"if [Scott Atlas] is using the U.S. data to make that assumption, he has no idea of the core of the fraud and the rot. That is corrupted data and it's used to fuel a narrative."

So, it's really about how this is not being talked about.  And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change.  I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed.  Dr. Pierre Kory

Ep. 2209 What’s Causing All Those Excess Deaths? https://t.co/jSrazDgD8m

— Mike Walgenbach (@mwalgen44) September 28, 2022

Dr. Pierre Kory's website. 

The FLCCC's Total19CriticalCare.

His Substack page.

And Twitter page.

This makes me weep.

The fraud committed to drive propaganda giving people a narrative to think a certain way or take a specific action temporarily kills my spiritual battle, my raison de etre.   It's one thing to have a sense of the general fraud, but learning about the specific fraud committed by institutions that have traditionally been associated with helping people recover is almost too much.  Initially.  But new information helps to set new resoluteness. That is where we are at. 

This talk is about excess deaths, but the reasfarcicvau surprised me.  Yes, all roads point to the vaccines, but what paved the various roads was the censorship, and that censorship is ongoing.  The censorship helped create the narrative that vaccines weren't all bad, that, in fact, they can save lives.  They don't.  They ruin lives, and then kill you.  

WOODS:  Trying to reconcile with this problem, namely this excess deaths problem that seems to be popping up in country after country.  

KORY:  The data is screaming from so many sources and so many countries with massive amounts of death, and it's just not talked about.  And that's an extension of what I've seen in COVID, right?  If it goes against the policies, and therefore the narratives, it's suppressed.  And I could never imagine such censorship of such an important topic [excess deaths] that is so pervasive, that it's global.  You know the communication media systems, and I've read one article that said that most of all media is owned by 1 of 6 companies, so there's this huge consolidation in media, and I don't know if they send out memos throughout those corporations, but the level of censorship is astonishing.   And so on the topic you're asking me about, I mean I don't even know where to start.  

I would say one of the most shocking and first explosions of data was when the CEO of One America, which is a 200-year-old life insurance company with $100 million in assets or even more, the CEO, J. Scott Davison, went out in public and gave an interview and said that they've had an unprecedented rise in life insurance claims from the ages of 18 to 64, so working age Americans, on a year-to-year basis that a 10% rise in that age group is a 1-in-200 year event.  And he was reporting a 32 or 38% rise in life insurance claims of young working age people.  And if you look, an investigative journalist did a follow-up on that CEO and reached out to that company, they were very forthcoming, and they were very communicative, and they even provided the journalists with a mortality chart from the CDC.  From the CDC, you can see what the mortality was in 2019, 2020, and then 2021, at the end of Quarter 1, you see this sudden rise, a steep slope in mortality of 18-64 year-olds, and all you have to ask yourself is "What happened at the end of Quarter 1, 2021?"  I have seen coverage of this issue, but the articles all bring up alternative explanations.  I'm referring to the vaccination program.  There's nothing else that could match that historic rise.  It can't be deaths from alcoholism, addiction, and suicide: we've had those for years.  I don't know why it would suddenly rise at the end of Quarter 1, 2021.  I've seen people try to blame it on lockdowns.  Lockdowns were largely over in most places.  Especially in the U.S.  We weren't locking down in 2021.  So that's just life insurance. 

There's another piece of data that is even more shocking: the life expectancy in the United States, this is census and publicly available data, it was 79-years-old in 2019.  Average life expectancy of every American was 79 in 2019.  Now, it's 76.  Even a 1/10th or 2/10th change in the average life expectancy indicates a lot of deaths.  Now, you have 3 years that have been shaved off of the pandemic.  In 2020 and 2021 were massive, and yet the other thing to consider is how do you drop the average life expectancy from 79 to 76?  It's not the dying off of the elderly.  They would not impact that average very much.   It has to be young people and very young people.  This is an unprecedented change . . . really a barometer of the health of our country:  3 years average life expectancy and no one is talking about it? And then you can go into [the data sets for] the pilots and the athletes, cardiac arrest thing, out-of-work, you know, it's a scary idea that they vaccinated a whole generation of pilots and with the instance of heart disease, I mean it's really worrisome . . . what if they have an accident in the air.  So, I think the bigger story is not about the data--you can pull data from anywhere.  Even in the UK, in their publicly available health data, you can see the all-cause mortality in the vaccinated is far higher than the un-vaxxed.  So, it's really about how this is not being talked about.  And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change.  I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed.  

WOODS:  As a non-expert, how am I to adjudicate when I haven't studied any of the relevant subjects, I have no credentials, and most of the people who have are telling me the opposite of what you're telling me, so why should I believe you over what they're telling me? 

