by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Every day I woke up hoping to find out Covidiocracy was but a nightmare, and every day I discover Humanity is more degenerated than I previously thought.
What you are about to read… I couldn’t conceive presenting this to people even as a dark joke, but a reputed American ethics professor and a publication called “The Conversation” think this is feature-worthy.

Fifty years ago, Anthony Burgess wrote “A Clockwork Orange,” a futuristic novel about a vicious gang leader who undergoes a procedure that makes him incapable of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 movie version sparked a discussion in which many argued that we could never be justified in depriving someone of his free will, no matter how gruesome the violence that would thereby be prevented. No doubt any proposal to develop a morality pill would encounter the same objection.

New York Times, 2011

This was published one day prior to this article and I’m not going to comment much on it because you can’t handle it if I start, probably even I can’t. Just read what these people put out and the functional literates will be able to pull enough lessons from this.
The author is Parker Crutchfield, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University.
I have just one detail to highlight: The Conversation cites Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “strategic partner”.
And now the original article as of August 10th, 2020:

‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

A psychoactive substance to make you act in everyone’s best interest?

“COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.

Protesters outside California state capital building
People in California protested stay-at-home orders in May. Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

Public goods games show scale of the problem

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviorscommunication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.


Also read: “Who are the main vaccine refusers and how to tackle them – Former CDC chair”


Promoting cooperation with moral enhancement

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruisticmore giving and generousThe same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines

There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.”


You may say to yourself this is an accident, an isolated voice, whatever… it’s not. The article was republished by a ton of mainstream media outlets, from Foreign Affairs to Yahoo!
The system is backing the concept.

You thought that was bad enough?

I found out that mr. Ethics not only reckons the state should drug people into submission, he argues that it should even be done covertly!

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

Parker Crutchfield, “Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should be Covert”

Read the full article here.


What The Hack are “Morality Pills” Anyway, You May Ask

Researchers say morality treatments could be used instead of prison and might even help humanity tackle global issues

The Guardian, April 2011

Yes, you read correctly, this is prison in a pill, prison for the mind, and the ethics professor finds it ethical to treat all mask-opposition as convicts.

<<Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said>>, according to The Guardian.

If you have my type of ethics and morals, you’re probably very sickened and angered and it takes time for judgement to cool off and ask the practical question:
If these are mainstream media reports of 2011, how long have Covidiocracy and the planetary Auschwitz been in the making though?

Long enough, answers New York Times in an 2011 issue:
“Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number?
Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?”

But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.

New York Times, 2011

‘Writing in the New York Times, Peter Singer and Agata Sagan ask “Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?” I dunno. Why?’, writes WILL WILKINSON on Big Think, in January, 2012. He follows:

“The infamous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments showed that given the right circumstances, most of us act monstrously. Indeed, given pretty mundane circumstances, most of us will act pretty callously, hustling past people in urgent need in simply to avoid the hassle. But not all of us do this. Some folks do the right thing anyway, even when it’s not easy. Singer and Sagan speculate that something special must be going on in those peoples’ brains. So maybe we can figure out what that is and put it in a pill!

If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help?

The answer is: no. And I think the question invites confusion. Morality is not exhausted by helping. Anyway, help do what?

Singer is perhaps the world’s most famous utilitarian, so maybe he’s got “help people feel more pleasure and less pain” in mind. Since utilitarianism is monomaniacally focused on how people feel, it can be tempting for utilitarians to see sympathy and the drive to ease suffering as the principal moral sentiments. But utilitarianism does not actually prescribe that we should be motivated to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. It tells us to do whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. It’s possible that wanting to help and trying to help doesn’t much help in this sense.”

“Clearly, the science behind moral drugs has some credibility. It seems possible that one day we’ll live in a strange utopian or dystopian world that takes morality pills. But until that day comes, we’ll have to try being good on our own.”

Michael Cuthbertson,  THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN,  September 14, 2011

The only glimpse of reason from an ethics professional I found came as late as 2017, and THAT’s an accident, as opposed to the media onslaught that has just re-started on the topic.
“There’s nothing moral about a morality pill. We can’t even agree on what morality requires, so designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task”, writes Daniel Munro, who teaches ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Professor Munro shows that two different “morality pills” induced opposite reactions in test subjects.
Then which one is the morality pill?

“We could have different pills—lorazepam for consequentialists, citalopram for Kantians, and something else for Aristotelians—but this would amplify, not resolve, moral disagreement. In short, if we can’t agree on what morality requires, then designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task.”

Munro’s impeccable demonstration won’t stop anything, though, because Covidiocracy has never been about the common or individual good, but about domination. And domination ends when submission ends.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Empathy and social intelligence may have played a more important role in human evolution than any other type of intelligence or instincts. Much of what we’ve achieved in millennia has been eroded over the span of the past 2-3 decades, and especially in Covidiocracy.

Chapter One: “WE ARE HARDWIRED TO BE KIND”

“Human nature is often portrayed as selfish and power hungry, but research by Dacher Keltner finds that we are hard-wired to be kind.” – University of California

Chapter Two: “the neurons that shaped civilisation”

A neuroscientist from UC San Deigo, V.S. Ramachandran, recently spoke with the Greater Good Science Center about the relationship between empathy and mirror neurons. “the neurons that shaped civilisation”:

“For example, pretend somebody pokes my left thumb with a needle. We know that the insular cortex fires cells and we experience a painful sensation. The agony of pain is probably experienced in a region called the anterior cingulate, where there are cells that respond to pain. The next stage in pain processing, we experience the agony, the painfulness, the affective quality of pain.

It turns out these anterior cingulate neurons that respond to my thumb being poked will also fire when I watch you being poked—but only a subset of them. There are non-mirror neuron pain neurons and there are mirror neuron pain neurons.

So these [mirror] neurons are probably involved in empathy for pain. If I really and truly empathize with your pain, I need to experience it myself. That’s what the mirror neurons are doing, allowing me to empathize with your pain—saying, in effect, that person is experiencing the same agony and excruciating pain as you would if somebody were to poke you with a needle directly. That’s the basis of all empathy.”

V.S. Ramachandran, UC San Deigo neuroscientist

In an interview for a Berkeley University magazine, the scientist makes an interesting note that we must remember for further reference:

Mirror neurons enable me to see you as an intentional being, with purpose and intention. In fact, we suggested nearly a decade ago that mirror neuron dysfunction may be involved in autism. People with autism, ironically sometimes they mimic constantly what you’re doing, but it’s also true that they’re bad at imitation and they don’t have empathy, they don’t have a theory of mind, they can’t infer your intentions, they don’t engage in pretend play. In pretend play, what I do is temporarily say, “I’m going to be this superhero,” so you do role play. That requires a theory of mind. 
So take all the properties of mirror neurons, make a list of them, and list all the things that are going wrong in autism—there’s a very good match. Not every symptom, but many of the symptoms match beautifully. And it’s controversial: There are about seven papers claiming that it’s true, using brain imaging, and maybe one or two claiming that there’s no correlation [between mirror neurons and autism].

Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran

Chapter Three: “EMPATHY NEEDS A FACE”

What connect the first two chapters into a “holy trinity” for neuroscience are faces.
In a study published by Journal of Consciousness Studies and titled “Empathy Needs a Face”, Jonathan Cole, psychologist at Bournemouth University, notes:

“The importance of the face is best understood, it is suggested, from the effects of visible facial difference in people. Their experience reflects the ways in which the face may be necessary for the interpersonal relatedness underlying such ‘sharing’ mind states as empathy. It is proposed that the face evolved as a result of several evolutionary pressures but that it is well placed to assume the role of an embodied representation of the increasingly refined inner states of mind that developed as primates became more social, and required more complex social intelligence. The consequences of various forms of facial disfigurement on interpersonal relatedness and intersubjectivity are then discussed. These narratives reveal the importance of the face in the development of the self-esteem that seems a prerequisite of being able to initiate, and enter, relationships between people. Such experiences are beyond normal experience and, as such, require an extended understanding of the other: to understand facial difference requires empathy. But, in addition, it is also suggested that empathy itself is supported by, and requires, the embodied expression and communication of emotion that the face provides.”

Another study, this time coming from Italian universities, cites:

“Prefrontal virtual perturbation may have induced a less empathic responsiveness toward the emotional faces, with significant effect on the attributional functions. The suggested interpretation of these results is supported by the fact that prefrontal area includes specific processing modules for emotional information processing, and it is able to integrate input from various sources, including motivation and representations from cognitive (such as ToM) and emotional (such as emotional expressions) networks. Thus, the role of dMPFC to empathy-related response was elucidated, with possible circular effect on both monitoring ability (cue detection) and empathy responsiveness (trait empathy).”

