Effects Of Covid 19 Quotes

In short, physicians are getting more and more data, which requires more sophisticated interpretation and which takes more time. AI is the solution, enhancing every stage of patient care from research and discovery to diagnosis and therapy selection. As a result, clinical practice will become more efficient, convenient, personalized, and effective.

Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York and currently the de facto leader of the country’s COVID-19 response, has committed not only the sin of insufficiently kissing Donald’s ass but the ultimate sin of showing Donald up by being better and more competent, a real leader who is respected and effective and admired.

Many, but by no means all of us, have been shielded until now from the worst effects of his pathologies by a stable economy and a lack of serious crises. But the out-of-control COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of an economic depression, deepening social divides along political lines thanks to Donald’s penchant for division, and devastating uncertainty about our country’s future have created a perfect storm of catastrophes that no one is less equipped than my uncle to manage. Doing

If you hibernate like a bear, entertain yourself with indoor hobbies, and wait for summertime T-shirt weather, you will probably avoid the serious effects of COVID-19.

Social psychologists have likened the effects of COVID-19 to that of the great World Wars for the characteristics are all there down to the sirens and curfews; it is after all a life-altering event that has blanketed the world with uncertainty and an unfathomable restriction on personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, there has been no escaping the water-cooler conversation.

Left-wing progressivism” and “managerialism” are synonymous since the solutions of the former always involve the expansion of the latter. To stay with the example of LGBT causes, these may seem remote from something as technical as “managerialism” but consider the armies of HR officer, diversity tsars, equality ministers, and so on that are supported today under the banner of “LGBT” and used to police and control enterprises. The “philanthropic” endeavours of the Ford Foundation in this regard laid the infrastructure and groundwork to setup new power centres for managerialism under the guise of this ostensibly unrelated cause. Similar case studies can be found in issues as diverse as racial equality, gender equality, Islamist terrorism, climate change, mental health, and the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The LOGIC of managerialism is to create invisible “problems” which can, in effect, never truly be solved, but rather can permanently support managerial jobs that force some arbitrary compliance standard such as “unconscious bias training”, “net zero carbon”, the ratio of men and women on executive boards or whatever else.

The emerging medical research into treating Long COVID in 2023 was matching my research into treating the long-term effects of altitude sickness that I published in my 2022 books. Amino acids appear to be key in treating both hypoxic conditions.

This traumatic episode in history is proving to be one twisted psychological experiment on a massive scale, a testing whose effects on the mind will be studied for years to come for we know that after trauma comes the post-traumatic episodes and the world needs to be ready to help those of us who will need to be mentally supported once the worst is behind us.

High-quality and transparent data, clearly documented, timely rendered, and publicly available are the sine qua non of competent public health management. During a pandemic, reliable and comprehensive data are critical for determining the behavior of the pathogen, identifying vulnerable populations, rapidly measuring the effectiveness of interventions, mobilizing the medical community around cutting-edge disease management, and inspiring cooperation from the public. The shockingly low quality of virtually all relevant data pertinent to COVID-19, and the quackery, the obfuscation, the cherrypicking and blatant perversion would have scandalized, offended, and humiliated every prior generation of American public health officials. Too often, Dr. Fauci was at the center of these systemic deceptions. The “mistakes” were always in the same direction—inflating the risks of coronavirus and the safety and efficacy of vaccines in

Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. If SARS had conformed to the perverse pattern of presymptomatic infectivity, its 2003 emergence wouldn’t be a case history in good luck and effective outbreak response. It would be a much darker story. The much darker story remains to be told, probably not about this virus but about another. When the Next Big One comes, we can guess, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern, high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it to move through cities and airports like an angel of death.

1) Levophed—a common blood pressure medication. Used to be called “leave ’em dead” because people used it for the sickest of the sick in sepsis and those patients still frequently died, but it has now come back into favor. We were maxed. 2) Vasopressin—another BP med. Not titratable. Left on normal dose. 3) Phenylephrine, aka Neo, from its brand name, Neosynephrine—another BP med—maxed. Pharmacy was mixing higher concentrations of this for us, so that we could give it in less fluid volume for the patient’s sake. 4) Sodium Bicarb—also high-concentrated dose for fluid reasons—given to attempt to combat patient’s acidosis. 5) Fentanyl—pain control—not maxed. 6) Versed—an amnesiac—hopefully makes you “less aware” of WTF is happening to you. Also not maxed, because they were also on…. 7) Nimbex—a paralytic we give to patients to make them “ride the vent” so that they don’t fight it and can save energy, as the vent does the work of breathing for them. 8) Heparin—blood thinner, to reduce the clotting that covid can cause. 9) Amiodarone—heart med, stops arrhythmias. 10) Insulin—which requires hourly insulin checks to titrate effectively. Unfortunately, many covid patients are also on steroids, which means their blood sugars fluctuate all over the place.

CDC cited Merck’s and Gates’s cheery assessments of the grotesque Indian experiments to help justify its expanded recommendation for the Gardasil vaccine. Prior to COVID-19, Gardasil was the most dangerous vaccine ever licensed, accounting for some 22 percent of cumulative injuries from all adverse events reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). During clinical trials, Merck was unable to show that Gardasil was effective against cervical cancers.173 Instead, the studies showed the vaccine actually increases cervical cancer by 46.3 percent in women exposed to HPV prior to vaccination—perhaps one-third of all women.174 According to Merck’s clinical trial reports, the

Homer-Dixon says increasing complexity makes societies more resilient only up to a point. Connections between villages might mean one comes to the other’s aid in an attack. But as the villages become more tightly coupled, both may suffer when one is attacked. A loose network absorbs shock; a tightly coupled one transmits it. That is happening in the Covid-19 pandemic. Countries go into lockdown; people stop shopping, traveling, and producing; and the effects ricochet through a tightly coupled global economy. The global supply chains of money, materials, people, energy, and component parts that underpin industries falter and break. Airlines go under as they are not set up to weather even a temporary disappearance of travelers. Malaria worsens in Africa as insecticide and antimalarial bed net deliveries falter. Microcredit that underpins small businesses throughout the developing world defaults because payment collectors are locked down, causing ramifications throughout an economy.