KORY:  Here's my advice to that person.  I totally appreciate that situation, because as a self-described expert . . . if you want to know what the truth is, you need to look at who is speaking that supposed truth.  At this point in the pandemic, given the colossal and historic amounts of fraud, and the evidence of capture of the regulatory agencies, and the silencing of academia.  No doctor can speak out against these policies.  If they have concerns about theses vaccines, they will lose their job.  Now you have California passing legislation that's going to punish and literally take away the license of a doctor who publicly disagrees with supposed scientific consensus.  So, in that environment, I think you can only listen to those without a conflict of interest.  What does that conflict of interest look like?  If you're employed by a media organization, if you're employed by a healthcare agency, a hospital, or a university.  Those are conflicts of interest because just by the way society is now structured they cannot speak freely.  So whatever they say is going to be highly palatable to the narrative and to the policy.  So for someone to speak freely, you need to listen to  someone with no conflicts of interest, who is expert in the topic area or at least appears knowledgeable, they have to be able to debate, and to be able to share and cite data.  The person who wrote that, should think about what the agencies are doing.  The agencies are willing to share data.  The problem is that it's actually corrupt data.  And it's also on record with the New York Times, and other papers, that the CDC admits that they haven't been sharing and withholding data, and so I really do feel bad for the average citizens because you really do hear two very different conclusions, particularly on the vaccines--everything is rosy, it's "safe and effective," you can give it to pregnant people, and, yes, we think it's smart to give it to toddlers.  And then on the other side, we are calling it a humanitarian catastrophe of massive deaths directly related to the vaccine, and I have a lot data to back that up.  So, let's say you're looking for a neutral party.  Recently, I've been giving the example of Denmark.  So here in the United States we have gleefully vaccinated toddlers.  Thankfully, very few parents are brining their toddlers in for a vaccine.  I think it's something like less than [2%].  But look at Denmark.  They do not recommend vaccination for anyone under 50.  And they long ago banned Moderna for anyone over 30.  And in this country, we don't care.  Any of the vaccines are good for anybody.  Denmark is the leader in the world for pulling back from this vaccine: they still offer the vaccines, but they're not pushing them; in fact, they've outlawed them for certain sectors of their society.  We have to realize that it's a war of information.  

The other side has mass powers of censorship.  And really what's worse is propaganda.  The ultimate source of all the propaganda and censorship, and I think it begins at the medical journal level.  And I have a lot of evidence to show, particularly on the topic of Ivermectin, but you can apply it to the vaccines.  In fact, vaccines are the converse of Ivermectin.  So, these journals have suppressed the evidence of efficacy of Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine, and at the same time they've suppressed the evidence of the toxicity of the vaccines.  I think if it wasn't for the collusion of the medical journals rejecting positive studies of Ivermectin, retracting published studies of Ivermectin, so that the only thing that appears in the high-impact journals are trials where Ivermectin is tested with no significantly statistical benefits that are shown even though there are benefits.  So the headlines race around the world that Ivermectin doesn't work, yet we know that there are 92 controlled trials with 125,000 patients in them and it shows repeatedly reduced death, hospitalization, time 'til recovery, time 'til virus clearance, yet if you just look at those high-impact journals, you would never know that.  So, I'm calling that the fraud begins at the medical journal level because if you don't have that curated science, that really manipulated science that shows up in the journals, you can't launch these narratives.  You can't launch a narrative that Ivermectin doesn't work because if they were really freely and openly publishing submissions of good quality that show benefits to any medicine, not just pharmaceutical products, you would have a much more balanced view of what's therapeutic here, but they don't do that.  There are frightening papers, all on preprint servers, showing the massive toxicity of these vaccines.  And you can just see it in VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.  You don't even need a newspaper then.  But I would also recommend that your friend, or the newspaper, ask themselves, why our health agencies, our government is not talking about VAERS?  It was built to look for toxicity signals.  They started skyrocketing within weeks of the rollout and they're at unprecedented levels.  And we know that the only thing wrong with VAERS is its under-reporting factor.  We've had almost 2 million adverse events, 40,000 deaths reported in the U.S., and that under-reporting factor is probably on a scale of 30x to 40x.  I think it's pretty easy to tell who's lying and who's actively suppressing really important information, and I will tell you, it's all to one goal: it was to support the vaccine campaign.  And when that started, that censorship, that ignoring, that curating, literature that gets published that only shows that they're "safe and effective," that was done with the noble lie, where they withhold information from you for your own good, so that it will prompt you to get vaccinated because they're afraid that if they show all the data, it would increase vaccine hesitancy.  And vaccine hesitancy was known as probably one of the main barriers to the planned pandemic response in the simulation exercises that were done in the years leading up to the pandemic.  You can look at the records, you can look at the documents.  Vaccine hesitancy appears multiple times.  They always had a plan to create a pandemic and to vaccinate the world, and their one worry was vaccine hesitancy.  And in my experience, from where I sit, the two main things that would absolutely crush vaccine hesitancy is information about the efficacy of generic repurposed drugs, because if you know there's a safe, available alternative you will turn to that rather than the experimental vaccine.  And the other thing that has been censored is any mention of the toxicity, and now it's farcical, like that spoof headline.  I think it's somewhat funny but what I find terrifying are the real headlines where they literally try to explain these incredible amounts of sudden cardiac arrests, athletes on the field, the pilot issues, and all of the data screaming about all cause mortality, and then you see headlines about climate change being the cause of it.  I've seen ridiculous ones that you would think are spoofs but they're real [headlines].   

WOODS:  Or you're sleeping on the wrong side.