Now imagine being unable to recognize your own mother’s face. You may know your mother’ voice, her smell, her size, and shape, but her face means nothing to you.
This is face blindness, or prosopagnosia, a disorder that may be congenital or caused by brain injury. While it can occur in many people who are not autistic, it is quite common among people with autism.

Whether you call it prosopagnosia, facial agnosia, or face blindness, the disorder may be mild (inability to remember familiar faces) or severe (inability to recognize a face as being different from an object).

According to the National Institutes for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus, a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory. Congenital prosopagnosia appears to run in families, which makes it likely to be the result of a genetic mutation or deletion.” (Source)

While face blindness is not a “core symptom” of autism, it is not uncommon for autistic people. In some cases, face blindness may be at the root of the apparent lack of empathy or very real difficulties with non-verbal communication. How can you read a face when you can’t distinguish a face from an object, or recognize the person speaking to you?

While face blindness may be an issue for your loved one with autism, it is easy to confuse face blindness with typical autistic symptoms. For example, many children with autism fail to respond to non-verbal cues such as smiles, frowns, or other facial “language” – even though they are able to recognize the face they are looking at. Their lack of response may relate to social communication deficits rather than to prosopagnosia.

Can they recognize the face of a favorite character on television or a photograph of a relative with no auditory clues? If so, they are recognizing a face – and most likely are not suffering from face blindness.

There is no cure for face blindness. Children with face blindness can be taught some compensatory techniques such as listening for emotional meaning or using mnemonic devices to remember names without necessarily recognizing faces. Before beginning such training, however, it’s important to distinguish face-blindness from other autistic symptoms that can have similar appearances, such as difficulties with eye contact.

Other specialists argue that autists can be empathic, and by doing so they further accentuate the strong interdependence between empathy and facial recognition:

“Autism is associated with other emotional difficulties, such as recognizing another person’s emotions. Although this trait is almost universally accepted as being part of autism, there’s little scientific evidence to back up this notion.

In 2013, we tested the ability of people with alexithymia, autism, both conditions or neither to recognize emotions from facial expressions. Again, we found that alexithymia is associated with problems in emotion recognition, but autism is not5. In a 2012 study, researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London found exactly the same results when they tested emotion recognition using voices rather than faces6.

Recognizing an emotion in a face depends in part on information from the eyes and mouth. People with autism often avoid looking into other people’s eyes, which could contribute to their difficulty detecting emotions.

But again, we wanted to know: Which is driving gaze avoidance — autism or alexithymia? We showed movies to the same four groups described above and used eye-tracking technology to determine what each person was looking at in the movie.

We found that people with autism, whether with or without alexithymia, spend less time looking at faces than do people without autism. But when individuals who have autism but not alexithymia look at faces, they scan the eyes and mouth in a pattern similar to those without autism.

By contrast, people with alexithymia, regardless of their autism status, look at faces for a typical amount of time, but show altered patterns of scanning the eyes and mouth. This altered pattern might underlie their difficulties with emotion recognition” – Scientific American

Face recognition differences may reflect processing or structural differences in the brain. For example, people with prosopagnosia may have reduced connectivity between brain regions in the face processing network.

Another idea is that face recognition ability is related to other more general cognitive abilities, like memory or visual processing. Here, though, findings are mixed. Some research supports a link between face recognition and specific abilities like visual processing. But other research has discounted this idea.

Yet another possibility is that individual differences in face recognition reflect a person’s personality or their social and emotional functioning. Interestingly, face recognition ability has been linked to measures of empathy and anxiety.

Empathy reflects a person’s ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. In 2010, researchers asked volunteers to try and remember the identity of a number of faces presented one at a time. They were later presented with the same faces mixed together with new faces and were asked to state whether each face was “old” (learnt) or “new”. The performance was measured by the number of learnt faces correctly identified as being familiar. The researchers found that those who rated themselves as high in empathy performed significantly better at a face recognition memory task than those with low empathy skills.

Research has also found that people who report significantly lower levels of general anxiety have better face recognition skills than those who are have higher anxiety.

Interestingly, more recent research has suggested the link between anxiety and face recognition ability may be more prominent for women, and may be particularly related to anxiety in social situations (social anxiety).

Situational anxiety may also play a role. For example, face recognition may be impaired when an eyewitness is asked to try and identify the face of a suspect viewed in a stressful situation.
Read more on hoe facial recognition impacts personality from Karen Lander, Senior Lecturer in Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, who published a very interesting article on the topic in The Conversation.

Everything above proves how much masks are robbing from us individually, but also from the very fabric of societal cohesion. This information is not new and not fringe, actually the attack on about empathy has been going on for ages and noted by many specialists and scholars, such as Psychology Today, eg.

Shocker: what we’re living today is the culmination of a decades-long process


So the science we’ve presented here can’t be unknown to our decision-makers, it can only be wilfully ignored.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Besides the huge differences in efficacy and necessity, there’s a hundred more reasons why comparing covid masks with automotive seatbelts is fraudulent. But there are indeed some real resemblances, all obscured: they’re both anti-constitutional or illegal in most countries, they are a scam and a revenue generator for the state, car-crashes sometimes went up after seatbelts becoming mandatory and so forth.

YAY, what vocational slave doesn’t love to adopt restrictions without critical analysis?!

One of the best introductions to the topic was published in 2002 by the Foundation for Economic Education, under the title “The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws “:

Seat-Belt Laws Infringe a Person’s Constitutional Rights

On the promise of reducing highway fatalities and auto insurance rates, seat-belt laws began to pass in state legislatures throughout the United States beginning in 1985.

While such laws had been proposed before 1985, they were rejected by most state legislators since they knew the vast majority of the people opposed them. “The Gallup Opinion Index,” report no. 146, October 1977, stated: “In the latest survey, a huge majority, 78 percent, opposes a law that would fine a person $25 for failure to use a seat belt. This represents an increase of resistance since 1973 to such a law. At that time 71 percent opposed a seat belt use law.” “The Gallup Report” (formerly “The Gallup Opinion Index”), no. 205, October 1982, report showed that a still-high 75 percent queried in June of that year opposed such a law.

Given the massive, obvious opposition to seat-belt laws, why did state legislators suddenly change their minds and begin to pass them in 1985? Simple–money and federal blackmail. According to the Associated Press, Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said, “People have been talking about seatbelt laws and there have been attempts to pass them for well over 10 years. It’s been a snowball effect, once the money poured in.”1

That sudden flow of money began in 1984, when then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole promised to rescind the rule that required automakers to install passive restraints by 1990 if states representing two-thirds of the U.S. population passed seat-belt laws by April 1, 1989.2 Passive restraints included air bags, which automakers bitterly opposed because, they claimed, the high expense to develop and install them would raise the price of autos way beyond what the average auto buyer would pay. Dole’s promise amounted to an invitation to the automakers to use their financial resources to lobby states for seat-belt laws, something the Department of Transportation (DOT) was forbidden to do by law, in exchange for the government’s not forcing them to install air bags. In effect, the DOT surreptitiously used the financial resources of the private sector to further the political agenda of the federal government through blackmail.

In response to Dole’s promise, the automakers created the lobby Traffic Safety Now (TSN) and began spending millions of dollars to pass seat-belt laws. That caught the attention of state legislators, and suddenly the “will of the people,” void of financial backing, gave way to the “will of the seat-belt law lobbyists,” who had millions of dollars to spend.

Besides the millions of dollars spent by TSN, the federal government added millions more by, for example, giving grants to states for achieving a certain percentage of seat-belt use and to pay the police to enforce the seat-belt law.3 And with increased seat-belt law enforcement, ticket income increased, another source of easy revenue for the state.

While TSN championed passage of seat-belt laws under the banner of reducing highway fatalities and auto insurance rates, no mention was made that the real purpose was to avoid installation of air bags.

As of 1992, TSN had spent $93 million to buy passage of seat-belt laws in almost all states.4 Popular opposition to the laws sometimes made passage difficult. In most states the only way the law could be passed was to make enforcement secondary; that is, the police could not stop a motorist for not using a seat belt unless the officer witnessed another traffic violation. Some laws applied only to front-seat occupants. Exemptions were also added to help reduce opposition. In three states, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, the laws were passed without any penalty.

Once seat-belt laws were passed in any form, supporters returned each legislative session to lobby for amendments, such as including all occupants, increasing fines, eliminating exemptions, and changing to primary enforcement, so that the police could stop a motorist merely under suspicion of not using a seat belt.