McCullough points out that early treatment does not just prevent hospitalization; it quickly starves pandemics to death by stopping their spread. “Early treatment reduces the infectivity period from 14 days to about four days,” he explains. “It also allows someone to stay in the home so they don’t contaminate people outside the home. And then it has this remarkable effect in reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms so patients don’t get so short of breath, they don’t get into this panic where they feel they have to break containment and go to the hospital.” McCullough says that those hospital trips are tinder for pandemics, especially since, at that point, the patient is at the height of infectivity, with teeming viral loads. “Every hospitalization in America—and there’s been millions of them—has been a super-spreader event. Sick patients contaminate their loved ones, paramedics, Uber drivers, people in the clinic and offices. It becomes a total mess.” McCullough says that by treating COVID-19 at home, doctors actually can extinguish the pandemic.

In the introduction, I wrote that COVID had started a war, and nobody won. Let me amend that. Technology won, specifically, the makers of disruptive new technologies and all those who benefit from them. Before the pandemic, American politicians were shaking their fists at the country’s leading tech companies. Republicans insisted that new media was as hopelessly biased against them as traditional media, and they demanded action. Democrats warned that tech giants like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Alphabet, and Netflix had amassed too much market (and therefore political) power, that citizens had lost control of how these companies use the data they generate, and that the companies should therefore be broken into smaller, less dangerous pieces. European governments led a so-called techlash against the American tech powerhouses, which they accused of violating their customers’ privacy. COVID didn’t put an end to any of these criticisms, but it reminded policymakers and citizens alike just how indispensable digital technologies have become. Companies survived the pandemic only by allowing wired workers to log in from home. Consumers avoided possible infection by shopping online. Specially made drones helped deliver lifesaving medicine in rich and poor countries alike. Advances in telemedicine helped scientists and doctors understand and fight the virus. Artificial intelligence helped hospitals predict how many beds and ventilators they would need at any one time. A spike in Google searches using phrases that included specific symptoms helped health officials detect outbreaks in places where doctors and hospitals are few and far between. AI played a crucial role in vaccine development by absorbing all available medical literature to identify links between the genetic properties of the virus and the chemical composition and effects of existing drugs.

By collecting data from the vast network of doctors across the globe, they added dozens of new compounds to the arsenal—all proven effective against COVID-19. Dr. Kory told me that he was deeply troubled that the extremely successful efforts by scores of front-line doctors to develop repurposed medicines to treat COVID received no support from any government in the entire world—only hostility—much of it orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the US health agencies. The large universities that rely on hundreds of millions in annual funding from NIH were also antagonistic. “We didn’t have a single academic institution come up with a single protocol,” said Dr. McCullough. “They didn’t even try. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, you name it. Not a single medical center set up even a tent to try to treat patients and prevent hospitalization and death. There wasn’t an ounce of original research coming out of America available to fight COVID—other than vaccines.” All of these universities are deeply dependent on billions of dollars that they receive from NIH. As we shall see, these institutions live in terror of offending Anthony Fauci, and that fear paralyzed them in the midst of the pandemic. “Dr. Fauci refused to promote any of these interventions,” says Kory. “It’s not just that he made no effort to find effective off-the-shelf cures—he aggressively suppressed them.” Instead of supporting McCullough’s work, NIH and the other federal regulators began actively censoring information on this range of effective remedies. Doctors who attempted merely to open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID found themselves heavily and inexplicably censored. Dr. Fauci worked with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other social media sites to muzzle discussion of any remedies. FDA sent a letter of warning that N-acetyle-L-cysteine (NAC) cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement, after decades of free access on health food shelves, and suppressed IV vitamin C, which the Chinese were using with extreme effectiveness.

October 2004: Scientists report that hydroxychloroquine and the related chloroquine are effective in treating coronavirus. (Keep in mind COVID-19 is just one kind of coronavirus.)

The knowledge of the damaging effects from COVID-19 hypoxia will likely close down most very high altitude facilities around the world.

In the midst of a pandemic, with hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed to COVID, and the economy in free fall, Dr. Fauci’s suggestion that we withhold promising treatments that have an established safety profile—from patients who have a potentially lethal disease—pending the completion of randomized controlled clinical trials, is highly manipulative and utterly unethical. It is not medically ethical to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is an inexpensive, safe, and demonstrably effective HCQ treatment that CDC’s and NIAID’s own studies show blocks coronavirus replication. It would be equally unethical to enroll sick individuals in such studies—as Dr. Fauci proposes—in which half the infected patients would receive a placebo.

One of those 48 studies is the Danish analysis published in November 2020 in the world-renowned journal Annals of Internal Medicine, which concluded: „The trial found no statistically significant benefit of wearing a face mask.“1416 Shortly before, U.S. researcher Yinon Weiss updated his charts on cloth face masks mandates in various countries and U.S. states—and they also showed that mask mandates have made no difference or may even have been counterproductive.1417 The aforementioned website „Ärzte klären auf“ showed a graph with data going until December 4, 2020, which also refutes the effectiveness of the mask obligation.

A hasty retreat from globalization would entail trade and currency wars, damaging every country’s economy, provoking social havoc and triggering ethno- or clan nationalism. The establishment of a much more inclusive and equitable form of globalization that makes it sustainable, both socially and environmentally, is the only viable way to manage retreat. This requires policy solutions addressed in the concluding chapter and some form of effective global governance. Progress is indeed possible in those global areas that have traditionally benefited from international cooperation, like environmental agreements, public health and tax havens.

However, Hatchett and Mecher’s modeling, and the deep dive into the history of the Spanish flu, started to change minds inside the public health establishment, and especially the CDC. The findings on the NPIs from 1918 were so striking that they surprised the team. The nonpharmaceutical interventions had a profound effect on slowing spread, but they needed to be adopted early in the course of a pandemic. The best way to contain a pandemic would remain through vaccination. But it might be months, or longer, before a vaccine could be made available.

André V. Chapman holds his Master’s in Organizational Management as well as a Certificate of Completion from the Harvard Business School program, Strategic Perspectives on Nonprofit Management. He is the Founder & CEO of Unity Care Group, Inc., and he started the Covid19-Black initiative as an educational movement to reduce the effect of the coronavirus on the African American community. Mr. Chapman is a Fell of the American Leadership Forum.

