"My hearing Day 3. How many pieces of silver were the 'experts' given to do their best to ruin me and deprive the people of Maine COVID care?" by Meryl Nass

  

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

	My hearing Day 3. How many pieces of silver were the 'experts' given to do their best to ruin me and deprive the people of Maine COVID care? Dr. Courtney got $125/hr but Mr. Big(shot) Dr. Faust received $500/hour to opine on my lack of fitness to practice medicine and justify permanent revocation of my license. Narratives don't come cheap MERYL NASS FEB 1   SAVE ▷  LISTEN   The Board looked bored. Was Dr. Fay-Leblanc knitting through the meeting? The Board’s two experts testified today about my extraordinary ignorance, lack of ability to understand a journal article, and careless disregard for the welfare of 3 patients. Doctor Courtney doesn’t read journal articles: he sticks by the recommendations of government agencies and his specialty organization, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). IDSA was sued by Connecticut’s then-AG Richard Blumenthal (now Senator) 20 years ago for denying the existence of chronic Lyme disease, and if memory serves it collaborated in witch hunts to de-license doctors who treated chronic Lyme. Presaging today. Meryl’s COVID Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Courtney did not know the difference between an EUA product and a licensed drug. He incorrectly repeated a false claim made only once by FDA that the EUA for HCQ was withdrawn because you would need to administer a toxic dose to get benefit. He had clearly failed to give that assertion any thought. Nor had he evaluated the US government literature showing it to be false. Here is what I wrote about this false claim more than 2.5 years ago: You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models (or invention) rather than human data.  For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the dose required to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing.  This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients. According to Denise Hinton, RN, the FDA’s Chief Scientist (yes, a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA), or perhaps a clumsy FDA wordsmith:  “Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.” You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed. This is nonsense since: In 2005, CDC researchers showed strong effects against SARS-1 at safely achievable concentrations.  Here is the relevant quote, “The infectivity of coronaviruses other than SARS-CoV are also affected by chloroquine, as exemplified by the human CoV-229E [15]. The inhibitory effects observed on SARS-CoV infectivity and cell spread occurred in the presence of 1–10 μM chloroquine, which are plasma concentrations achievable during the prophylaxis and treatment of malaria (varying from 1.6–12.5 μM) [26] and hence are well tolerated by patients.” A reader asked me to note that this study was done in tissue culture. The drug at normal doses is being tested in over 30 different medical conditions (see clinicaltrials.gov) He thought I should have treated 2 outpatients with monoclonal antibodies, but eventually agreed that cases in December 2021 were a mix of Omicron and Delta when the patients were ill, that none of their variants had been sequenced so we did not know which variant they had, and the monoclonals would not have worked against Omicron variants, which were likely to have been present then. After opining that I lacked the fitness to practice medicine, he was unable to identify a single thing I had done wrong in my records. I was criticized for taking 20 minutes to return a message on a Sunday. I sent 2 patients to the ER when they did not recover as expected, although one of the board’s initial charges against me was that I had failed to do so. (The Board had not read the records carefully, and were simply throwing lots of spaghetti on the wall to try and overwhelm me with charges so I would wilt and surrender my license, when this spectacle began in January 2022.) Dr. Faust was up next. You probably recall the 1594 Dr Faustus play by Christopher Marlowe and the later opera Faust by Gounod, in which Faust, a prideful intellectual, sells his soul to the Devil. To see Dr. Jeremy Faust in action is simply too coincidental: it is proof that there is a God, who loves to remind us with comedic interludes that “all the world’s a stage.” Did Jeremy sell his common sense to the Devil? In case you are unfamiliar with Dr. Faust’s written work, let me provide a sample: Faust JS, Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ. Pregnancy should be a condition eligible for additional doses of COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 Nov 09; 5(2):100801. [He thinks pregnant women deserve more than one mRNA jab. He publicly melted down when the mask mandate on planes was lifted, accusing CDC of killing babies.—Nass] Faust JS. Why I Live-Tweeted Residency. Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Feb; 69(2):255-256. Dr. Faust reported he was receiving $500/hr from the Board of Medicine for his testimony and this was less than he earned elsewhere. Not bad for a doc who only practices medicine 10-15 hours a week in an ER, is not a medical school professor but rather is an instructor, the lowest rank, and spends most of his time as Editor in Chief for a popular online medical magazine, tweeting, writing and pontificating. In fact, he self-reports that he tweeted his way through his residency. May I remind you that this Board asserted I was attention-seeking, as if this was sufficient ‘psychiatric’ grounds to remove my license. Dr. Jeremy is at least an order of magnitude more attention-seeking than I. What will Dr. Waddell make of him? Dr. Faust claimed to have a great interest in epidemiology. But apparently no special training in the field, no degree, not even an MPH. He has testified that he studied hard and read a lot in order to master this field, a field in which he lacks formal qualifications. I was an instructor at UMass medical school over 30 years ago. Meaning that our qualifications wrt training, epidemiology and med school teaching rank were virtually identical. Faust was the Board’s epidemiology expert. He got some of the epidemiology right and he got a lot wrong. His arrogance when he was not sure of the answer was off-putting. He insulted Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch. He insulted my ability to read a journal article and he had a novel theory that this was sufficient disqualification to justify revoking my license. No one mentioned that Dr. Courntney could not cite journal articles used for forming his opinions on COVID treatment, having solely relied on pronouncements from government agencies. Should his license be revoked for that? Of course not. Dr. Faust also failed to take note of my CV, which includes among other articles a review article on anthrax vaccines that included 102 references, and my six Congressional testimonies. Apparently 5 different Congressional committees thought I was competent to interpret the medical literature for them, while Jeremy judged me to be a schlub. The questioning of Dr. Faust is likely to take half a day more. Then I have 8 witnesses to go, including 3 patients who are at issue. I doubt we will finish in the 2 more hearing days allotted. Right now, the next date for the hearing is March 2, but another day might be inserted before then as everyone realizes this will likely not end in 5 days. I am being cagey about what Dr. Faust got wrong, lest he correct himself for the record, before we have a chance to cross examine him. I wish this moved faster, but it seems to be moving at the speed of law. 140,000 people tuned in. Thank you so much for your support! Source: Meryl's COVID Newsletter