Such action by seat-belt law supporters shows the insidious nature of such laws, and supporters continue to lobby for stricter enforcement and heavier penalties. Even the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 added its own flavor of tyranny by ruling it was legal for a Texas police officer to arrest, handcuff, and jail a woman, and impound her car, for not buckling up herself and her children.5 Our nation, founded on freedom, certainly has come a long way from Patrick Henry’s cry, “Give me liberty or give me death,” to “Click it or ticket.”

After the automakers did the DOT’s bidding, the government went back on its word and mandated installation of air bags anyway. Also, the very law the automakers worked for, supposedly to save people’s lives, turned on them. While using seat belts saves some lives, doing so can injure and kill others. That got the attention of lawyers. Moreover, some seat-belt systems were defective.6 As a result, since 1985 the automakers have faced hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in hundreds of lawsuits.

Loss of Freedom

While the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in support of seat-belt laws has been a horrendous financial burden to society, the greatest cost is really not money. It’s the loss of freedom. Seat-belt laws infringe a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the civil rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine one’s own individual personal health-care standard.

While seat-belt use might save some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample evidence that in other kinds, people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because they used seat belts. Some people have been saved from death in certain kinds of accidents only because a seat belt was not used. In those cases, the malicious nature of seat-belt laws is further revealed: such persons are subject to fines for not dying in the accident while using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians.

The state has no authority to subject people to death and injury in certain kinds of traffic accidents just because it hopes others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The state has no authority to take chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property.

As for the promise that seat-belt laws would reduce auto insurance rates, there is no record of any insurance company ever reducing its rates because a seat-belt law was passed. A study released in August 1988 by the Highway Loss Data Institute compared auto-accident injury claims before and after the enactment of seat-belt laws in eight states and could find no clear-cut evidence that belt-use laws reduced the number of injuries. “These results are disappointing,” the report added.7

Seat-belt laws have also failed to reduce highway fatalities in the numbers promised by supporters to get such laws passed.8 According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 51,093 highway fatalities in 1979.9 Five years later, 1984, the year before seat-belt laws began to pass, there were 44,257 fatalities. That is a net decrease of 6,836 deaths in five years, which represents a 13.4 percent decline with no seat-belt laws and only voluntary seat-belt use. In 1999, there were 41,611 fatalities. That is a net decrease of 2,646 deaths, a 6 percent decrease over 15 years of rigid seat-belt law enforcement, with some states claiming 80 percent seat-belt use. If the passage of seat-belt laws did anything, it slowed the downward trend in highway fatalities started years before the passage of such laws.

Right to Refuse

Besides such facts, a person has the right to refuse any health-care recommendation. No nonpsychiatric doctor would dare attempt to force a person to use a medical device or take a drug or have surgery or other medical treatment without full consent. Yet politicians force motorists to use a health-care device, a seat belt, against their will under threat of punishment that could include jail.

The hundreds of millions of dollars spent in support of seat-belt laws have been wasted. Not one penny of that money has ever prevented even a single traffic accident, the real cause of highway fatalities. We don’t need millions of dollars for stricter seat-belt law enforcement. Instead, we need more responsibly educated drivers, safer vehicles, and better roads to prevent traffic accidents.

Individual freedom is the very foundation of our country. The American people should not accept legislators who pass laws that take liberty away while claiming to do good. History has shown this to be the easy road to power for tyrants.

There is certainly nothing wrong with voluntary seat-belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all seat-belt laws. As Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – William Holdorf is a writer in Chicago.

The Seatbelt Mentality

This above is the title of an article published in Rense by a race car driver and a former driver/pilot instructor – J. B. Campbell. Read it entirely because it’s written with talent:

“Apparently, most Americans have it. Most Americans ought to wear their seatbelts because A), they’re willing to be told what to do by their employees and B), they don’t know how to drive. Of course, if I’m a passenger and the driver makes me nervous, I’ll buckle up to protect myself. But that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is you need to learn how to drive safely and defensively, and cops using “safety” as an excuse to arrest you. 
We had a tragedy here recently. A seventeen-year-old acquaintance of my son was a passenger in a car driven by another kid the same age. The driver lost control in a corner and the passenger was ejected and killed. “Oh, he should have been wearing his seatbelt!” Yes, because he was being driven by someone who had no training, who had no idea how to go around a corner a little too fast. Which thing was responsible for his death, no seatbelt or no driver training? The reason the kid wasn’t properly trained was because Big Brother doesn’t want us properly trained. The Establishment (insurance companies, banks, government) has no interest in real safety ­ only in using the word Safety as a weapon to keep us under control.
 I just got my second seatbelt ticket in a couple of weeks. I’ll fight it in court and will probably win using court rules and technicalities, or maybe because the cop won’t show for a seatbelt ticket. But then, this cop was pretty lame, so he might show up. I win virtually all my court fights here in California, using their own rules of conduct, which they hate to have to obey. If we all did that, the whole traffic ticket revenue scam would dry up because it wouldn’t be profitable. The traffic ticket scam, when there’s no property damage or injury and no victim, is a form of extortion, and the California Highway Patrol is in the business of extortion. These guys are a combination of terrorists and tax collectors, cruising around in hot rods with paint schemes psychologically designed to cause fear, scheming on ways to cheat you out of your cash.   
Seatbelts are designed for people who can’t drive. I don’t mean you don’t know how to parallel park. I mean, almost no people know how to avoid an accident no matter what gets thrown at you. Buckling up is an indicator of inability to be in total control of your vehicle. When you click that belt, your brain is un-clicking. Clicking that belt puts you in a slightly helpless state of mind, which is actually preparing you for a crash. Clicking that belt is a signal to yourself that some things are just beyond your control and well, if the worst should happen, at least you won’t be going over the dashboard and through the windshield. As far as I’m concerned, clicking your seatbelt is a sign of lack of responsibility. Here’s why: I used to teach people how to drive. I mean, really drive. I had a thing called “The School of Slide Control.” It was part of the University of Nevada’s extension program, and they gave me some acreage outside of Reno. I had a big asphalt skidpan with pop-up lawn sprinklers and a very slippery seal coat on top. I taught would-be racing drivers, cops, normal people, old ladies, kids and even some curious California Highway Patrol instructors how to slide cars and not slide cars. I used VWs, Corvairs and BMWs.   
To me, there’s no excuse for an accident. I accept full responsibility, no matter what. I don’t care how bad or ornery the other driver is, he’s not going to hit me, unless I’m parked and can’t get out of his way. But that’s not exactly seatbelt country, sitting there parked. If my car’s moving, and he hits me, I’ll count it as my fault. So far, since 1958, it hasn’t happened.   
A lot of guys can slide cars at low speeds. They usually don’t know what they’re doing and probably can’t do the same maneuver twice, exactly the same way. I can drive sideways at 120, 130, 140 mph. The faster, the better. There are no mysteries for me in the sliding of cars, or the control of slides. One-eighties, three-sixties, parking it backwards ­ I can teach you anything. I learned the hard way, driving single-seater formula racing cars in Australia and England back in the mid 1960s, starting at age 18. Lotus, Cooper, Brabham, etc. In 1970, Road & Track magazine, Popular Mechanics and others pronounced my school and my teaching method the best they’d seen. Mercedes-Benz introduced their new 1970 V-8 engines to the USA at my driving school, represented by the legendary chief racing engineer, Rudolf Uhlenhaut. This was an extraordinary honor for me. Eng. Uhlenhaut brought eight new sedans with the big engines. All the automotive magazine guys were there and we raced the cars around my skidpan. Then, Herr Uhlenhaut, age 64, got in one and proceeded to blow our doors off. Even my doors, on my own skidpan. (I have since learned that, in test sessions for the 1954 MB Grand Prix racer, he posted times that were faster than those of the even more legendary works driver, Juan Manuel Fangio, the ultimate Formula 1 master of the 1950s.) Then we went out onto the Nevada highways for a high-speed run, since there was no speed limit in those days. Uhlenhaut’s blowing my doors off aside, I’m still a pretty fair speaker on the subject. 

When you make your seatbelt from cloth and strap it over your face
SHARE THIS MEME


People today are shocked to learn that road racers, the Grand Prix drivers, from the early days right up to the 1970s, did not wear seatbelts. I never did in Australia or England. The American drivers always did, at least since the 1940s. And those seatbelts got a lot of American drivers killed. The deadliest aspect of racing, everywhere, was fire and when those screaming gas cans crashed or rolled, they invariably caught fire. The stunned driver was trapped and either couldn’t extricate himself from his seatbelt or rescuers couldn’t unhook him and drag him out of the flames and he fried. The road racers preferred an easy exit to being strapped in and barbecued, with the exception of Phil Hill, who tied himself in so he wouldn’t have to hang onto the wheel. 