KORY:  Interesting connection is that you do see articles about this condition called, SADS, right, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.  I happen to be somewhat of an expert in cardiac arrest as an ICU doctor for years I trained teams on how to respond to cardiac arrest and I've given lectures about the history of CPR, you know, the incidents of cardiac arrest in the community and they're nowhere near the numbers now.  And so a really disturbing analogy is that with this vaccine campaign, suddenly we're seeing unprecedented numbers of people dropping dead--athletes, broadcasters, many of them are on television!  Totally healthy people, they're at a podium, they collapse.  They're at a broadcast desk, they collapse.  They're at a wedding, they collapse.  Even in the stands at football stadiums.  I remember there was one game where I watched.  There was one Saturday where they're all playing, there were 4 cardiac arrests: 2 on the field, 2 in the stands.  And some of the coaches actually spoke out, and in their decades, they had never seen 2 cardiac arrests in a game on the same day, and then 2 others in the field.  A number of games were stopped because people were arresting, and that's not a story?  And so the thing about the SADS story is that there had been people for years . . . .  Remember SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?  Well, that kind of started in the 80s and it tracks very well with the explosion of vaccines.  So if you look at this weird syndrome called SIDS, which has happened to so many babies, and the system and the public Iiterature officially does not have a cause, I would argue that vaccines look like the cause of SIDS and I  definitely know that the vaccines are the cause of SADS.  

WOODS: I got to ask you that so many people want an answered and you hinted at it when you said it must be difficult to be a layman when on the one hand you've got propaganda 24 hours a day, "these things are safe and effective." And you have just the exact opposite coming at by people who are just as qualified and who seem just as passionate saying something really, really terrible is happening because of these very things that somebody just told you were safe and effective.  And so what I want to know is somebody like Scott Atlas . . . I feel like Scott Atlas is a good guy.  I had him on my show.  I think he did a lot of good things and he stood up to a lot of idiots and took a huge amount of abuse, but he came on this show and said "that the data show that the vaccines do have an effect on lowering severe illness and death."  He said "that's what the data shows." 

KORY:  He's wrong.  He is wrong.  He needs to share that data on which he's sharing that opinion.  If you look at the granular public health data from any country that is transparently sharing--UK comes to mind, Israel comes to mind--for a long time per 100,000 more patients who were in the hospital were vaccinated than unvaccinated.  So that's one data source that can very quickly refute what he said.  

WOODS:  It's just that we heard for so long that the unvaccinated are killing themselves in the hospital.

KORY:  Thomas, let me finish because here's something that I can guarantee you he doesn't know and only a few people do, and I am one of them.  Why am I one of them?  I am an ICU doctor.  Particularly in 2021, I was working in an ICU up until November 2021.  And what I noticed, and I found very curious, was that nobody in the ICU was vaccinated.  And you'd open up their chart and look at their medical record and right there under demographic--name, location, age--you saw their vaccination status, and there were two categories: one was VACCINATED, and the other was UNKNOWN.  Everybody was UNKNOWN.  So I'm sitting there with these two realities: seeing the data from other countries where the vaccinated are filling the hospital ICUs, and I am looking at the US and nobody in the ICUs was vaccinated.  And I discovered what it was.  The way they documented the vaccination status on the admission to the hospital was completely unprecedented.  In the past, if you brought in a vaccine card, right, for your childhood vaccinations or you just got a vaccine and had a card, it was immediately entered into your record, and there would be a record there and anyone could look up your record and anyone could see the vaccine. During COVID in most of the major health systems, and I validated this with colleagues and other people I talked to in other large health systems is what happened with COVID when a patient arrived the hospital, they did take a history, they did ask if you were vaccinated.  However, if you were vaccinated anywhere but in a system physician's clinic, guess where that information went?  It went into the Nursing Admission note and that's where it stayed.  It did not dhow up.  It did not trigger a vaccination status and that is demonstrably now.  I've talked to a number of nurses who've told me that in their systems the same thing was true.  The vaccination status showed up in a Nursing Admission note and then on that first screen . . . it did not register vaccine.  The only way to be vaccinated was if you got your shots in a clinic within that health system.  In the entire year of working ICU in 2021, only one patient ever was admitted to my ICU with fully vaccinated status.  Every single other one was UNKNOWN. if you look into their records, dig deep into the Nursing Admission note, you will find that they're vaccinated.  So what I would tell Scott Atlas is that if he's using the U.S. data to make that assumption, he has no idea of the core of the fraud and the rot.  That is corrupted data and it's used to fuel a narrative.  Wouldn't you think, Thomas, if you're trying to propel a vaccine campaign, don't you think that it would be in your interest to not have the vaccinated show up in hospitals so that you could falsely present the vaccines as protective against outcomes and death?  And I'm sorry.  He's not aware of the depth of the fraud on that data.

WOODS:  I'm just flabbergasted at the whole thing, and I'm somebody who's not exactly been naïve, you know, in the past about the way the world works.  But I think anybody, no matter how cynical, has to be left aghast at what may, in fact, be happening here.  There had to be some people who innocently believed what they were told within the medical establishment, and they were told that the experts say, "You got to give this thing to people, and it's going to save their lives and put an end to this thing."  There had to be a lot of innocent people who didn't know any better.  But on the other hand, innocent is a funny word.  It was kind of their obligation to look into the information and not just take people's word for it.  

KORY:  I want to say I identify with you.  I have to say that when the pandemic started, I had no knowledge of how controlled and corrupted the high-impact journal was.  I always looked them throughout my career as an example of what the best science is and had always assumed that they would evaluate the merits of trials and only put the best quality and important trials.  I didn't know that it's a completely censored environment.  I didn't know that it's controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, and the depth of that control is absolutely terrifying.  I did not know that 2 years ago.  I will tell you where I started, Thomas.  Up until the pandemic, I read the New York Times everyday, believed every word . . . I thought that the New York Times was the paper of record, literally the pinnacle of journalism, and if I wanted to get the straight dope, an accurate assessment of a situation, the New York Times would provide that for me.  Just like what I now know about the journals, I had to learn that the New York Times writes narratives, and those narratives are in service of very powerful forces.  I cannot read the New York Times.  And how did I find that out, Thomas?  I found that out because I became an expert on Ivermectin.  And I had to watch lies, clear lies being written all over newspapers coming out of mouths of broadcasters, they were fed lies, mistruths, half-truths, and distortions.  And what I saw was that there's no such thing any more as a science reporter.  There's no such thing.  They will present whatever science, however they want as long as it furthers a narrative, and once I started seeing that happening in the New York Times, I was terrified that the population believes this narrative that's just spewing from everywhere.  That was my first awakening, Thomas, was that they lie.  And then the next lie I had to witness was with the vaccines.  And I just saw repeated lies, "safe and effective," "safe and effective."  I saw newspaper articles well into 2021, which literally had this statement, "There's not been one proven death as a result of the vaccine."  I would literally read that in the newspaper, knowing then at that times that many tens, if not, hundreds of thousands had died at that time.  

social cooperation is the essence of morality

Thank you to Robert Wenzel

Mises Institute notes that, 

Henry Hazlitt considered The Foundations of Morality to be his most important work. The following two reviews of that book were found in one of the many boxes of papers generously given to the Mises Institute by Bettina Bien Greaves. Bettina wrote in a letter to Hazlitt "It seems to me this is your very best book and one that will live through the centuries." Unfortunately, The Foundations of Morality never received the audience recognition he would have liked, but as Bettina said, it is a book for the ages. Bettina was right because it remains immensely important today.

Codes to Live By

Rosalie Gordon writing in America's Future (April 1973):

It is particularly fitting that there now be re-issued (it was first published in 1964) this seminal work by one of America's most distinguished journalists, economists and philosophers. Henry Hazlitt is as far as one can get from that breed of "instant" analyzers and accepters of current modes, which is merely another way of saying he thinks — thinks things through. 

And in these times, when at long last great numbers of our people are beginning to question the so-called "new morality" (which is neither new nor moral), his book could provide a needed buttress for that questioning. Besides, it will outlast by many decades the screeds of the "instant thinkers."

As an economist, Mr. Hazlitt is a practical man. As a moral philosopher, he understands the need for a rational basis for an ethical way of life. Contrary to modern "new morality" preachings, civilized man must have codes to live by; otherwise all is chaos and barbarism. Mr. Hazlitt traces most interestingly man's search for such codes throughout history, down to the present day. And between the Scylla of complete self-interest and the Charybdis of complete altruism, he reaches what he calls cooperatism — not the misnamed "social cooperation" of the socialist-communist state which imposes its dictators' brand of thinking on the people, but the sort of cooperation which flows naturally from men and women (as nearly as can be expected of fallible human beings) living by an individual ethical code which, being best for them, in the end is best for the whole society.

He puts it this way:

... social cooperation is the essence of morality. And morality, as we should constantly remind ourselves, is a daily affair, even an hourly affair, not just something we need to think about only in a few high and heroic moments. The moral code by which we live is shown every day, not necessarily in great acts of denunciation, but in refraining from little slights and meannesses, and in practicing little courtesies and kindnesses. Few of us are capable of rising to the Christian commandment to "love one another," but most of us can at least learn to be kind to one another — and for most earthly purposes this will do almost as well.

We found especially discerning Mr. Hazlitt's analysis of the moral or ethical bases of capitalism and socialism. He sees clearly that because capitalism promotes freedom, justice and productivity it has far more right to be called "social" (or "moral") than socialism which in its despotism actually promotes a code of immorality.

He cites, among other disciples of socialism, Lenin, who declared: "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like toward those who disagree with us."

We cannot begin to indicate the wide scope of this study, save to say that the author delves deeply into the relationship of ethics or morality to law, economics, equality and inequality, freedom, rights and even (bless him — could anything be more necessary these days?) to good manners!

The Foundations of Morality
Bettina Bien Greaves writing in The Freeman (June 1973):

The many contradictions among different philosophical theories have caused much confusion over the years. Unfortunately, too few teachers and textbooks explain the basic principles that could help students discriminate intelligently among them and understand the ethical code which fosters freedom, morality and social cooperation. Thus, Henry Hazlitt deserves special credit for bringing logic and clarity to the subject. His book, The Foundations of Morality, was first published in 1964. After having been out of print for several years, it is again available thanks to Nash and the Institute for Humane Studies.

The author is primarily an economist, a student of human action. As a result, he is a strong advocate of individual freedom and responsibility. He has long been a close personal friend and associate of Professor Ludwig von Mises, the "dean" of free market economics, to whom he acknowledges a great intellectual indebtedness. With this background, he is well qualified to discuss the ethics of social cooperation. His many years of "apprenticeship" as essayist, book reviewer and columnist (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Freeman, National Review and many others) prepared him well for explaining complex matters simply. The reader may wish to pause, ponder and reflect from time to time on the ideas and concepts presented, but the author's reasoning is clear, his prose unambiguous and most chapters delightfully short.

Mr. Hazlitt's position is that "the interests of the individual and the interests of society," when "rightly understood" are in harmony, not conflict. His goal in writing this book was "to present a 'unified theory' of law, morals and manners" which could be logically explained and defended in the light of modern economics and the principles of jurisprudence. This reviewer believes most readers will agree that Mr. Hazlitt succeeded. He has marshalled the ideas of many philosophers and analyzed them with careful logic. He has explained many of the contradictions among them, thus disposing of much confusion. He has formulated a consistent moral philosophy based on an understanding of ethical principles, so frequently ignored in today's "permissive" climate, which promote peaceful social cooperation and free enterprise production.

Mr. Hazlitt points out that our complex market economy requires peaceful and voluntary social cooperation. The preservation of the market is essential for large scale production and thus for the very survival of most of us. Therefore, social cooperation is the very most important means available to individuals for attaining their various personal ends. This means that social cooperation is also at the same time a well worthwhile goal. Let Mr. Hazlitt speak for himself.

For each of us social cooperation is of course not the ultimate end but a means. ... But it is a means so central, so universal, so indispensable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that there is little harm in regarding it as an end-in-itself, and even in treating it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely because none of us knows exactly what would give most satisfaction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best enables each of us to pursue his own ends.

Without social cooperation modern man could not achieve the barest fraction of the ends and satisfactions that he has achieved with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it.

The system of philosophy outlined in the book is a form of utilitarianism, "insofar as it holds that actions or rules of action are to be judged by their consequences and their tendency to promote human happiness." However, Mr. Hazlitt prefers a shorter term, "utilism," or perhaps "rule utilism" to stress the importance of adhering consistently to general rules. He suggests also two other possible names — "mutualism" or "cooperatism" — which he thinks more adequately reflect the central role of social cooperation in the ethical system described.

The criterion for judging the consistency or inconsistency of a specific rule or action with this ethical system is always whether or not it promotes social cooperation. Mr. Hazlitt reasons from the thesis that social cooperation is of benefit to everyone. Even those who might at times like to lie, cheat, rob or kill for personal short-run gain can usually be persuaded of the longer-run advantages of social cooperation, i.e., of refraining from lying, cheating, robbing or stealing.

Even the most self-centered individual, in fact, needing not only to be protected against the aggression of others, but wanting the active cooperation of others, finds it to his interest to defend and uphold a set of moral (as well as legal) rules that forbid breaking promises, cheating, stealing, assault, and murder, and in addition a set of moral rules that enjoin cooperation, helpfulness, and kindness. ...

The predominant moral code in a society is compared with language or "common law." Society does not impose a moral code on the individual. It is a set of rules, hammered out bit by bit over many centuries:

[O]ur moral rules are continuously framed and modified. They are not framed by some abstract and disembodied collectivity called "society" and then imposed on an "individual" who is in some way separate from society. We impose them (by praise and censure, approbation and disapprobation, promise and warning, reward and punishment) on each other, and most of us consciously or unconsciously accept them for ourselves. ...

This moral code grew up spontaneously, like language, religion, manners, law. It is the product of the experience of immemorial generations, of the interrelations of millions of people and the interplay of millions of minds. The morality of common sense is a sort of common law, with an indefinitely wider jurisdiction than ordinary common law, and based on a practically infinite number of particular cases. ... [T]he traditional moral rules ... crystallize the experience and moral wisdom of the race.

But what about religion, you say? Doesn't a moral code have to rest on a religious bases? The fundamental thesis of this book as noted, is that reason and logic are sufficient to explain and defend the code of ethics which fosters and preserves social cooperation. Yet, the author does not ignore religion. He calls attention to similarities among the world's great religions and the contradictions in some of them. Religion and morality reinforce one another very often, he says, although not always and not necessarily. Here is his description of their relationship:

In human history religion and morality are like two streams that sometimes run parallel, sometimes merge, sometimes separate, sometimes seem independent and sometimes interdependent. But morality is older than any living religion and probably older than all religion. ... [W]hile religious faith is not indispensable [to the moral code] ... , it must be recognized in the present state of civilization as a powerful force in securing the observance that exists. ...

The most powerful religious belief supporting morality, however, seems to me ... the belief in a God who sees and knows our every action, our every impulse and over every thought, who judges us with exact justice, and who whether or not He rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us for our evil ones, approves of our good deeds and disapproves of our evil ones. ...

Yet it is not the function of the moral philosopher, as such, to proclaim the truth of this religious faith or to try to maintain it. His function is, rather, to insist on the rational basis of all morality, to point out that it does not need any supernatural assumptions, and to show that the rules of morality are or ought to be those rules of conduct that tend most to increase human cooperation, happiness and well-being in this our present life.