"Are You Ready for 'Brain Transparency' and AI Reading your Mind?" by Igor Chudov

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know. 

Are You Ready for "Brain Transparency" and AI Reading your Mind?

The WEF and "The Battle For Your Brain"

IGOR CHUDOV FEB 1

SAVE ▷  LISTEN

The WEF’s annual meeting in Davos held a very important and exciting seminar discussing “Brain Transparency.” It featured new but working technology that allows scanning of the human brain via wearable devices (no electrodes needed). Such scans allow AI-enabled computers to read and interpret the wearer’s state of mind by instantly understanding recorded brain waves.

The devices they are discussing already exist.

Artificial intelligence systems paired with such devices allow unprecedented insight into the mental and emotional state of the wearer.

The picture above shows a female worker having amorous thoughts about a new male coworker (02:02 in the video). A wearable brain-scanning earpiece instantly notifies the company office about such forbidden desires, which could impair her productivity. The message “INTRA-OFFICE ROMANCES ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” immediately pops up on her screen, returning her to a productive mindset and reminding her who the boss is.

A cartoonish illustration of such machinery is here:

The WEF presenter, Nita A. Farahany, is not describing future technology. She explains at 3:30 that all of the above capabilities already exist and are developing rapidly.

This is the future that has already arrived. Everything in that video that you just saw, is based on technology that is already used. Artificial intelligence has enabled advances in decoding brain activity that we never before thought possible.

You heard a lot about AI over the last few years, here at Davos it's been the talk of the hour. But I want to talk about it in a different way, which is the ability to decode brain wave activity. All that you think, you feel, is all just data. Data, that in large patterns, can be decoded using artificial intelligence.