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about being told what to do by a bunch of stinking cops and bureaucrats who think they own the place, and this “it’s for your own good” excuse for stopping you and checking you for warrants and contraband. But if seatbelts are so wonderful, and if our children’s lives are so precious (which they are), then why aren’t children required to wear seatbelts on school buses? Do school buses never crash? “If it can save ONE child’s life?” Why aren’t you forced to click it on Greyhounds, which are definitely known to crash? Because safety isn’t the point of the seatbelt law. The point of the seatbelt law is mind control and separating us from our money. In other words, it’s about power. 

Now, I will concede that wearing seatbelts in racing cars today, now that crash fires are not so common, is a good idea, because you’re really being slammed around by some very high G-forces when cornering and breaking. But motor racing has almost nothing in common with normal driving, believe me. The average driver cannot imagine the brutal acceleration, cornering and impossible breaking that’s done when racing. The tires are at the very limits of contact with the road, and often just beyond, and it is quite common to see racing drivers, even the best, lose control and spin out. But racing is a blood sport in which drivers frequently lose their lives ­ it is that extreme. The speeds at Indianapolis, etc., are insane, for example. My pilot friends insist that seatbelts are good because, by God, if they’re good enough for airplanes then they’re good for cars. People in airplanes are subject to some very unpredictable forces but even in airplanes you’re usually free to move around the cabin until the pilot asks you to buckle up. Then he tells you you’re free to move around once more. And I’ve found that pilots live in their own special world and generally, however brilliant they are in the sky, aren’t as good at controlling cars. They spend their time breaking the Law of Gravity and they’re good at it, but when it comes to breaking Newton’s Laws of Motion, most of them don’t get it. Again, if you don’t know how to drive and you like being told what to do by people you pay, then by all means, buckle up. Seatbelts represent to me the Police State.   

Then there’s the helmet law, here in the Golden Police State. Did you know that in California, it’s against the law to wear a helmet while driving your car? Why do you suppose that is? Because helmets limit your vision and hearing! Don’t you think helmets have the same effect on motorcycle riders? All it’s about is telling us what to do, getting us in the habit of obeying. A heavy, high-priced full-face helmet may prevent a cracked skull but it can also snap your neck, which is not designed to support all that weight. Which do you think is more survivable? I survived a compound skull fracture (horses), but the great Jimmy Clark couldn’t survive his broken neck at Hockenheim. How about those ultimate safety devices ­ the airbags? How many children have been killed by these explosive safety devices? Have you seen the warnings of death and destruction on all new cars ­ from airbags? Children under 12 can’t ride up front because they might be killed by airbags. Same with small adults. What happened to the “If it saves ONE child’s life”?   

It’s not about safety, it’s about power over our minds, and it’s about taking away our responsibility for our own safety, same as the TSA (Thugs Standing Around) in the airports. Have these abusive, armed morons prevented one hijacking or “terrorist event?” They can’t even identify bombs and guns when their instructors stick them in luggage as tests.   
Now, I’m all for automotive safety. I devoted my life to it for years. I’m also big on gun safety and have been since around 1954. But safety with machinery cannot be mandated by law, with gimmicks. Safety comes from good training and the right state of mind. The way to keep from crashing a car and needing a seatbelt is by learning car control and accepting total responsibility for preventing accidents. If that’s too much trouble, then buckle up and get ready to crash. The equivalent in the gun world is another gimmick called a “trigger lock.” Anyone who would put a trigger lock on a gun shouldn’t even have a gun. What, are we afraid the thing is going to go off by itself if that trigger is left exposed? Oh ­ I forgot: the children. Trigger locks might save ONE child’s life. But my old man handed me a snub-nose .38 when I was nine years old, only after I’d shown him since age seven that he couldn’t get in front of any gun in my hands. He had a couple of dozen guns around the house, on the walls, in cabinets, on his nightstand. None of them ever went off by itself. Some of them did go off down in the basement, where he had a shooting range. We shot guns down there quite a bit, and we had to make them go off. No, you say, I’m not afraid it’s going to go off by itself ­ I’m forced to do it by law where I live. Really? So what? Imagine needing your gun at three in the morning or any time at all and right now you, with shaking hands, have to locate the key to unlock the stupid thing, in the dark, so you can wrap your finger around the trigger and save your life. What’s more important ­ obeying the law or defending yourself? You decide. It’s all part of the same program to turn us into Canadians. I guess they figure if we obey them on the seatbelt scam we probably won’t be carrying guns in our cars, to defend ourselves from hijackers, muggers, cops and other low-lifes. And many of us do keep our guns at home but, because it’s The Law, don’t carry them with us where we also need them ­ in our cars and on our persons. But as a friend once said, if your life’s worth protecting part of the time, it’s worth protecting all the time. Regarding kids, just follow Stephen Stills’ advice: teach your children. 

So, we all need to learn how to drive defensively, being ready for any eventuality, and get out of this mind-control and behavior modification syndrome of automatically reaching back and pulling your safety-blanket over your shoulder. I want to make the case for achieving total control of your vehicle and accepting full responsibility ­ in your mind ­ for preventing accidents. No excuses, such as, Oh, this drunk pulled right out in front of me! Tough. Deal with it and don’t hit him, no matter what. But I just couldn’t stop in time! Really? Then steer around him, or fling the car sideways and catch the slide but don’t hit him! To be able to do this requires a clear mind, constant checking around you and always looking for an escape from the worst thing that could happen where you are right now. Don’t just cruise along, daydreaming.
Think about the worst case scenario all the time. What if that big rig coming at you on the two-lane at 75 mph has a blowout and veers right into you? Are you thinking of a place to go to keep him from hitting you? You should be. How fast could you change direction from straight ahead to going suddenly right (or left) to avoid a wreck ­ and stay in control? How long does it take you to get your foot on the brake? What if you’re going through a fast turn on a cold day and right in the middle of the turn is a patch of ice? Could you deal with it and not spin off the road, maybe sideways into a tree or over an embankment? Probably not, but I used to teach people exactly how to deal with it, in eight hours of training. 
The insurance companies, the government and the cops want you to deal with it by buckling up. All that does is maybe help you survive the crash. But your real job is to prevent the crash, and nobody in the above groups has any plan for doing that. This is America and Americans aren’t supposed to be able to drive, or think or defend themselves. They’re supposed to shut up and do as they’re told, by armed parasites that live on our tax money.”

“What kills you matters — not numbers.”

A piece from Time Magazine 2006 titled “The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts” also shows how narrow-minded is the seatbelt mentality and how many factors came into play but are not accounted for by proponents of state regulations for everything, from thinking to breathing.

“If there’s one thing we know about our risky world, it’s that seat belts save lives, right? And they do, of course. But reality, as usual, is messier and more complicated than that. John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

How can that be? Adams’ interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let’s make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a friend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license. Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.

The point, stresses Adams, is that drivers who feel safe may actually increase the risk that they pose to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own passengers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up, only 68% of their rear-seat passengers do). And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car. Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber, motorcyclist or college kid on a hot date. Add some safety equipment to the equation — a net, rope, helmet or a condom respectively — and the person may try maneuvers that he or she would otherwise consider foolish. In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities. For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the behavior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the steering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives. Perverse, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior.

In everyday life, risk is a moving target, not a set number as statistics might suggest. In addition to external factors, each individual has his or her own internal comfort level with risk-taking. Some are daring while others are cautious by nature. And still others are fatalists who may believe that a higher power devises mortality schedules that fix a predetermined time when our number is up. Consequently, any single measurement assigned to the risk of driving a car is bound to be only the roughest sort of benchmark. Adams cites as an example the statistical fact that a young man is 100 times more likely to be involved in a severe crash than is a middle-aged woman. Similarly, someone driving at 3:00 a.m. Sunday is more than 100 times more likely to die than someone driving at 10:00 a.m. Sunday. Someone with a personality disorder is 10 times more likely to die. And let’s say he’s also drunk. Tally up all these factors and consider them independently, says Adams, and you could arrive at a statistical prediction that a disturbed, drunken young man driving in the middle of the night is 2.7 million times more likely to be involved in a serious accident than would a sober, middle-aged woman driving to church seven hours later.

The bottom line is that risk doesn’t exist in a vacuum and that there are a host of factors that come into play, including the rewards of risk, whether they are financial, physical or emotional. It is this very human context in which risk exists that is key, says Adams, who titled one of his recent blogs: “What kills you matters — not numbers.” Our reactions to risk very much depend on the degree to which it is voluntary (scuba diving), unavoidable (public transit) or imposed (air quality), the degree to which we feel we are in control (driving) or at the mercy of others (plane travel), and the degree to which the source of possible danger is benign (doctor’s orders), indifferent (nature) or malign (murder and terrorism). We make dozens of risk calculations daily, but you can book odds that most of them are so automatic—or visceral—that we barely notice them.” – By DAVID BJERKLIE Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006

Risk assessment anyone?