Mr. Hazlitt discusses many perplexing ideas and concepts such as natural rights, natural law, justice, selfishness, altruism, right, wrong, truth, honesty, duty, moral obligation, free will vs. determinism, politeness, "white lies." Anyone who has speculated on these problems without reaching satisfactory conclusions, as has this reviewer, will no doubt find his analyses and comments both stimulating and enlightening.

The book contains numerous quotations from the works of early and recent philosophers, which the author always analyzes for their consistency with social cooperation. Except for a few technical philosophical terms — such as tautology (repetition of the same idea in different words),  eudaemonism (the doctrine that happiness is the final goal of all human action) and teleotic (an adjective derived from the Greek meaning end, design, purpose or final cause) — readers should not find anything in the book really difficult to understand. As they follow the author's line of thought, they will discover that reason and logic come to the defense of morality; order and a common sense ethical code evolve from philosophical chaos.

Mr. Hazlitt has long been a noted free market economist — one of the very best. His introductory Economics In One Lesson is a long-time best seller. The Failure of the New Economics, a careful critique of Keynes, is a real contribution to economic theory. With the publication of The Foundations of Morality in 1964, he added another very important feather to his cap as a moral philosopher. It is good to have it in print again.

To summarize, the author explains again and again, in the course of the book under review, that the rules of ethics are neither arbitrary nor illogical. They are not mere matters of opinion. They are workable, acceptable, moral rules developed over long periods of time. They must be adhered to consistently and may not be willfully violated without detriment to social cooperation. In this age of permissiveness, when everyone is encouraged "to do his own thing" and few see any urgency in respecting the rights of others, it is a rare philosopher who recognizes that the consistent adherence to a set of ethical rules promotes social cooperation and benefits everyone in society. Perhaps a free market economist, whose very field of study encompasses the role of social cooperation, is the most appropriate person to explain the logic of this position. This book should live through the centuries.

The above originally appeared online at Mises.org.

 

Have a Cold? How to Feel Better

Mark Sisson has penned what I would deem an excellent guide for treating the common cold.

No one likes a cold, and various colds of one origin or another are going around this winter season. One of the worst parts of the common cold is that it’s unpleasant enough to make daily life annoying but mild enough to force you to still go out into the world and maintain a normal schedule.

But you don’t want to have to do that. You don’t want to get anyone else sick, and you want to feel better—fast. How do you do it? How can you speed up your clearance of a cold, whether through actually expelling the virus from your body, getting rid of the symptoms, or both?

Let’s talk about that.

How to Feel Better Quickly When You Have a Cold

These are the basic, research-backed things to do when you have a cold and want to get over it fast.

• Get enough selenium
• Get enough zinc
• Eat a bunch of garlic
• Drink raw golden milk
• Try nasal irrigation
• Try povidone-iodine gargling and nasal rinsing
• Drink bone broth
• Eat spicy food

Get Enough Selenium

Almost every upper respiratory tract infection I’ve ever studied has selenium deficiency as an enhancing variable. Most viruses, for example, sequester selenium and utilize it to replicate and to weaken the host, leaving them wide open for further, deeper infection. The common cold is likely no different.

Eat Brazil nuts (one to three per day) and oysters and wild salmon. It is possible to overdo selenium, so don’t go overboard with supplementation. Just eat selenium-rich foods while you’re experiencing symptoms.

Get Enough Zinc

Zinc is the most important mineral for immune function, especially regarding upper respiratory tract infections. Depending on the virus, zinc has been shown to inhibit replication, lower binding, and block various physiological processes many viruses use to attack and ingratiate themselves with the host (you). And this isn’t just theoretical or based on cell culture studies. The best evidence we have shows that zinc supplementation reduces the duration of common colds in adults.1

Eat Lots of Garlic

Garlic is a potent superfood lurking in plain sight. Garlic and its components can improve immune function, reduce the occurrence of common colds, and block viral entry into host cells.234 If I feel a cold coming on, I’ll crush and dice up an entire head of garlic and lightly simmer it in a big mug of bone broth. I find I am usually able to ward off whatever’s headed my way. Of course, that’s just an anecdote and the available evidence is more equivocal.5

Drink Raw Golden Milk

Ayurveda is the traditional Indian system of medicine. Although talk of chakras and levitating gurus lets rational skeptics dismiss it entirely, modern science has vindicated many Ayurvedic therapies, herbs, and concepts. Golden milk is one, and it’s really simple. Add turmeric and black pepper (plus other spices) to milk and it turns gold. In Ayurveda, golden milk is used to fight sore throats, colds, and flus. Does it work?

Well, turmeric is absolutely rife with potent pharmacological effects. It may be able to relieve cough and clear up excess mucus, at least according to animal studies.67

Milk might actually be a bigger aid. Research has shown that a combo of two milk components—whey protein and lactoferrin—is able to reduce the incidence of the common cold in people.8 That was a concentrated supplement, however. Your standard glass of milk doesn’t have nearly as much whey or lactoferrin. Raw milk may be a better option, as it contains more lactoferrin than pasteurized milk, and raw whey provides more glutathione-boosting effects than heat-treated whey. To preserve these benefits, you’ll have to drink your golden milk unheated, of course. Here’s how I’d make it:

Fill a blender bottle with turmeric, black pepper, raw milk, and extra whey protein. Add a sweetener if you prefer. Shake vigorously. Drink. Maybe chase it with a lactoferrin or colostrum (the “first milk” that’s highest in lactoferrin) supplement.