Consider this: the average person thinks thousands of thoughts each day. As a thought takes form, (a math calculation, you are happy, you are tired, you are hungry), neurons are firing in your brain, in tiny electrical discharges. A particular thought takes hundreds of thousands of neurons firing in characteristic patterns that can be decoded with electroencephalography and AI powered devices.

The wearable thought-reading devices Nita discusses do not look weird or unwieldy. I put two of them into one picture for convenience.

Closer to the end of the video, she talks about how important it is to “preserve safeguards.” But watch Nita laugh at 27:30 at the tongue-in-cheek moderator’s suggestion that “All CEOs will use this technology completely responsibly.”

She knows how funny it is to think this technology will be used responsibly. I do not need an AI brainwave scanner to see how hilarious the “responsible use” remark is to her!

Metaverse (Facebook) Investing Heavily Into Brain Scanning

Nita reports (6:10) that Facebook and tech companies are “investing heavily in these devices.”

Big Tech expects us to give up keyboards and computer mice.

In near term future, these [brain-scanning] devices will be the primary way in which we interact with all of the rest of our technology.

Think about this for a minute. You will need to wear a brain scanner to integrate with Big Tech’s new shiny gadgets (which will likely be supplied for free). The scanner will send your brainwave activity to Big Tech’s AI engines. AI is bulky and cannot be placed into a tablet or a phone, so your brain waves will be collected centrally by Facebook or another Big Tech company.

While being in the Metaverse’s virtual reality or doing something else using the brain scanner human interface, random thoughts may enter your mind. Perhaps you’d momentarily want to buy yourself a comfy pillow?

The brain scanner would communicate this thought to the AI. The AI would decode it and show you relevant ads, perhaps BEFORE your thought process would even be complete!

The possibilities for abuse are endless. For example, let’s say that a woke designer of such an AI, or a “disinformation governance board” bureaucrat, would decide that they need to stop people from thinking climate change-denying thoughts. (Just an example.)

If so, as soon as my train of thought wanders off Zuckerberg’s fantasyland and starts turning towards skeptical opinions on climate change, the AI would proactively show me an attractive, skimpily-clad female, a cute cat slapping a farting dog, or some other distraction to disrupt thought development.

At 21:37, Nita discusses brain wave disruption and how it could be accomplished, which confirms such a possibility.

This is Tinfoil Hat Material

I must admit that the WEF discussion gives lip service to human independence and even employs the term “cognitive liberty.” However, this is only lip service to obscure far-reaching plans.

Nita envisions a future where we will all be forced to use brain scanners if we are to make a living (13:10):

What if there is nowhere to go? What if everywhere has ubiquitous monitoring? … Surveillance is part of our everyday life.

The “cognitive liberty” mentioned above cannot exist if a non-transparent AI, operated by giant companies governed by a multitude of “Accountable Tech” committees, provides people with a virtual reality shaped to extract maximum revenue and exert maximum influence.

These AI engines will inevitably be programmed to influence our thinking in ways far beyond the mere commercial realm. If so, most people would likely follow the prompts and clever nudges of anonymous, unaccountable, and extremely powerful masters of human cognition.

The term “cognitive liberty” sounds attractive, but we need to recognize that everyone’s consciousness is shaped by the societies and environments in which we live. Thoughts and paradigms employed by a 14th-century peasant who never stepped outside her village are completely different from the thoughts of a modern globe-trotting scientist. We absorb our information and beliefs from the outside.

A child born to very liberal parents may think differently from another child growing up in a conservative family. And yet, as most subscribers know, parents can only influence their children so much. Children often do grow up with beliefs different from their parents’.

The upbringing, advertising, and propaganda that we all experience around us shape us in ways that are powerful but difficult to notice. Therefore, at most, “cognitive liberty” is a worthy aspiration, not a black-and-white concept.

However, with the advent of AI recording the brainwaves of millions of people and influencing them, “cognitive liberty” will become a total joke.