Finally, rounding the “what kills you matters” concept, let’s analyse the logic of missing seatbelts in school buses. As the regulated-wanna-be’s show in the video below, the main reason for that lack is the low fatality in buses. Which is a bit higher than Covid’s fatality, much higher than fatality in children, which is officially the closest thing to 0 . So higher risk justifies lack of protection in school buses, while almost no risks justifies mandating masks everywhere, even in your own home.
Right.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Before we enter the official documents, please do the following experiment:
Pick any number between 10 and 1000.
Write it in an online search engine, followed by “new cases”.
Watch hundreds and thousands of news pieces reporting that specific number of cases in hundreds different locations, especially US.
Remember that 46% of the officially reported Covid-19 fatalities in US come from New York. Compare that with the distribution in the news.
If you have basic knowledge of calculus, ask yourself:
How many billions people have been reported in total?
What volume of work was required for all that reporting, in a time when much of the media was laid off or working from home, while the volume of events/news was never higher?

Now, for the theoretical part of the demonstration, please read this information sourced from the Council of Europe official website:

AI and control of Covid-19 coronavirus

Overview carried out by the Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) secretariat
 

This document is also available in:

This publication intends to provide a non-exhaustive overview of articles from the media and other available public sources. It does not reflect the views of the CAHAI and of the Council of Europe.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used as a tool to support the fight against the viral pandemic that has affected the entire world since the beginning of 2020. The press and the scientific community are echoing the high hopes that data science and AI can be used to confront the coronavirus (D. Yakobovitch, How to fight the Coronavirus with AI and Data Science, Medium, 15 February 2020) and “fill in the blanks” still left by science (G. Ratnam, Can AI Fill in the Blanks About Coronavirus? Think So Experts, Government Technology, 17 March 2020).

China, the first epicentre of this disease and renowned for its technological advance in this field, has tried to use this to its real advantage. Its uses seem to have included support for measures restricting the movement of populations, forecasting the evolution of disease outbreaks and research for the development of a vaccine or treatment. With regard to the latter aspect, AI has been used to speed up genome sequencing, make faster diagnoses, carry out scanner analyses or, more occasionally, handle maintenance and delivery robots (A. Chun, In a time of coronavirus, China’s investment in AI is paying off in a big way, South China Morning post, 18 March 2020). 

Its contributions, which are also undeniable in terms of organising better access to scientific publications or supporting research, does not eliminate the need for clinical test phases nor does it replace human expertise entirely. The structural issues encountered by health infrastructures in this crisis situation are not due to technological solutions but to the organisation of health services, which should be able to prevent such situations occurring (Article 11 of the European Social Charter). Emergency measures using technological solutions, including AI, should also be assessed at the end of the crisis. Those that infringe on individual freedoms should not be trivialised on the pretext of a better protection of the population. The provisions of Convention 108+ should in particular continue to be applied.


The contribution of artificial intelligence to the search for a cure

The first application of AI expected in the face of a health crisis is certainly the assistance to researchers to find a vaccine able to protect caregivers and contain the pandemic. Biomedicine and research rely on a large number of techniques, among which the various applications of computer science and statistics have already been making a contribution for a long time. The use of AI is therefore part of this continuity.

The predictions of the virus structure generated by AI have already saved scientists months of experimentation. AI seems to have provided significant support in this sense, even if it is limited due to so-called “continuous” rules and infinite combinatorics for the study of protein folding. The American start-up Moderna has distinguished itself by its mastery of a biotechnology based on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for which the study of protein folding is essential. It has managed to significantly reduce the time required to develop a prototype vaccine testable on humans thanks to the support of bioinformatics, of which AI is an integral part. 

Similarly, Chinese technology giant Baidu, in partnership with Oregon State University and the University of Rochester, published its Linearfold prediction algorithm in February 2020 to study the same protein folding. This algorithm is much faster than traditional algorithms in predicting the structure of a virus’ secondary ribonucleic acid (RNA) and provides scientists with additional information on how viruses spread. The prediction of the secondary structure of the RNA sequence of Covid-19 would thus have been calculated by Linearfold in 27 seconds instead of 55 minutes (Baidu, How Baidu is bringing AI to the fight against coronavirus, MIT Technology Review, 11 March 2020). DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has also shared its predictions of coronavirus protein structures with its AlphaFold AI system (J. Jumper, K. Tunyasuvunakool, P. Kohli, D. Hassabis et al, Computational predictions of protein structures associated with COVID-19, DeepMind, 5 March 2020). IBM, Amazon, Google and Microsoft have also provided the computing power of their servers to the US authorities to process very large datasets in epidemiology, bioinformatics and molecular modelling (F. Lardinois, IBM, Amazon, Google and Microsoft partner with White House to provide compute resources for COVID-19 research, Techcrunch, 22 March 2020).


Artificial intelligence, a driving force for knowledge sharing

In the United States, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy met with technology companies and major research groups on 11 March 2020, to determine how AI tools could be used to, among other things, screen the thousands of research papers published worldwide on the pandemic (A. Boyle, White House seeks the aid of tech titans to combat coronavirus and misinformation, GeekWire, March 11, 2020). 

Indeed, in the weeks following the appearance of the new coronavirus in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, nearly 2,000 research papers were published on the effects of this new virus, on possible treatments, and on the dynamics of the pandemic. This influx of scientific literature naturally reflects the eagerness of researchers to deal with this major health crisis, but it also represents a real challenge for anyone hoping to exploit it. 

Microsoft Research, the National Library of Medicine and the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) therefore presented their work on 16 March 2020, which consisted of collecting and preparing more than 29,000 documents relating to the new virus and the broader family of coronaviruses, 13,000 of which were processed so that computers could read the underlying data, as well as information on authors and their affiliations. Kaggle, a Google subsidiary and platform that usually organisesdata science competitions, created challenges around 10 key questions related to the coronavirus. These questions range from risk factors and non-drug treatments to the genetic properties of the virus and vaccine development efforts. The project also involves the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (named after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan) and Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technologies (W. Knight, Researchers Will Deploy AI to Better Understand Coronavirus, Wired, March 17, 2020). 


Artificial intelligence, observer and predictor of the evolution of the pandemic

The Canadian company BlueDot is credited with the early detection of the virus using an AI and its ability to continuously review over 100 data sets, such as news, airline ticket sales, demographics, climate data and animal populations. BlueDot detected what was then considered an outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019 and identified the cities most likely to experience this outbreak (C. Stieg, How this Canadian start-up spotted coronavirus before everyone else knew about it, CNBC, March 3, 2020).

A team of researchers working with the Boston Children’s Hospital has also developed an AI to track the spread of the coronavirus. Called HealthMap, the system integrates data from Google searches, social media and blogs, as well as discussion forums: sources of information that epidemiologists do not usually use, but which are useful for identifying the first signs of an outbreak and assessing public response (A. Johnson, How Artificial Intelligence is Aiding the fight Against Coronavirus, Datainnovation, March 13, 2020).

The International Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) in Slovenia, under the auspices of UNESCO, has launched an “intelligent” media watch on coronavirus called Corona Virus Media Watch which provides updates on global and national news based on a selection of media with open online information. The tool, also developed with the support of the OECD and the Event Registry information extraction technology, is presented as a useful source of information for policy makers, the media and the public to observe emerging trends related to Covid-19 in their countries and around the world. 


Artificial intelligence to assist healthcare personnel

For their part, two Chinese companies have developed AI-based coronavirus diagnostic software. The Beijing-based start-up Infervision has trained its software to detect lung problems using computed tomography (CT) scans. Originally used to diagnose lung cancer, the software can also detect pneumonia associated with respiratory diseases such as coronavirus. At least 34 Chinese hospitals are reported to have used this technology to help them screen 32,000 suspected cases (T. Simonite, Chinese Hospitals Deploy AI to Help Diagnose Covid-19, Wired, February 26, 2020). 

The Alibaba DAMO Academy, the research arm of the Chinese company Alibaba, has also trained an AI system to recognise coronaviruses with an accuracy claimed to be 96%. According to the company, the system could process the 300 to 400 scans needed to diagnose a coronavirus in 20 to 30 seconds, whereas the same operation would usually take an experienced doctor 10 to 15 minutes. The system is said to have helped at least 26 Chinese hospitals to review more than 30,000 cases (C. Li, How DAMO Academy’s AI System Detects Coronavirus Cases, Alizila, March 10, 2020).