What was the new research he was referencing? A research document that claimed to show benefit to masking based on reviewing a collection of studies, which somehow ignored all of the randomized controlled trials showing no effect from masking. These kinds of glaring omissions have been a continuous problem among scientists desperate to justify the implementation of masks despite the gold standard of evidence indicating they would be effectively useless. One randomized controlled trial did occur during 2020, conducted by researchers in Denmark. Those researchers’ objective was clearly stated: “To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.”25 Given all of the pre-COVID scientific research, it should come as no surprise that the results showed no benefit to mask wearing to protect against infection with COVID-19. The Denmark researchers’ summary clearly identifies the lack of any significant impact: “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers.” Thousands of Danes were enrolled in this trial, the most comprehensive effort by any scientific researchers to study the potential effect of mask wearing by the general public. Participants were provided high-quality surgical masks, not the cloth face coverings recommended by many public health agencies. In the best approximation of a gold-standard clinical trial that researchers could design, the results showed absolutely no statistically significant benefit. The findings, surprisingly, received no major media attention, nor did they generate questions for the expert community that now universally embrace masking.

Government alone cannot restore the economy to health. Innovation is a primary driver of economic growth. One way of measuring inventive creativeness is through patent applications. Chetty, along with Alex Bell, Xavier Jaravel, Neviana Petkova, and John Van Reenen, studied the childhoods of more than a million patent holders, linking family income with elementary test scores and other key factors. Children at the top of their third-grade math class were the most likely to become inventors—but only if they also came from a high-income family. High-scoring children who were from low-income or minority families were no more likely to become inventors than affluent children with mediocre scores. Successful inventors were also less likely to be women, Black, Latino, or from the Southeast. Chetty called these failed inventors the “lost Einsteins.” “If women, minorities, and children from low-income families were to invent at the same rate as white men from high-income (top 20%) families, the rate of innovation in America would quadruple,” the authors said. The most ominous finding by Chetty and his colleagues was the effect of Covid-19 on educational progress. Using a popular math program called Zearn, the economists plotted the achievement of children from upper-income families versus those from lower incomes. When schools shut down and instruction switched to remote learning, children in the upper-income tier suffered a small drop in the lessons completed, but low-income children fell in a hole—a 60 percent drop in the rate of progress in learning math. The long-term economic prospects for those children are dire. “We’re likely to see further erosion of social mobility the longer this lasts,” Chetty said. The American dream was drifting farther out of reach for another generation.

Antibodies can continue to circulate in our blood for many months, but not all antibodies are equally effective in neutralizing a virus.

A decade earlier, we might have struggled for a year to get SARS-CoV-2 to grow in cell cultures. Messenger RNA proved to be an agile approach, allowing us to develop highly effective vaccines directly from the virus’s genetic composition.

The schools didn’t have enough information to guide safe decisions to reopen. At best, these political efforts were a misreading of the value that information could play in supporting action in the setting of uncertainty. Did masks lower the likelihood of spread in classrooms? Did distancing help? Was keeping students in distinct social pods effective? These were critical questions that needed to be answered. If we had data to guide these actions, more schools would have had a framework to know how to both stay open and reduce the risk of outbreaks. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said it wasn’t the responsibility of her department to collect and report this information.

As part of our national preparedness, it will be important to stockpile countermeasures to some of the known risks, but it’s equally important to support the development of novel technology platforms that have broad applicability over a range of potential threats. We can’t always see the future. We can’t focus solely on the dangers that we can see today. And we can’t guess which approaches to developing drugs and vaccines will yield the most effective solutions.

If any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone. His agency is co-owner of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public.

A declaration under section 475 [of the Biosecurity Act would give] Hunt as Health minister exclusive and extraordinary powers. He, and only he, could personally make directives that overrode any other law and were not disallowable by parliament. He [would have] authority to direct any citizen in the country to do something, or not do something, to prevent spread of the disease. One of the only things he couldn't do would be to give directions to a state or territory government official. Morrison knew that if he asked the Governor-General to invoke section 475, he effectively would be handing Hunt control of the country.

Furthermore, some 52 studies—all available on NIH’s website—find that ordinary masking (using less than an N95 respirator) doesn’t reduce viral infection rates, even—surprisingly—in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters.6,7 Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries.8 Fourteen of these studies are randomized, peer-reviewed placebo studies. There is no well-constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficacy against COVID-19 that would justify accepting the harms associated with masks. Finally, retrospective studies on Dr. Fauci’s mask mandates confirm that they were bootless. “Regional analysis in the United States does not show that [mask] mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93 percent compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85 percent of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask,”9 according to Gutentag.

critics would complain if he spent billions on vaccines and nothing on therapeutics. However, any licensed, repurposed antiviral that was effective against COVID for prevention or early treatment (like IVM or HCQ) could kill his entire vaccine program because FDA wouldn’t be able to grant his jabs Emergency Use Authorization. Remdesivir, however, was an IV remedy, appropriate only for use on hospitalized patients in the late stages of illness. It would therefore not compete with vaccines, allowing Dr. Fauci to support it without compromising his core business. Furthermore, while HCQ and IVM were off-patent and available generically, remdesivir was in the sweet spot of still being on patent. The potential profit upside was impressive. Remdesivir cost Gilead $10 per dose to manufacture.18,19 But by granting Gilead an EUA, regulators could force private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid to fork over around $3,120.00 per treatment—hundreds of times the cost of the drug.20,21 Gilead predicted remdesivir would bring in $3.5 billion in 2020 alone.

But by far the most important application of AI to medicine in 2020 was the key role it played in designing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines in record time. On January 11, 2020, Chinese authorities released the virus’s genetic sequence.[11] Moderna scientists got to work with powerful machine-learning tools that analyzed what vaccine would work best against it, and just two days later they had created the sequence for its mRNA vaccine.[12] On February 7 the first clinical batch was produced.

To survive something that so many people have died from can have a mental effect on you. It can make you feel a sense of urgency to be more responsible with the life you have left.