Let me explain why.

In the past, a child growing up in a conservative family could be thinking liberal thoughts in the privacy of her mind, without the parents knowing or interrupting the thought process. This is how children evolve into adults who can think independently.

But would a future child, growing up with a convenient brainwave scanner and immersed in virtual reality, be totally shaped by the AI-driven metaverse?

Can you imagine Socrates, pictured below, wearing a brain-scanning interface and immersed in AI-generated virtual reality? Would he ever become Socrates as we know him if not for his ability to think without interruption?

Does a regular human being have a chance of resisting a brain-scanning AI engine as powerful as millions of human brains and trained on a giant “human dataset”? Is there any possibility that a boy or a girl, growing up in a virtual reality shaped by these systems, can develop independent thinking? Not in my opinion.

Such a future may seem attractive to some. The supporters may call it “making people better by teaching them good things at scale,” the “good things” conveniently defined according to the designers' values.

Call me an old fart, but I am scared by this because such systems place us at the mercy of anonymous thought masters and reduce our human individuality to almost nothing. And if humans are no longer genuinely individual, all shaped by the same virtual reality brain-scanning AI, are we expendable?

Brainwave scanning is becoming mainstream. The WEF loves it. Its applications are discussed at world gatherings of the most influential people.

So, tinfoil hats, which used to be jokingly evoked as attributes of the craziest conspiracy theorists, may soon become necessary to ensure the “cognitive liberty” to which Nita Farahany gives lip service. Even Socrates, if he was alive, might feel compelled to wear one. So ridiculous!

My retelling of the WEF video sounds crazy and may seem like a result of me overindulging in the wrong kind of mushrooms. Unfortunately, the crazy stuff is right there in the WEF presentation. I concocted nothing. My article is not even based on any compilation of disjoint materials! Everything that I am discussing is in one singular WEF video.

The brainwave scanners are being developed commercially and will soon be used to extract trillions of dollars from me, you, and our children. They will also be used to “shape future generations” as desired by unaccountable, unelected, and anonymous masters of the new universe.

Is that the future that we want?

Source: Igor's Newsletter

"The Global South Rising (Up)" by Natasha Wright

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

 The Global South Rising (Up)

Natasha Wright

January 31, 2023

Davos annual meeting comes across as rather outdated and obsolete with its now heavily tarnished global image all the more so.

While geopolitics is threatening to deal a heavy blow and most probably demolish the world created in the cauldrons of Davos, as has the Financial Times voiced their concerns, and surely not without a series of justifiable reasons, one of the unexpected leaders of the Global South, Indian PM Narenda Modi, rebelliously self-confident, said in his address to the world: “Our time is yet to come. We are all those who are not the Collective West ‘made to Davos measure”. Moreover, even the U.S. CNN couldn’t help noticing, this year’s Davos meeting (aka the Davos annual “gab fest” as Rowan Dean, Sky News Australia famously called it) has attracted a record number of visits but its relevance appears to be dwindling and slowly but surely vanishing into political void. Davos annual meeting comes across as rather outdated and obsolete with its now heavily tarnished global image all the more so.

The overwhelming fear this year’s WEF in Davos is frantically obsessing about internalizes the fact that the long-lasting period of peace and prosperity and global economic integrations is regrettably drawing to an end – not even the Financial Times try to handle the perils of their own pessimism in that they seem to specify to the smallest minutiae, who did prosper in that famous and infamous Collective West in the period of global integration, which has existed so far but is in a terribly precarious position now.