In South Korea, AI is reported to have helped reduce the time needed to  design testing kits based on the genetic make-up of the virus to a few weeks, when it would normally take two to three months. The biotech company Seegene used its automated test development system to develop the test kit and distribute it widely. Large-scale testing is indeed crucial to overcome containment measures and this testing policy seems to have contributed to the relative control of the pandemic in this country, which has equipped 118 medical establishments with this device and tested more than 230,000 people (I. Watson, S. Jeong, J. Hollingsworth, T. Booth, How this South Korean company created coronavirus test kits in three weeks, CNN World, March 13, 2020).

Artificial intelligence as a tool for population control

The example set by Singapore in its control of epidemic risks, with the support of technology, is certainly unique and difficult to export because of the social acceptance of restrictive safety measures:  issue of a containment order for populations at risk, verification of compliance with the measures by mobile phone and geolocation, random home checks (K. Vaswani, Coronavirus: The detectives racing to contain the virus in Singapore, BBC News, 19 March 2020). AI has been quite widely used in support of such mass surveillance policies as in China, where devices have been used to measure temperature and recognize individuals or to equip law enforcement agencies with “smart” helmets capable of flagging individuals with high body temperature. Facial recognition devices have, however, experienced difficulties due to the wearing of surgical masks, leading one company to attempt to circumvent this difficulty since many services in China now rely on this technology, including state services for surveillance measures. Hanvon thus claims to have created a device to increase the recognition rate of wearers of surgical masks to 95% (M. Pollard, Even mask-wearers can be ID’d, China facial recognition firm says, Reuters, 9 March 2020). In Israel, a plan to use individual telephone follow-up to warn users not to mix with people potentially carrying the virus has been developed (A. Laurent, COVID-19: States use geolocalisation to know who respects containment, Usebk & Rica, 20 March 2020 – in French only). In South Korea, an alert transferred to the health authorities is triggered when people do not comply with the isolation period, for example by being in a crowded place such as on public transport or a shopping centre (Ibid.). In Taiwan, a mobile phone is given to infected persons and records their GPS location so that police can track their movements and ensure that they do not move away from their place of confinement (Ibid.). In Italy, a company has also developed a smartphone application that can be used to trace the itinerary of a person infected with the virus and warn people who have had contact with him or her. According to the designer, privacy would be guaranteed, as the application would not reveal phone numbers or personal data (E. Tebano, Coronavirus, pronta la app italiana per tracciare i contagi: ‘Così possiamo fermare l’epidemia’, Corriere della Sera, 18 March 2020) In Lombardy, telephone operators have made available data concerning the movement of mobile phones from one telephone terminal to another (M. Pennisi, Coronavirus, come funzionano il controllo delle celle e il tracciamento dei contagi. Il Garante: «Non bisogna improvvisare», Corriere della Sera, 20 March 2020).

In the United States, tension can be perceived between guaranteeing individual rights and protecting collective interests during this health crisis. Thus, the GAFAM have at their disposal in the United States information which would be extremely valuable in times of crisis: an immense amount of data on the American population. Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist and executive director of Google.org, claims that he can “change the face of public health” and believes that “few things in life are more important than the question of whether major technologies are too powerful, but a pandemic is undoubtedly one of them” (N. Scola, Big Tech faces a ‘Big Brother’ trap on coronavirus, POLITICO, 18 March 2020). The U.S. government has therefore asked these companies to have access to aggregated and anonymous data, especially on mobile phones, in order to fight the spread of the virus (T. Romm, E. Dwoskin, C. Timberg, U.S. government, tech industry discussing ways to use smartphone location data to combat coronavirus, The Washington Post, March 18, 2020). However, these companies have been cautious in view of the legal risk and potential image damage (S. Overly, White House seeks Silicon Valley help battling coronavirus, POLITICO, 11 March 2020). Data regulation would likely have helped frame the public-private dialogue and determine what types of emergencies should be subject to the collective interest over individual rights (as well as the conditions and guarantees of such a mechanism), but Congress has made no progress in the last two years on such a law. 

Finally, attempts at misinformation have proliferated on social networks and the Internet. Whether it concerns the virus itself, the way it spreads or the means to fight its effects, many rumours have circulated (“Fake news” and disinformation about the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, INSERM, 19 February 2020). AI is a technology already used with some effectiveness by platforms to fight against inappropriate content. UNICEF adopted a statement on 9 March 2020 on misinformation about the coronavirus in which it intends to “actively take steps to provide accurate information about the virus by working with the World Health Organization, government authorities and online partners such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and TikTok, to ensure that accurate information and advice is available, as well as by taking steps to inform the public when inaccurate information appears”. The enactment of restrictive measures in Council of Europe member States to avoid fuelling public concern is also envisaged. However, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Media Environment and Media Reform (MSI-REF) underlined in a statement of 21 March 2020 that “the crisis situation should not be used as a pretext to restrict public access to information. Nor should States introduce restrictions on media freedom beyond the limits allowed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. The Committee also highlights that “member States, together with all media actors, should strive to ensure an environment conducive to quality journalism”.


Artificial intelligence: an evaluation of its use in the aftermath of a crisis

Digital technology, including information technology and AI, are therefore proving to be important tools to help build a coordinated response to this pandemic. The multiple uses also illustrate the limits of what can currently be achieved by this very technology, which we cannot expect to compensate for structural difficulties such as those experienced by many health care institutions around the world. The search for efficiency and cost reduction in hospitals, often supported by information technology, should not reduce the quality of services or compromise universal access to care, even in exceptional circumstances. 

It should be recalled that Article 11 of the European Social Charter (ratified by 34 of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe) establishes a right to health protection which commits the signatories “to take, either directly or in co-operation with public and private organisations, appropriate measures designed in particular to : 1°) to eliminate, as far as possible, the causes of ill-health; 2°) to provide consultation and education services for the improvement of health and the development of a sense of individual responsibility for health; 3°) to prevent, as far as possible, epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as accidents.”

Finally, it should be possible to evaluate the emergency measures taken at the end of the crisis in order to identify the benefits and issues encountered by the use of digital tools and AI. In particular, the temporary measures of control and mass monitoring of the population by this technology should not be trivialized nor become permanent (Y. N. Harari, Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus, The Financial Times, 20 March 2020). 

Standards relating to data protection, such as Convention 108(+) of the Council of Europe, must still be applied fully and under all circumstances: whether it be the use of biometric data, geolocalisation, facial recognition or the use of health data. Use of emergency measures should be carried out in full consultation with data protection authorities and respect the dignity and the private life of the users. The different biases of the various types of surveillance operations should be considered, as these may cause significant discrimination (A.F. Cahn, John Veiszlemlein, COVID-19 tracking data and surveillance risks are more dangerous than their rewards, NBC News, 19 March 2020).

Executives from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook met officials at Downing Street on Wednesday to discuss their role in the coronavirus crisis.
One of the things discussed was their role in “modelling and tracking data”.
In similar meetings at the White House, meanwhile, companies were asked how they could use artificial intelligence.
A World Health Organization report last month said AI and big data were a key part of China’s response to the virus.

BBC, March 12, 2020

also interesting:

Facebook upgrades its AI to better tackle COVID-19 misinformation and hate speech

But wait a minute! Where did I see this before…?

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

By Mark Simone (710 WOR Radio · The Voice Of New York)

A very interesting book, find out about it on silview.media

It’s hard to believe but America’s top Infectious Disease Doctor Anthony Fauci has been wrong on the coronavirus pandemic —Every step of the way!

Here is a list of several errors, contradictory statements and dangerous gaffes by NIAID Director Dr. Tony Fauci:

1.) Dr. Fauci says he warned Trump in January that the US was in real trouble but that is not what he said publicly.

In January Dr. Anthony Fauci told Newsmax TV that the United States “did not have to worry” about the coronavirus and that it was“not a major threat.”

2.) Dr. Fauci warned of an apocalyptic coronavirus pandemic — then just weeks later he compared the coronavirus to a bad flu.

3.) Dr. Fauci based all of his predictions on models the that were OFF BY MILLIONS and then later told reporters, “You can’t really rely on models.”

4.) On March 20th Dr. Fauci jumped in and during a press briefing on hydroxychloroquine treatment for coronavirus “corrected” the president saying, “You got to be careful when you say ‘fairly effective.’ It was never done in a clinical trial… It was given to individuals and felt that maybe it worked.”

Exactly two weeks later hydroxychloroquine was deemed the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus in an international poll of more than 6,000 doctors.

5.) Dr. Fauci pushed these garbage models every step of the way.