I'm not making any claims here about whether secularization was good or bad-I'm simply saying that in my experience studying cultural history, people never simply let go of religion, they rather find new things to guide their behaviors and actions: essentially, they create new religions our of secular things. In the late 1800's, this new guiding force was science, and faith in science as a means of solving all the world's most complex problems (even today we call the study of government political science, so you can see that this mindset still pervades our society) allowed people to indulge in the fantasy of germ whack-a-mole. And, of course, handwashing and antiseptic techniques do reduce contagious disease transmission, so fortunately and unfortunately (yes, I mean both at once), the fallacy of playing whack-a-mole with germs reaped positive rewards to some extent, but also allowed society to take the delusion of a germ-free life too far. This sort of thinking is a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to ignorance.' An appeal to ignorance occurs when we have been doing something to ward off a negative effect, and when said negative events never happens, we are all too easily able to assume (possibly incorrectly) that our actions prevented the negative event from occurring.

From the outset, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and other therapeutics posed an existential threat to Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates’ $48 billion COVID vaccine project, and particularly to their vanity drug remdesivir, in which Gates has a large stake.1 Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot quality for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady: For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .2 Thus, if any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone.3 His agency is co-owner4 of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public.5,6

Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot quality for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady: For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .2 Thus, if any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone.3 His agency is co-owner4 of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public.5

Effectively, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government measure.

The team still wasn’t sure if their vaccine was going to work, or if so many effective shots would be produced by others that theirs might not be needed, but they wanted to do everything they could to try to help protect people from the devastating disease.

we engineered the virus to be more effective against certain subsets of people. To further that request, Unit 61398 acquired for us the American, UK, EU, and Russian responses and lessons learned from the COVID-19 virus.

Not only does our individual and societal sanity depend on connection; so does our physical health. Because we are biopsychosocial creatures, the rising loneliness epidemic in Western culture is much more than just a psychological phenomenon: it is a public health crisis. A preeminent scholar of loneliness, the late neuroscientist John Cacioppo and his colleague and spouse, Stephania Cacioppo, published a letter in the Lancet only a month before his death in 2018. "Imagine," they wrote, "a condition that makes a person irritable, depressed, and self-centered, and is associated with a 26% increase in the risk of premature mortality. Imagine too that in industrialized countries around a third of people are affected by this condition, with one person in 12 affected severely, and that these proportions are increasing. Income, education, sex, and ethnicity are not protective, and the condition is contagious. The effects of the condition are not attributable to some peculiarity of the character of a subset of individuals, they are a result of the condition affecting ordinary people. Such a condition exists — loneliness." We now know without doubt that chronic loneliness is associated with an elevated risk of illness and early death. It has been shown to increase mortality from cancer and other diseases and has been compared to the harm of smoking fifteen cigarettes a day. According to research presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in 2015, the loneliness epidemic is a public health risk at least as great as the burgeoning rates of obesity. Loneliness, the researcher Steven Cole told me, can impair genetic functioning. And no wonder: even in parrots isolation impairs DNA repair by shortening chromosome-protecting telomeres. Social isolation inhibits the immune system, promotes inflammation, agitates the stress apparatus, and increases the risk of death from heart disease and strokes. Here I am referring to social isolation in the pre COVID-19 sense, though the pandemic has grievously exacerbated the problem, at great cost to the well-being of many.

Economists describe the precise endogeneity problem outlined here as simultaneity. Lockdowns affect potential deaths, but potential deaths can also impact the adoption of lockdowns. There’s a two-way causation. In this particular case, then, the endogeneity problem might be a source of bias that leads to an underestimation of the effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing deaths, at least in the near-term after lockdowns are implemented.

But assessing correlations between a policy and some outcome may lead to faulty policy conclusions if they are interpreted as a causal relationship without thinking hard about the mechanisms or other variables that might drive the results. In the case of COVID-19, assessing lockdowns’ effectiveness by looking at crude death numbers might be misleading if lockdowns were introduced because death numbers were expected to rise, or if we ignore major changes in behavior.

Antibody drugs like the products that Trump and Christie received could have been a bridge to a vaccine. They could be used as effective treatments in high-risk patients, especially when the drugs were administered early in the course of the disease. Moreover, these drugs could also be used as a prophylaxis to prevent infection in those at greater risk of contracting COVID and suffering a bad outcome.

When policymakers lost interest in Regeneron’s drug for MERS, the company advanced an idea for a pan-coronavirus antibody that could be used if another coronavirus should emerge and threaten a pandemic.27 Regeneron believed it was possible to develop a cocktail of antibodies that would be effective against any coronavirus. But the project couldn’t attract investment from federal agencies like BARDA that would have had to fund these sorts of countermeasures.

The osteopath Dr. Joseph Mercola observed,102 “This idea that ivermectin is a horse dewormer that poses a lethal risk to humans is pure horse manure, shoveled at us in an effort to dissuade people from using a safe and effective drug against COVID-19. . . . The intent is clear. What our so-called health agencies and the media are trying to do is confuse people into thinking of ivermectin as a ‘veterinary drug,’ which simply isn’t true. Ultimately, what they’re trying to do is back up the Big Pharma narrative that the only thing at your disposal is the COVID shot.

In 2016 a Johns Hopkins study found that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from preventable medical errors, effectively making modern medicine the third leading cause of death in the US.

The vaccine by Sinovac, called Coronavac, followed this strategy and was eventually shown to be about 50 percent effective, or less.

The political pressure by the White House to hasten vaccine approval may have had the opposite effect on its commissioner, instigating a series of actions that ultimately might have delayed those products from reaching patients sooner.

