Julian Assange
636 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
636 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
My hens received a letter from the tracing office inviting them to confine themselves with… the fox of the adjoining forest because he has a soft and caring look (like the lobster of Gaston Lagaffe). Immediately, they accused the tracing people of being unconscious or crazy. I don’t know what to tell them: they are right because it is an absurd and inefficient order. Containment of healthy people will never be THE effective treatment of an infectious disease…
What can be done to avoid an absurd and inefficient order? An illustration of obedience to order is found in the experiment of an American psychologist, Milgram(1). Short summary: he places an ad in newspapers to recruit volunteers to « officially » test the pain threshold. The recruited person sends an electric current to a person who is an accomplice of the experimenters. In fact, the experiment is not there to test the pain threshold but to test obedience to an order. As long as the people in authority do not show their disagreement, the « executioner » carries out the orders until … a lethal dose of electric current.
My hens have understood what is going on and they don’t want to invite the fox into the henhouse even if it is a stupid order « from a superior »… They also suggested to me that in the human world there is also a fox invited into the henhouse: the experts who have conflicts of interest and who are consulted by governmental bodies.
They told me that they do not understand how the fox (experts with conflicts of interest) could have been allowed to enter the henhouse (in the advisory committees) and how they continue to be there…
Since the beginning of the epidemic in 2020, no expert has spoken about preventing COVID-19 infection. All the experts and — even politicians — have been screaming that there is no cure for COVID-19… My patients are laughing their heads off because they have been treated and are alive at home. Most of them responded to the same treatment for a modest price of 18 euros. Some needed short-term oxygen therapy at home, paid for by their mutual insurance company and through their local pharmacist. When other people learn that there is a treatment and that loved ones have died without giving that treatment, what will happen with the experts, the government and the doctors? « Forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing?
When other people learn that there is a treatment and that loved ones have died without giving that treatment, what will happen with the experts, the government and the doctors?
I have even learned that patients are being treated with these treatments on the sly in the hospital because some doctors have dared to say « there is no evidence that the treatment is effective « . Patients would rather stay alive with these treatments than be intubated… A matter of life choice.
No evidence of treatment effectiveness: yet only 40% of treatments in medicine have been validated and doctors prescribe them « anyway ». In the same way, most of the vaccines against COVID-19 have not been tested in double blind (it is in the leaflet of the drugs and in the articles published in international journals) and nobody takes offense to it, neither the fox nor the experts.
It’s hard to understand: Professor Didier Raoult was reproached for not doing a double-blind study, whereas pharmaceutical companies do not do double-blind studies…
My chickens understand that it is dangerous to invite the fox without a guardrail and my patients see the effectiveness of the treatment. While the experts go around on television saying that there is no treatment. And that some politicians relay the same ascientific nonsense.
The fact that experts have conflicts of interest would have nothing to do with the fact that they say there is no treatment… Inviting experts with conflicts of interest is a bit like inviting the fox into the henhouse and believing that nothing will happen to the chickens… Or believing that the health of the population will improve because experts with conflicts of interest give the best advice to politicians…
If a treatment exists, it is forbidden to promote an experimental vaccine (this is in the legal texts). One can understand the massive attitude of destruction of other opinions that do not fit the official narrative, namely « there is no treatment and the only solution is vaccination ».
Chickens have long understood that it is better not to invite the fox into the henhouse if they want to survive him. My patients understand that it is better for them to be treated and not to invite the experts’ bullshit into their homes.