A month ago Dr. Fauci claimed 1 million to 2 million Americans would die from coronavirus. Then he said 100,000 to 200,000 Americans will die from the virus. Three weeks ago he agreed 81,766 Americans would die from the coronavirus. Then by that Wednesday Then by that Wednesday the experts cut the number of deaths to 60,415 projected deaths. to 60,415 projected deaths.


#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
MASKS ARE BAD FOR YOU, USE THEM ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE! OR AT PROTESTS. AND IF YOU DO, USE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.

6.) On Easter Dr. Fauci suggested President Trump. should have shut down the economy in February… When the number of known cases in the US was around 100. Fauci later walked back his attacks.

7.) Dr. Fauci said cruises were OK on March 9th. That was a huge error.

8.) Dr. Fauci said malls, movies and gyms were OK on February 29th. That was another huge mistake.

9.) Dr. Fauci was wrong about the first coronavirus deaths in the country. Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and the CDC were off by nearly a month. California officials revealed in Aprilthat a patient in Santa Clara died from coronavirus on February 6th not February 29th.

10.) Dr. Fauci and the CDC missed the millions and millions of US citizens who had already contracted the coronavirus before the draconian lockdowns took place. Knowing this could have prevented the economic calamity.

11.) On April 15, 2020, Fauci endorses Tinder hookups, unbelievably.

12.) Dr. Fauci relied on corrupt W.H.O rules to lock down the United States and destroy the US economy. Meanwhile, this delays the herd immunity that is needed to prevent a future outbreak of this deadly virus.

13.) Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx used the Imperial College Model to persuade President Trump to lock down the entire US economy. The Imperial model has since been confirmed as A COMPLETE FRAUD.

14.) Dr. Fauci warned that Georgia would see a surge in coronavirus cases and deaths by opening their economy too early.

He was wrong again– In fact the opposite happened.

15.) And on Tuesday during testimony Dr. Fauci told Dr. Rand Paul that opening the schools would not be a good idea.

Here comes my update, to top them all:
#0. Anthony Fauci warns of ‘irreparable damage’ if lockdowns are kept in place for too long
12h ago

Humanity shut itself down based on these people you see lately on my site…

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Started 19th of May 2020
Protesting the terrorism, abuses and looting disguised as Covid-19 policies.
For physical body sovereignty and personal consent.

I write this as prisoner of Moroccan government in Agadir Morocco.
Very interestingly, this is the hometown of US’ “Vaccine Czar” Moncef Slaoui, a character that seals the fate of many people these days, in US, in Morocco, likely even in my home-country Romania, a US colony under the EU flag.

THERE’S NO FUTURE FOR ANYONE IF THIS IS TOO MUCH TO ASK:
1. Freedom
2. No one touches me or alters my body or my mind without my consent, in any circumstances, ever.
3. I need a place to live outside the influence of any government, all intrinsically corrupt and violent power structures.

I have a birthday to celebrate on June 23rd, I will do it in a state of freedom and independence from these aggressive psychos, with or without any participation. As the notion of consent has been nullified in this Covid World Order.


I don’t demand anyone to solve my problems, I demand some problems to remove themselves from my life as I’ve never invited them. These problems have names and many addresses.
I have no problems besides foreign intervention in my life and I demand these problem-people to remove themselves from my life or point out where can I live decently without their influence in my life. Otherwise there’s no point in living.

I don’t expect any reasonable feedback from the sociopaths that broke the world, but if humanity cannot solve this minimal list of problems for itself and me as part of itself, then humanity is WAY more hopeless than I am.

Morocco’s rulers, like any other, think of people as assets. I don’t mind what is in crazy people’s minds until they enforce it in my life, I destroy myself before I become property.
SO BY THIS I TAKE BACK OWNERSHIP OVER MY BODY AND MY DESTINY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MOROCCO AND ANY OTHER LUNATICS TRYING TO ASSERT OWNERSHIP OVER ME.


I couldn’t even announce this when I started this because they cut my internet after I published the last investigation on Covid Mafia.

After I re-established an internet connection, my laptop suddenly started to act like it wants to die, needed 4 reboots and it works like it’s 1998. The cooler sounds like a helicopter and I only have this fb window open. It never did that before, it isn’t in perfect shape, but this is something new.
Just hours after publishing the investigation on Moncef Slaoui, my traffic plummeted from an average of 5k views a day (peaking at 8-11k best days) to a little over 1k.

So it looks likely we’ll get disconnected soon, before I’m disconnecting myself from the covid world. I don’t have the energy to do much now, so buh bye if that’s the case
Whatever happens to me and to is on the hands of the #StayHome sheep enabling covid terrorism.

I don’t have any wish to wake up in this world anymore, so excuse me if I’ll be sleeping until either this nightmare world or myself are gone, we cannot co-exist.
But while I’m awake, I’m going to unleash some information and ideas for everyone to use against these terror groups, watch the updates on this site.
.
No doctors allowed. From here, no one touches me without consent and gets to survive. This is arranged, just try me.


This should teach elites and Pharmacunts a lesson on consent and human dignity also:
My body is a temple. It has never been state property or anyone else’s, despite their belief. I burn it to the ground before the state, Pharma or any other psychopaths touch it without my consent.
No one has ever owned my ass.

My life was pretty amazing and I don’t plan to end it any other way. My life, my way.

if you want to help

Much appreciated!
Best things you can do:
1. Give this post as much visibility as you can in any way that doesn’t harm anyone.
2. If you resonate with my demands, push them to the public agenda.
3. Involve the humanitarian NGO’s, the Covid World Order is a humanitarian crisis too, where are they?

As for your donations – no more life, no more life costs.
The few who contributed: You are amazing, you did help me get over some potentially serious bumps, thank you! I hope you don’t regret it and my work was a good reward. I’m not done yet, not at all 😉

Best thing you can do if you have a little extra is to post this on your Facebook page (or other socials) and use the money to boost the post.
This way we both get more traction. Win-win, you know how I roll.
I’m completely shadow-banned on Facebook, I don’t roll in Instagram and Twitter… Maybe you can cover for me. Much appreciated!

Let’s rock this joint!


Update 22nd of May, 5AM. Some stomach and head pain are sneaking in, I’m going to fight it with sleep and meditation, I’m good at it. One last thought before I go back to sleep, and before they cut me off again, as a reply to some private messages:

Even to this day SARS-CoV-2 has never been truly scientifically purified/isolated and reinserted into a healthy individual who then develops the same infection. This is a basic and universally acknowledged scientific methodology that has not been followed by anyone claiming that so-called SARS-CoV-2 is actually a novel virus. Read Koch’s postulate.

This is to say most people ignore the root cause of this, which is extreme mass-lunacy, basically. you can’t fight this lunacy with facts and reason anymore. no one there to comprehend.
Even if you turn back to “normal” tomorrow (which will never ever happen), this lunacy will still be here waiting for another opportunity to put up a show.

Humanity is fucked beyond functional and that’s not gonna go away. Some braindead meatbots like #stayhomers will eventually end us anyway.
If I’m waking up in a world where I’m defenseless against these drones with bones, I’d rather not wake up and retain control over my destiny.

UPDATE: May 23rd, about 2am:
Made you a funny.

This is gonna take longer than planned, I feel very weak but still functional, learning a lot about my body. Couldn’t sleep much yesterday, low manageable pains, but Internet seems stable now (as opposed to my laptop) so I did a bit of work and had some depressing chats with the mislead ppl of the world who want to help and are as successful as the lock-downs. Having behind as much knowledge and good planning as the lock downs, I guess.
Btw, why does everyone think they have suicide line skills? Especially when they don’t

“Get up and help US! Don’t give US the pain of witnessing what we did to you” :))
Some people must never have contact with suicidal people or people doing hunger strike.

Summing up all feedback so far:
Looks like you should be worrying about you losing people like me more than I should worry about me missing the covid world order.
People never turn the coin on the other side, that’s how they get duped and covided.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING:
HUNGER STRIKE DOES NOT EQUATE SUICIDE.
Impotent emotional drivel instead of well thought efficient reaction turn a hunger strike from a weapon to a useless suicide. Useless for you, I’ll be fine compared.
And so far, this is where things go.
You can’t help people, people can’t help you.
You can’t live with people, they don’t let you live you without them.
ERr0r
No sanity detected

2h later: ok, one more meme :))

5h later still on a roll like I’m afraid to sleep today. But I had a lot to learn.
Such as: total asswipes like these CDC Pharmabots, supported by a bunch of #StayHome drones get to lock me up.
Bitch u cray-cray, f-off my radar!