History shows that epidemics have been the great resetter of countries’ economy and social fabric. Why should it be different with COVID-19? A seminal paper on the long-term economic consequences of major pandemics throughout history shows that significant macroeconomic after-effects can persist for as long as 40 years, substantially depressing real rates of return.[18] This is in contrast to wars that have the opposite effect: they destroy capital while pandemics do not – wars trigger higher real interest rates, implying greater economic activity, while pandemics trigger lower real rates, implying sluggish economic activity. In addition, consumers tend to react to the shock by increasing their savings, either because of new precautionary concerns, or simply to replace the wealth lost during the epidemic. On the labour side, there will be gains at the expense of capital since real wages tend to rise after pandemics. As far back as the Black Death that ravaged Europe from 1347 to 1351 (and that suppressed 40% of Europe’s population in just a few years), workers discovered for the first time in their life that the power to change things was in their hands. Barely a year after the epidemic had subsided, textile workers in Saint-Omer (a small city in northern France) demanded and received successive wage rises. Two years later, many workers’ guilds negotiated shorter hours and higher pay, sometimes as much as a third more than their pre-plague level. Similar but less extreme examples of other pandemics point to the same conclusion: labour gains in power to the detriment of capital. Nowadays, this phenomenon may be exacerbated by the ageing of much of the population around the world (Africa and India are notable exceptions), but such a scenario today risks being radically altered by the rise of automation,

we can confidently assert that the pandemic (a high probability, high consequences white-swan event) will provoke many black-swan events through second-, third-, fourth- and more-order effects. It is hard, if not impossible, to foresee what might happen at the end of the chain when multiple-order effects and their ensuing cascades of consequences have occurred after unemployment spikes, companies go bust and some countries are teetering on the verge of collapse. None of these are unpredictable per se, but it is their propensity to create perfect storms when they conflate with other risks that will take us by surprise. To sum up, the pandemic is not a black-swan event, but some of its consequences will be.

the containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network capable of identifying new outbreaks as soon as they arise, laboratories in multiple locations around the world that can rapidly analyse new viral strains and develop effective treatments, large IT infrastructures so that communities can prepare and react effectively, appropriate and coordinated policy mechanisms to efficiently implement the decisions once they are made, and so on. The important point is this: each separate activity by itself is necessary to address the pandemic but is insufficient if not considered in conjunction with the others. It follows that this complex adaptive system is greater than the sum of its parts. Its effectiveness depends on how well it works as a whole, and it is only as strong as its weakest link.

Boris Johnson spoke to the nation,’ Horton writes. ‘He said of Covid-19, “We didn’t fully understand its effects.” His plaintive excuse will likely become the core defence of his government in the subsequent public inquiry into why the UK failed so spectacularly to protect its citizens. It is a defence that can and must be refuted.

The trilemma suggests that the three notions of economic globalization, political democracy and the nation state are mutually irreconcilable, based on the logic that only two can effectively co-exist at any given time.[78] Democracy and national sovereignty are only compatible if globalization is contained. By contrast, if both the nation state and globalization flourish, then democracy becomes untenable. And then, if both democracy and globalization expand, there is no place for the nation state. Therefore, one can only ever choose two out of the three – this is the essence of the trilemma. The European Union has often been used as an example to illustrate the pertinence of the conceptual framework offered by the trilemma. Combining economic integration (a proxy for globalization) with democracy implies that the important decisions have to be made at a supranational level, which somehow weakens the sovereignty of the nation state. In the current environment, what the “political trilemma” framework suggests is that globalization must necessarily be contained if we are not to give up some national sovereignty or some democracy. Therefore, the rise of nationalism makes the retreat of globalization inevitable in most of the world – an impulse particularly notable in the West.

Global governance is commonly defined as the process of cooperation among transnational actors aimed at providing responses to global problems (those that affect more than one state or region). It encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which nation states try to bring more predictability and stability to their responses to transnational challenges. This definition makes it clear that any global effort on any global issue or concern is bound to be toothless without the cooperation of national governments and their ability to act and legislate to support their aims. Nation states make global governance possible (one leads the other), which is why the UN says that “effective global governance can only be achieved with effective international cooperation”.

Beyond its effects on health and the health care industry, COVID-19 has empowered the global elite more than ever before to manufacture lies and half-truths. Uber-powerful Silicon Valley Big Tech corporations (Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon), Big Pharma, the World Health Organization (WHO), and philanthropic giant Bill Gates have indentured politicians and scientists from across the political spectrum. The result is fearmongering, political polarization, and social engineering—all wrapped in a disguise of protection. A shadowy network of military contractors and bioweapons specialists are hiding behind the façade of biomedical and vaccine research while Big Tech silences their critics.

It was clear I had recovered from COVID-19 with the fewest lasting side effects as compared to the infected household. I was the only one taking the nutritional supplements in the book ‘COVID Supplements’.

More thunder out of China, in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, came in early 2020. Although epidemiologists (not to mention biological weapons experts) will be studying this catastrophe long into the future; the mark of China’s authoritarian government and social-control systems is all over it. There is little doubt that China delayed, withheld, fabricated, and distorted information about the origin, timing, spread, and extent of the disease;28 suppressed dissent from physicians and others;29 hindered outside efforts by the World Health Organization and others to get accurate information; and engaged in active disinformation campaigns, actually trying to argue that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease itself (COVID-19) did not originate in China.30 Ironically, some of the worst effects of China’s cover-up were visited on its closest allies. Iran, for example, looked to be one of the worst-hit countries, with satellite photos showing the excavation of burial pits for the expected victims of COVID-19.31

More thunder out of China, in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, came in early 2020. Although epidemiologists (not to mention biological weapons experts) will be studying this catastrophe long into the future; the mark of China’s authoritarian government and social-control systems is all over it. There is little doubt that China delayed, withheld, fabricated, and distorted information about the origin, timing, spread, and extent of the disease;28 suppressed dissent from physicians and others;29 hindered outside efforts by the World Health Organization and others to get accurate information; and engaged in active disinformation campaigns, actually trying to argue that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease itself (COVID-19) did not originate in China.30 Ironically, some of the worst effects of China’s cover-up were visited on its closest allies. Iran, for example, looked to be one of the worst-hit countries, with satellite photos showing the excavation of burial pits for the expected victims of COVID-19.31 With 2020 being a presidential election year, it was inevitable that Trump’s performance in this global health emergency would become a campaign issue, which it did almost immediately. And there was plenty to criticize, starting with the Administration’s early, relentless assertion that the disease was “contained” and would have little or no economic effect. Larry Kudlow, Chairman of the National Economic Council, said, on February 25, “We have contained this. I won’t say [it’s] airtight, but it’s pretty close to airtight.”32 Market reactions to these kinds of assertions were decidedly negative, which may finally have woken the White House up to the seriousness of the problem.

Estrogen appears to be protective against the damaging effects of COVID-19.

In a study of twenty-nine high-income countries, the United States experienced the largest decline in life expectancy in 2020, and unlike European countries the United States did not recover in 2021. America was also the only country whose lowered life span was driven mainly by deaths among people under sixty. Whether deaths were caused by COVID-19 or the effects of the response to COVID-19 (such as increased suicides or untreated illnesses), America was far less resilient than comparable countries.

After BlackRock created its Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the firm quietly secured its status as the main financial administrator of the economic stimulus package during the COVID-19 pandemic, effectively playing the role of the government—and probably made a pretty penny for doing it. In January 2020, pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced to much fanfare at (of course) the World Economic Forum in Davos a new investment commitment of $1 billion over ten years into environmental sustainability initiatives to fight climate change.

After BlackRock created its Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the firm quietly secured its status as the main financial administrator of the economic stimulus package during the COVID-19 pandemic, effectively playing the role of the government—and probably made a pretty penny for doing it. In January 2020, pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced to much fanfare at (of course) the World Economic Forum in Davos a new investment commitment of $1 billion over ten years into environmental sustainability initiatives to fight climate change. Just a couple of months later, it received a $1.2 billion grant—not a loan, but a grant—from US taxpayers to subsidize its development of for-profit vaccines.

The virus leaves behind tiny pieces of itself after the body breaks it down. These pieces, similar to fragments of the virus’s outer shell, can clump together into structures that trick the body into thinking there’s a bigger threat. This triggers an intense immune response, like sounding a massive alarm over a few leftover virus bits, which can contribute to severe inflammation and symptoms seen in serious COVID-19 cases. It's like the virus has a ghostly afterlife, continuing to affect the body even after the majority of it has been destroyed. In the battle against the virus, our body initiates a defense mechanism that, while protective, also causes inflammation in critical areas, particularly where our stem cells are nurtured including the bone marrow, gut, and brain. For instance, the mitochondria in our blood cells—often referred to as the cellular powerhouses responsible for energy production — are compromised. Their functionality is impaired; they either push themselves too hard or don’t work as efficiently as they should, leading to a notable decrease in the body's energy levels. This energy deficit is more than just feeling tired; it's a systemic issue affecting the body's ability to fight off the virus effectively. The T cells, which are supposed to eliminate any remaining virus, find themselves restrained rendering their arsenal less effective and their capacity to multiply weakened. Despite these limitations, they release copious amounts of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), a signaling molecule that rallies the body's defenses to fight vigorously. This intense response may play a role in the virus's stubborn persistence and ongoing immune response. Meanwhile, the B cells are on overdrive, producing an excessive amount of antibodies in this heightened state of alert. This heightened immune response complicates the path to recovery, posing challenges for individuals striving to reclaim their sense of health and wellness.

In the survey released in February 2020 cited at the beginning of this book, one respondent noted the interrelatedness of the factors involved in our own current world situation, writing: “While extreme climate events are weakening the societal governance and infrastructure, food and water security will become more and more serious, causing large-scale immigration and further inequity. If several geopolitical crises occur in parallel, many states cannot handle the situation properly, due to lack of resources and with the internal conflict, it would cause catastrophic outcomes all over the world.”13 The parallels between events in our modern world and what happened during the Bronze Age Collapse in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean were already readily apparent, but now we need also to take into consideration the catastrophic direct effects of the COVID-19 virus and the ripple effects of the contagion on financial and economic systems that went global at about the same time as the release of the survey.

frequently cite the example of Uttar Pradesh, one of India’s largest states with a population two-thirds the size of the US. With a careful door-to-door surveillance strategy in combination with a prevention and early treatment regime using Ivermectin, Uttar Pradesh effectively eliminated COVID-19 from their state of 241 million people. The history books will (I hope) rightly recognize their efforts as one of the most successful public health interventions ever [42,

Regarding fluvoxamine, the FLCCC incorporated it into our treatment protocol on April 27, 2021, with great effect. That practice was affirmed in October 2021, when a large, double-blind randomized controlled trial, published in the Lancet, found fluvoxamine reduced COVID-19 mortality rates by up to 91 percent and hospitalizations by two-thirds in those who adhered

Cancer and tuberculosis do not matter to our so-called global health institutions, because COVID-19 was quickly tackled and the old diseases remain intact, as if they did not exist at all.

Perhaps even more amazing was the rapid development of not just one but several effective vaccines against COVID-19, not even a year after the pandemic took hold in early 2020. The virus genome was sequenced within weeks of the first deaths, allowing the speedy formulation of vaccines that specifically target its surface proteins. Progress with COVID treatments has also been remarkable, yielding multiple types of antiviral drugs within less than two years. This represents Medicine 2.0 at its absolute finest.

Many, but by no means all of us, have been shielded until now from the worst effects of his pathologies by a stable economy and a lack of serious crises. But the out-of-control COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of an economic depression, deepening social divides along political lines thanks to Donald’s penchant for division, and devastating uncertainty about our country’s future have created a perfect storm of catastrophes that no one is less equipped than my uncle to manage. Doing so would require courage, strength of character, deference to experts, and the confidence to take responsibility and to course correct after admitting mistakes. His ability to control unfavorable situations by lying, spinning, and obfuscating has diminished to the point of impotence in the midst of the tragedies we are currently facing. His egregious and arguably intentional mishandling of the current catastrophe has led to a level of pushback and scrutiny that he’s never experienced before, increasing his belligerence and need for petty revenge as he withholds vital funding, personal protective equipment, and ventilators that your tax dollars have paid for from states whose governors don’t kiss his ass sufficiently.

It is getting difficult to discern the biological effects of natural radiation from unnatural man-made radiation.

Modern science has not created anything that does not exist in the universe. Rather, it has made use of matter which already exists in the universe. The properties in matter exist not because humans have created them. Science is knowledge established by observation and experimentation through an objective process. Scientific knowledge substantiates that the design, variety and balance found in the universe illustrate complexity, intricacy and detail. Science tries to disentangle useful knowledge about the matter so that this knowledge can be put to effective use. But, as Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman explains ‘science cannot be an arbiter in moral matters’.

The core thing in this world that can make you successful in life is your mind, your effective use of it, and your follow-through on the good ideas it generates you.