The conflict in Ukraine has shown the ways the war can suddenly sever the ties in economic relations on the foundations of which the globalization has been built so far. The European Union seems to be drastically reducing the import of Russian energy supplies and in so doing it further foments the inflation in Europe and renders some of its industries grotesquely uncompetitive and regrettably redundant. The politicians and industrial moguls are now casting scrutinizing looks along the horizon and beyond, in their comically concerted effort to possibly spot the next ominously pernicious threat. It sounds only too eerie that the London-based newspaper forecasts with a proverbial admonishing finger in midair. The U.S. channel says that this year in Davos, one cannot help noticing the absence of U.S. President Biden, the French President Emanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on one hand and the leaders of India and China Xi and Modi on the other. Some of them were obliged not to attend because of the backlash on their home turfs because Davos has become the toxic symbol of inequality and brutally merciless international capitalism.

There is surely a very good reason for this tarnished reputation, because in the last two years apparently, 1% of the richest of the rich have accumulated even two times bigger “new riches” than the rest of the world altogether. Those leaders who believe this is “not OK” such as Xi and Modi, did not attend Davos because they were otherwise engaged and they had to prioritize. But to get back to truly serious world leaders, PM Modi was absent for a good reason because instead of WEF, he addressed his audience in the Voice of the Global South Summit. Unlike that overwhelmingly pathetic pessimism in Davos, Modi’s voice was brimming with rebellious optimism. It is blatantly obvious that the world is in the grip of the global crisis. It is difficult to foresee how long this state of uncertainty will last – Modi started his elaboration and then went on to get across what is to come next. “We shall have the biggest share in this in the future. Three quarters of mankind live in our countries and we need to have an impact commensurate with that share and number. Therefore, whilst the eight decade long global governance behind us is gradually changing, we need to aspire to shape the emerging world order. The peoples and nations in the global South should not be deprived of the fruits of the global development out of purely selfish reasons. It is incumbent on all of us together to reconstruct our common political and financial governance. Only that can multiply our opportunities and increase prosperity”. All that, Modi points out, may happen with the respect for all nations, rule of law and peaceable resolution of all differences and disputes and the reform of international institutions, including that of the UN, so as to render them more relevant.

By the way, Russia has publicly supported this request by India to be granted the continual seat in the UN Security Council. “Despite the challenges the world is facing I remain an optimist,” Modi sends a clear resounding message. “Our time is coming. In the past century we have been helping each other in our struggle against foreign governance. We can do that again in this century so as to create the new world order, which will in turn ensure the well – being of our citizens” – says Modi. And not only him. An almost identical message was sent from Cairo, Egypt. After a meeting with the Arab League officials, the new Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang said “We have agreed to work together towards creating the new world order based on the rule of law and equality of the whole humanity, dedication to human values of the whole civilization together with their adamant refusing to politicize human rights issues and their (ab)use as a mere political ploy to interfere in the internal affairs of individual sovereign countries.” He did not utter this out loud and there was no need to do any such thing other than in this Qin Gang’s filigree diplomatic style, though it was blatantly obvious who Qin Gang was referring to.

Truth be told, the clear signs of the new non-Western world order are rapidly proliferating. Not only that 85 % of mankind have not joined “the Collective Biden” sanctions against Russia but as an example, thanks to these sanctions, India is now importing 33 times more from Russia than before. Iran, regardless of the U.S. sanctions on them, is now exporting more of its oil than before the sanctions. And the Republic of South Africa, as one very good but a somewhat different example, is dismissing the raging wrath expressed by the Collective West because of their (i.e. South African) marine military exercises with Russia recently. But as its key point, after Xi Jinping announced in Ryadh recently that China will be paying Saudi Arabia for Saudi oil in yuan, the Saudi Finance Minister confirms with a dollop of irony from Davos that the situation is abundantly clear that they will not sell oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. And, South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naledi Pandor reveals that more or less since 2014 the BRICS countries have been working hard on creating an alternative to the dollar system. All the projections tend to indicate that by 2030 China and India economies will be the biggest economies in the world and Russia will graciously overtake the economies of Germany and Japan.

The new world order is not a mere buzzword for the idle ones any more. One cannot but wonder who will shape it and in what manner: economically, financially and politically. Will the Collective West do their diabolical best to prevent that from happening by resorting to what they have always done: the truly global world war and possibly aided with nukes?

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation