS as an early intervention, such as Dr. Bartlett does.  https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200707/Asthma-inhalers-being-trialed-for-treatment-of-COVID-19.aspx

Unfortunately, Dr. Bartlett sounds too much like a salesman in the interview (partly the interviewer’s fault), but his message is spot-on.  No cure is likely to be 100% effective as there is too much to our “fearfully and wonderfully made” bodies that we do not know about.  He has been very fortunate (and maybe some Spirit’s guidance?😇) that he has not had any failures or even adverse effects.  Lots of medical research is guesswork and whoever seems to hit on the best guess and has the best “story” for how it works wins the Nobel Prize!  Let’s hope that Inhaled Cortico-Steroids is the “silver bullet” Dr. Bartlett sees.

Tomorrow, I will present another Intermezzo blog on whether we should fear Covid-19.