Try Nasal Irrigation

In Sanskrit, “neti” means “nasal cleansing.” The neti pot is a exactly what it sounds like. You fill a tiny kettle with warm saline water, tilt your head over a sink, and pour the water into one nostril. It flows out the other one, clearing your nasal cavity and letting you breathe again. The scientific term is “nasal irrigation,” and it really does work against the worst part of a bad cold: the stuffy nose that keeps you up at night, gives you dry mouth, and makes food taste bland.9

Also, it’s better than antibiotics in kids with rhinosinusitis.10 It even improves symptoms in infants with bronchiolitis, another kind of viral infection.11

Gargling and Nasal Irrigation with 1% Povidone-Iodine

Make a 1% solution of povidone-iodine (1.5 tablespoons 10% povidone-iodine/betadine into 250 mL nasal irrigation bottle and fill the rest up with sterile/distilled water) and gargle with that at the first hint of a sore throat and spray it into your nasal passages. Betadine is intensely virucidal when applied topically. One study even found that COVID patients who gargled with 1% betadine had quicker clearance of the virus and its associated symptoms.12 Since the common cold is often a coronavirus, it’s also probably susceptible to betadine.

Worth a try.

Bone broth/chicken soup

People call it “Jewish penicillin,” and they’re not lying: evidence has confirmed that chicken soup eases nasal congestion, improves the function of the nasal cilia protecting us from pathogen incursions, and reduces cold symptoms.

Does it have to be chicken? As most cultures include soup in their list of effective cold remedies, I suspect it’s the goodness of the broth that’s important and any true bone broth-based soup will work. Hell, in a pinch pure collagen peptides might even do the trick, though I’d opt for the real bone broth if you can.

Spicy Food

Some people, when ill, swear that spicy food helps them “sweat it out.” Maybe, but a better bet lies in its effect on our nasal cavities. Capsaicin, the chili pepper component that produces a burning sensation in mammalian tissue, reduces nasal inflammation. When your nasal blood vessels are inflamed, the walls constrict; the space gets tighter and you have trouble breathing. Studies indicate that capsaicin is effective against most symptoms of nasal congestion.13

My Cold Remedies

The foundation for my resistance and response to upper respiratory tract infections isn’t any specific food or supplement, of course. It’s everything. It’s my sleep, my stress, my training, my play. And yes, my food. As I said about my experience with COVID, I’d been training for it my entire life. But it does happen to the best of us, and it’s the worst. We shouldn’t accept being sick. I never do.

I’ve mentioned my common cold medicine: an entire head (yes, a head) of crushed garlic lightly simmered in a mug of bone broth spiked with cayenne, hot sauce, or fresh chilies. If I feel a cold coming on, I’ll drop whatever I’m doing and prepare it. This is a potent combination of three of the cold-busting ingredients with the most support in the literature (broth, garlic, and spicy food). Lately, I’ve been including black garlic, a delicious fermented variety that tastes like molasses and has increased pharmacological activity.

If I have a sore throat, heating up and drinking a blend of lemon juice (lime works too), water, and raw honey in a 4:4:1 ratio always makes me feel better. I tend to use a wild neem honey harvested in India. I’m not sure if the bees feeding on neem makes a difference, though the plant does possess antiviral and immunomodulatory effects. I’ve also heard great things about black seed honey, made from bees who feed on the black cumin seed flowers.

I also use these zinc acetate lozenges recommended by Chris Masterjohn. If you ever feel a sore throat coming on, suck on these and let them dissolve in your mouth. Each one takes about 30 minutes to dissolve, but it really does help.

How do you folks beat colds? What do you do?

Thanks for reading, everyone.

The Truth About Mass Psychosis

Reading is one antidote. And if you're reading, it means you're already thinking. 

Let's hope and pray that folks can see all of the institutions in society as corrupt and corruptible from education to medicine to legal to farming and entertainment. They're all lying to us. Unfortunately, too many of us are okay with that kind of treatment. That's just one more shackle that we must dispose of.  Mass psychosis exists because no one trusts society's institutions to do right by them anymore.  So though mass psychosis seems like things are crazy, chaotic, and out of control, and they are, this is also the beginning of awareness and the start of an exit strategy from the matrix of corruption.  

Mass psychosis relies on rendering every individual anonymous.  It started with the hooded, dark-shade-wearing Unabomber, Ted Kazinsky.  Mr. Anonymous.  Then the kids in high schools all began wearing hoodies, with their faces and gaze recessed as far back in the hoodie as possible for maximum anonymity.  They didn't want to be called on in class.  They retreated to their rooms at home, the only place of solace from the collection of adults who've allowed their world to become so corrupt.

How many times have we heard someone say, "Oh, his ego is too big!"  Good, I say.  We need more individuality.  When people act on behalf of group identity, where the only personal ambition is some goal purportedly agreed-upon by and for the group, then society is doomed.  That is fascism.  Or communism.  