The ability to make machines can be used for more effective food production, distribution, clinical cures and better health. On the other hand, the same ability can be used to decimate species including human beings. The record of science taking a solo flight by discarding values in recent times has not impacted our technical progress, but it has resulted in the unprecedented loss of human lives in wars, extinction of species, ecological imbalances and irreversible damage to the environment.

The twentieth century can well and truly be regarded as the century of modern science. Science has made us understand the physical world better and to make the ever-more effective use of matter around us. The comforts of life that a common person takes for granted were not available to even the Kings and the Royals of the past. Nonetheless, along with advancements in science and technology, over 200 million people died in the last century in wars. On average, if 5,500 people die on every day of a century, only then it will reach the figure of 200 million. Is extinction merely a rearrangement of molecules, even if it happens to humans via nuclear weapons? We need better humans, morality, values and a social contract that can make us live better, meaningful and fulfilling lives. The technological advancements do not make right as wrong or wrong as right. In fact, if values are undermined, then the same technology can be used for more destruction rather than for social benefit.

Humans live in society and exercise their free will in socio-economic relations. Unlike the dials in a well-functioning clock which do not intersect, humans have the potential to be compassionate or not to be. But, why should I part with my time to help some stranger I might never meet again or for someone who lives miles away from me? Why should I part with my wealth if it is scarce, legally belongs to me and so nobody could question what I would decide to do with it in life? Science seeks cause-effect relations in physical realities. Mathematics is one of the tools to guide this search in complex relationships. Some scientists exclusively focus on material processes. So, they only extract the deeper meaning as regularity and algorithm itself. Science can only help us thus far. The reflection on nature and its regularity around us requires a philosophical underpinning for deeper meaning.

Many, but by no means all of us, have been shielded until now from the worst effects of his pathologies by a stable economy and a lack of serious crises. But the out-of-control COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of an economic depression, deepening social divides along political lines thanks to Donald’s penchant for division, and devastating uncertainty about our country’s future have created a perfect storm of catastrophes that no one is less equipped than my uncle to manage. Doing so would require courage, strength of character, deference to experts, and the confidence to take responsibility and to course correct after admitting mistakes.

Immanuel Kant is quoted to have said: “In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” The question is who knows the intentions and who can provide absolute justice. Even if we could know intentions and start enforcing punishment, the suffering is irreversible as the punishment can only take the life of the murderer at best. Criminals responsible for genocide and unjust wars cannot be accorded with absolute justice even if they accept all their crimes. Belief in afterlife accountability promises absolute justice for every small act of evil or kindness in this life. It enlightens human’s life and makes every act of everyone relevant. Belief in afterlife accountability actualizes the cause and effect in moral matters.

Religion is not just concerned with psychological and spiritual medication and meditation. It is concerned essentially with the question of why life and for what purpose. The religious answer based on historically transmitted knowledge is that we are created by the Creator and Who will reward us justly in the afterlife. The afterlife will actualize the cause and effect in ethical matters and establish absolute justice which we desire for every action and intention. Qur’an repeatedly reminds of the blessings of Allah in the form of matter and intelligence which we use for our comforts and cures. After using the matter and intelligence which exists not because of our efforts, how rational and ethical it is that we remain not only thankless, but negate the one Who is to be thanked altogether.

Religion allows economic endeavours and scientific endeavours to achieve economic livelihood and convenience. It does not ask one to sit idle and expect to be fed naturally or automatically. It does not ask to avoid medicines and cures to treat illnesses. It does not discourage intellectual and scientific pursuits to discover cause and effect relations in the universe and make use of such knowledge. Even in religious knowledge, religion does not feed religious knowledge in brains automatically, but it asks to seek that knowledge by reading, deciphering, thinking and reflecting. Seeking knowledge is regarded as an obligation rather than fed as an effortless gift in humans. In fact, every endeavour which brings comfort, convenience, social good and welfare is an act of virtue and religion encourages one to cooperate in virtuous endeavours (Al- Maida: 2). Thus, in pursuit of livelihood or finding cure of a disease, religion does not prescribe some religious rituals alone.

The second possible point of contact between religion and science can come in answering questions of origin, existence and meaning. These questions do not come in the domain of science. Nonetheless, still some scientists who do not believe in any Ultimate Creator and divine religion tend to argue for their held beliefs from some scientific theories. It is conveniently forgotten that any scientific theory has no concern whatsoever with the ‘will’ behind material cause and effect relation. Science can explain chemical processes, physical processes and biological processes involving material causes and effects. But, science does not concern with the purpose behind material processes.

From where did all the initial matter and material processes through which we explain the recipe of life come from? All that we have done through science is to use the pre-existing matter inside the universe in ways that benefit us by exploiting the cause and effect relations from observation and experimentation.

Another question that always strikes a person in every age is the purpose and meaning of life. This is also a question which is outside the domain of science. When some scientists not believing in God relate their atheistic philosophical viewpoint with evolutionary biology, they are making a philosophical conjecture. It is not the domain of science or any scientific theory to discuss ‘will’ and ‘purpose’ behind material cause and effect relation. Science is concerned with the recipe (how), not the purpose (why).

A reflective mind will keep in mind the scientific and historical evidence that death is as much a fact as is life. The belief in life hereafter completes the cause and effect puzzle even in moral sphere of life. In life hereafter, everyone will get deterministic reward for intentional acts in this life based on the ability and freedom in the circumstances which one faced in this life, no matter whether rich or poor, white or black, male or female, strong or weak and elite or commoner. That makes life of everyone meaningful rather than a constant struggle of survival in one form of matter to the other form of matter where survival instinct is the only moral code.

For validation of knowledge about something, seeing something is not necessary. We use inference to know about things we have not seen, but which nevertheless are considered as true by inference. We would infer that someone put book on table if it was lying in cupboard when we last saw it. If we see an infant crying in a stroller in park and is unattended, we would immediately search for the parent or attendant who would have accompanied the infant to this place. Inference can be used to derive valid knowledge about unseen concepts whose physical manifestations can however be observed like gravity, for instance. We know that dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the universe. We knew black holes exist even before we observed them through a visible image in 2019.