And in the morning I wake up to this:

Read: Can isolation sabotage your immune system and promote diseases? Scientists and US Government answer a resounding “YES”

This above came right after this:

I feel better about myself every day. By comparison.
But internet binging was a bad idea

UPDATE May 25th: I’m completing one week, had a modest vegetarian breakfast. Not to celebrate, just to stay on course, because I still can pee standing (which I can’t say about #StayHomers), but I lost it a bit yesterday, after standing up 3-4 minutes to make a tea. Bad energy management the day before, exhausted myself pointlessly.
Lots of things happened since the last update, but the most important news is that
I found out how Bill Gates funneled money into Moroccan politics!

After a good sleep, I’ll finish a couple new articles, proper truth bombs like before. If Moroccan govt won’t bomb me first.

But all I can do for now is leave you with some proper dank meme work:

People ask of my regimen.
It’s bites. When I can’t manage the stomach ache or I need a quick energy boost I take 1 bite. I remember each of them. Over the week, besides this breakfast, which was decent, I totaled: 2 little bananas, about 100-150g of watermelon, 10-12 peanuts, one biscuit and two teaspoons of seeds. It’s actually more than I intended, but hella good for a rookie, never fasted more than 2 days.
But this was just a warm-up for everyone, not just for me. The real plot starts now, when they let the dogs out. The angry chihuahuas, that is.

UPDATE 27th of May, 6;40am
Physically ok, that breakfast 3 days ago made be buzz for two days with very little sleep, like some drugs, and that’s a big lesson on energy management and metabolism.
But today I’m very low energy, with mild pain and every drop of energy I put it in a few things I want to see finished before lights out.

This week’s target is to get under 50kg, I think I’m below 60 now, but I still look ok-ish and the general population needs some powerful emotional triggers to pay attention, since they’ve outsourced reason to “experts”. I’ll be shocking you alright.

What I’ve learned so far:
Humanity can’t help itself, it’s done and far gone, so can’t be expected to help me.
But I can help it if it pays attention before it’s too late. No reason for optimism though
.

UPDATE 29th of May, possibly the last, nothing left to say.
Completed Day #10 of HUNGER STRIKE
I think I’m approaching 50kg.
Ah, there’s a couple of things I’ve achieved already:
NO ONE CAN SAY I ENABLED THIS INSANITY.
NO ONE CAN SAY I TOOK THIS BULLSHIT
If I had 10 #StayHomer lives, I’d trade them for these 10 days.


Finishing this last investigation on Bill Gates in Morocco took a great toll on my energy.
And this is probably the last update on this post.
Not because I’m done right now, but because there’s nothing left to say. If there’s something I missed to say, it’s somewhere on this website anyway. If you have a question, I bet the answer is on the site and you didn’t pay attention.
I only want to see change now. I don’t give a flying F on words. My ears are for music now.
The best I can do is memes, minimal blah, I only need to use the mouse.

sums it up

UPDATE JUNE 10
Morocco announced it will perpetuate the covid lies and the theft of human rights. Announced terms and conditions don’t matter because their word is worthless.
I am a prisoner.
7+ billion people can’t help me since they can’t help themselves.
#StayHomers now riot virtue signalling instead of apologising for enabling this hell.
Me doing this means nothing to anyone, which proves my point.
Hope just went from 0.01% to absolute 0.
This was meant to be a protest and a fight for hope. At this point I’m just looking for any dignified exit of this fucktarded asylum.

The only smile on my face today was put there by none other than Facebook today.

Dang! I managed to trick the bots into approving the sponsored distribution of one of my latest videos and it happens to be the best option, see below.
Communism taught me how to hide the truth in art to avoid censorship.
As of now, I’m open for donations again, because I found a good cause for it: finishing and publicising this late work I’ve done, which seems to become quite appreciated and popular, but only as much as the gatekeepers allow it to reach people. Since they’re suckers for money (still), I can use that as an exploit to spread truth and some of the stuff that’s otherwise shadow-banned. All my money and your donations go there now anyway, they have no other value now.
So there, game over.

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Subscribe and watch all episodes on
Bitchute 
Youtube

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
MASKS ARE BAD FOR YOU, USE THEM ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE! OR AT PROTESTS. AND IF YOU DO, USE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Source

Potential Coronavirus Treatment – Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device. Pre-clinical findings indicate the technology’s significant impact on eradicating a wide range of viruses and bacteria, inclusive of coronavirus. The data have been the basis of discussions with the FDA for a near-term path to enable human use for the potential treatment of coronavirus in intubated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Beyond the initial pursuit of a coronavirus ICU indication, additional data suggest broader clinical applications for the technology across a range of viral and bacterial pathogens. This includes bacteria implicated in ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).

Coronavirus: Robots use light beams to zap hospital viruses


Ultraviolet Blood Treatment. A simple intravenous therapy that exposes blood to specific ultraviolet light as a natural antibiotic to enhance the body’s ability to fight infections

Inactivation of viruses during ultraviolet light treatment of human intravenous immunoglobulin and albumin. The use of UV irradiation to inactivate infectious agents could add safety and supplement current methods, e.g. solvent/detergent, low pH, which do not inactivate non-enveloped, non-acid labile or dry-heat-resistant viruses at present.

Far-UVC light: A new tool to control the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases. “A direct approach to prevent airborne transmission is inactivation of airborne pathogens, and the airborne antimicrobial potential of UVC ultraviolet light has long been established; however, its widespread use in public settings is limited because conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and cataractogenic. By contrast, we have previously shown that far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them. We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases.”

Effect of far ultraviolet light emitted from an optical diffuser on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vitro.

 The calculated exposure dose required to kill 90% of bacteria is D90 = 4.5 mJ/cm2

Other resources:

[1] Downes, A.  Researches on the effect of light upon bacteria and other organisms. Proc Roy Soc Med 1877;26:488.  Cited in Kime, Z. sun Could Save Your Life.  World Health Publications, Penryn, CA 1980:126-30.

[2] Miley, G. The Knott technic of ultraviolet blood irradiation in acute pyogenic infections.  New York J Med 1942;42:38.

[3] Miley, G. The Knott technic of ultraviolet blood irradiation in acute pyogenic infections.  New York J Med 1942;42:38.


#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview
MASKS ARE BAD FOR YOU, USE THEM ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE! OR AT PROTESTS. AND IF YOU DO, USE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.

[4] Rebbeck, E. Ultraviolet irradiation of auto-transfused blood in the treatment of puerperal sepsis.  Amer J Surg 1941;54:691

[5] Rebbeck, E.  Ultraviolet irradiation of autotransfused blood in the treatment of postabortal sepsis. Amer J Surg 1942;55:476.

[6] Rebbeck, E.  Ultraviolet irradiation of the blood in the treatment of escherichia coli septicemia.  Arch Phys Ther 1943;24:158.

[7] Rebbeck, E. The Knott technic of ultraviolet blood irradiation as a control of infection in peritonitis.  Amer J Gastroenterol 1943;10:1-26

[8] Hancock, V.  Irradiated blood transfusions in the treatment of infections.  Northwest Med 1934;33:200.

[9] Barrett, H.   Five years experience with hemo-irradiation according to the Knott technic.  Am J Surg 1943;61:42

[10] Barrett, H.  The irradiation of auto-transfused blood by ultraviolet spectral energy: results of therapy in 110 cases.  Med Clin N Amer 1940;24:723

[11] Miley, G.  The present status of ultraviolet blood irradiation.  Arch Phys Ther 1944;25:357.

[12] Hollaender, A.  The inactivating effect of monochromatic ultraviolet radiation on influenza virus. J Bact 1944;48:447.

[13] Heding LD, Schaller JP, Blakeslee JR, Olsen RG.Inactivation of tumor cell-associated feline oncornavirus for preparation of an infectious virus-free tumor cell immunogen.  Cancer Res 1976;36:1647.

[14] Hart, D.  Sterilization of the air in the operating room by special antibacterial radiant energy.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1936;6:45.

[15]Gameson, A. Field studies on effect of daylight on mortality of coliform bacteria. Water Res 1967;1:279.


You can take it from here and find tons more if you care, the point is made. In the words of a knowledgeable Facebook commentator “Folks, be careful not to dismiss information just because you don’t like who is saying it.”

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

MY MOST IMPORTANT POST EVER! Please join the Worldwide Smartphone Shutdown #WWSS: share the message, create better visuals and campaign means, suggest ways to make this easier, translate this in all languages, do what you can, be a conscious user and it will make a great deal of difference!
I open my phone just to confirm some payments or accounts, rarely. You do you, but surely you can help this.
If you need more explanations, maybe later, if you don’t, you’re probably the people we’re looking for now!

To be updated with further developments

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them