We hear of an alter ego, a bruised ego, stroke one's ego, or "Lee is on an ego trip" as if all of these experiences are bad.  All these say is that the listener or audience is upset that the man with the ego is invested in something he likes.  And the problem is?  We need more people to have an ego, and to not surrender identity to the crowd.  For example, I'm not a fan of LBGTQ's politics or their advocacy for surgical reassignment of gender, but I do kind of like their exuberance with personal identity.  It's just an identity that is outside of my wheelhouse.  It's nobody's business.  You live your life, and I'll live mine.  Let's call it mutual and peaceful respect.  So I don't like it when someone else tries to destroy another man's, or woman's, ego.  But it's baked into the language now that when we don't like someone else's exuberance, we complain to anyone who will listen to us that he's just "stroking his ego."  This kind of attack comes most often from unhappy folks.  It's envy.  

The psychology of the crowd, however, is the exact opposite: the crowd prefers anonymity, whereas the individual celebrates an ego, a personality, joie de vivre, a joy of conversation, a vitality of standing out, of expression.  It's like the dark, brooding, sulk of Antifa has become the mascot of modern-day life, our dark and brooding muse.  

2:35  Reese states that AP and Reuters claim that mass psychosis does not exist you should understand that these publications are the mouthpiece of the vaccine manufacturers.  James C. Smith, President and CEO of Thomson Reuters, was also a board member of Pfizer, the decision-making body.  So when Reuters promotes or defends vaccines, Smith engages in flagrant conflicts of interest.  Waging psychological warfare against a group of a population who believe that the media would never lie to them.  Though people know that the media news lies to them, they have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that the media news also lied about bodily integrity.  People find themselves in such a symbiotic relationship with media--love and hate, consolatory media, where they've settled for spoon-fed information rather than devote the time and work of reading, comparing, concluding, and revising for themselves, for the truth.  They're realizing that they've surrendered their stronger selves for those few delicious hours of storytime.  that flip side of their conclusion, of their belief, or tWhy would people believe that the media would lie?  Where do people watch their favorite shows?  Where do they binge-watch?  Who broadcasts their favorite football team home and away games in the cold northeast?  Why would these networks lie to people about a vaccine or any kind of medicine for that matter?  What I hear a lot from folks who've been vaccinated is a recitation of the lies told them by Fauci, Collins, Gates, CDC Director, Walensky, and other priests of the vaccines and you can hear the heartbreak at knowing the extent of their injuries. 

ARTICLES REFERENCED

Here is the Moosmosis article, "Psychology 101: Crowd Psychology and the Theory of Gustave Le Bon," cited in the video.   Here is their home page.  

"Psychology in Social Roles Today," Mosmosis.

“Pathological Subconsciousand Irrational Determinism in the Social Psychology of the Crowd: The Legacy of Gustave Lebon,” Gregory R. McGuire, Science Direct, 1987.

“Fearing the Masses: Gustave Le Bon and Some Undemocratic Roots of Modern Rhetorical Studies,” Jay P. Childers, Advances in the History of Rhetoric, March 2014.   

“How Does the Concept of Individualism Help Explain the Renaissance?” Staff Writer, Reference, March 25, 2020.  

"The Shadow: Carl Jung Warning to the World," Staff Writer, Eternalized: In the Pursuit of Meaning, October 1, 2021.

 

NIH ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: 89% of preclinical experiments can’t even be reproduced—which is fundamental to good science—resulting in an annual waste of $28 billion.

Good to see that PETA has been on the attack of Fauci and Collins for a while, for experiments like these.   

90% of studies on animals ultimately fail to produce viable medications for humans. Yet, half of NIH funding goes toward experiments on animals.  She said that animals are cheap, universities and agencies receive large amounts of funding to carry out these “experiments,” and most of them are done in secrecy.

Thanks to Martin Armstrong.  

(From PETA’s website: “To keep driving the message home, PETA supporters in giant blow-up dinosaur costumes have been following the president to various events carrying signs that read, ‘Biden: Don’t Appoint Another NIH Dinosaur.’”

PETA has finally spoken out against Dr. Fauci’s cruel experiments on beagle puppies. When the news was first released, the agency was banning anyone who tweeted them about Fauci, but now, PETA is calling upon the Biden Administration to fire all National Institute of Health heads. Although PETA certainly has [its] own extremist views on other topics, they are making valid points about how utterly unnecessary these very expensive tests have been.

PETA Vice President Kathy Guillermo appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show in 2019 and explained how 90% of studies on animals ultimately fail to produce viable medications for humans. Yet, half of NIH funding goes toward experiments on animals. She said that animals are cheap, universities and agencies receive large amounts of funding to carry out these “experiments,” and most of them are done in secrecy.

Newsmax directly asked Guillermo if she thought Fauci should resign, and without hesitation, she said, “Yes!” As a reminder, the Food and Drug Administration does not require animal testing to pass new drugs. PETA has raised the flag and called for NIH Francis Collins to resign for conducting similarly cruel experiments. Fauci’s experiments “amounted to lies,” and Guillermo is now calling on Americans to urge President Biden to remove Fauci from office.

Billions of taxpayer dollars are going toward these experiments that have not produced any significant improvements toward human life. PETA’s page to remove Collins notes, “Eighty-nine percent of preclinical experiments can’t even be reproduced—which is fundamental to good science—resulting in an annual waste of $28 billion.” An annual waste of $28 billion is beyond alarming. Fauci has moved on to testing drug concoctions on humans, and we need to wake up and realize that we have become the new sample group.