It is hard to tell whether these moral considerations constitute a reset, and whether they will have a long-lasting, post-coronavirus effect on our attitudes and behaviours. At the very least, we could assume that we are now more individually aware of the fact that our decisions are infused with values and informed by moral choices. It might follow that, if (but it is a big “if”) in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, we may be able to pay more attention to issues like inclusivity and fairness.

Corona Virus has once again reminded us that the world at the level of viruses and bacteria may operate on survival instincts alone where survival of the fittest is the only moral code. Human body structure might have evolved to be in the present form, but the Ultimate Creator has given us the human soul and spirit which has consciousness like animals, but also has conscience. To focus attention on consciousness alone is to live with survival instincts and ignore higher morals. To act on goodness suggested by conscience requires looking beyond animal instincts and embrace goodness as a habit and wilful choice. Accountability in life hereafter urges that and promises cause and effect in moral matters.

We also get food for thought if we look at these life-forms. Reflecting on animals, we can see that they have limitations. They live on instincts and do not have ability to look into distant past and far future. They operate on survival instincts. Should humans be like that and only pay attention to survival and animal instincts? We know from our own introspection that we have a clear and strong moral conscience and free will to choose goodness and evil in our choices. Not only do we have that power of recognition, but a strong urge to see goodness, fairness and justice prevail in society. We never like to be cheated and be dealt unfairly. Even those who act in bad ways, they also recognize the evil acts as bad. Belief in afterlife accountability as included in monotheistic faith solves the puzzle by giving deterministic results for choices done with free will. It completes the cause and effect relation in moral matters. Steven Weinberg once remarked that looking at cosmos; one gets the impression that it is pointless. However, religious worldview makes life of every human being meaningful and purposive with promise of deterministic justice in the life to come.

As we are beginning to restart our world after being hit by a horrific global health crisis, our actions hold the key to a fast recovery for the entire humankind - therefore, wear a mask whenever you are in public, avoid gatherings and wash your hands frequently - these are by far the most effective way to make sure we keep our friends and family as well as ourselves safe.

The Covid-19 pandemic is an effective weapon of mass distraction from big tech’s bad behavior. No news story survives 12 hours while a pandemic coupled with a national display of incompetence renders everything else what it is, less important.

Take Dr. Fauci’s blatantly unscientific statements during an interview on MSNBC on July 29: “On trials that are valid, that were randomized and controlled in the proper way, all of those trials show consistently that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in the treatment of coronavirus disease or COVID-19.” The comments came a day after President Trump reiterated his support for the drug.

Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York and currently the de facto leader of the country’s COVID-19 response, has committed not only the sin of insufficiently kissing Donald’s ass but the ultimate sin of showing Donald up by being better and more competent, a real leader who is respected and effective and admired. Donald can’t fight back by shutting Cuomo up or reversing his decisions; having abdicated his authority to lead a nationwide response, he no longer has the ability to counter decisions made at the state level. Donald can insult Cuomo and complain about him, but every day the governor’s real leadership further reveals Donald as a petty, pathetic little man—ignorant, incapable, out of his depth, and lost in his own delusional spin. What Donald can do in order to offset the powerlessness and rage he feels is punish the rest of us. He’ll withhold ventilators or steal supplies from states that have not groveled sufficiently. If New York continues not to have enough equipment, Cuomo will look bad, the rest of us be damned. Thankfully, Donald doesn’t have many supporters in New York City, but even some of those will die because of his craven need for “revenge.” What Donald thinks is justified retaliation is, in this context, mass murder.

Faith speaks to the soul and asks us to purify our soul. When faith gives guidelines about body, it is to make sure that the body hosting the soul should become pure by cleanliness and by being non- injurious to others. Even if we have evolved through a physical process to get our current physical form, it does not matter in the faith based worldview since the faith based worldview attributes every creature’s origin and creation to the Ultimate Creator. But, we humans in our current form and nature have been given a strong ability to differentiate right from wrong actions. This ability is not within our chemical composition. We might be having same colonies of bacteria and cells like other animals. This is the chemical description of our body, i.e. the host which embodies the human soul and spirit. The ability to differentiate right from wrong is in our conscience. We like to act in ways that are essentially good and virtuous and dislike acts which are wrong and unjust. Yet, this world is not fair. Belief in afterlife accountability actualizes the cause and effect in moral matters. It will give deterministic results to every act of goodness and every act of evil. That makes life meaningful and purposeful. That enables us to look beyond our survival instincts in organizing life on the basis of moral values of justice, fairness, honesty, sacrifice and cooperation.

UBC留学被退学购买UBC毕业证咨询【Q微2026614433】办理温哥华假学历UBC毕业证、办加拿大假学位英属哥伦比亚大学毕业证成绩单认证书学历证明、办理温哥华高仿学历UBC文凭UBC学历UBC文凭证书UBC毕业证书。 SJKHSJSJKSHSKJSKKJSKSKKSKJSJSkj The answer is “Yes.” The EPA, FDA, and CDC all agree that air purifiers can capture Covid-19 and potentially reduce the risk of indoor virus transmission. As with anything pandemic-related, though, the devil is in the details. To effectively combat Covid-19 with an air purifier, it’s essential to choose the right type of purifier, install and use it properly, and understand its limitations. Sometimes you may need to buy a $500 FDA-cleared purifier to effectively protect a room. Other times you’re better off opening a window. …

How is the Covid-19 effect on tourism of the world? Does everyone use Vaccines recently?

Report published : #Globalization of #disease has led the world to be only as resilient as the least resilient country and person , especially for highly contagious COVID-19 which has spread with scale and severity not seen since #Spanishflu . The variants of the virus (such as B.1.617.2 Delta , #DeltaPlus, Epsilon, #Gamma ) continue to threaten even those vaccinated. Secondary diseases such as black fungus are targeting #COVID patients and killing almost one in two persons in such cases. Human life is more precious and important than all economic principles or systems in totality because all these concepts are legitimate only because of their utility value which is to fundamentally make human life better. At least until this ongoing crisis ends, all economic policies (related to money, banking, fixing prices of commodities, etc.) need to be revised to make sure no human being suffers from hunger or the absence of required medical care. For this purpose KAILASA has presented a detailed report on effective solution for