Tuesday, December 08, 2009

"...we need a lot more people to just straight up say "good job" so that people continue doing stuff..."


Knight Flyerer




thanks [redacted], we need a lot more people to just straight up say "good job" so that people continue doing stuff, plus people like me have more room to say "we can do even better" and how. otherwise there's no balance and i may come across like an a--hole. i'm not, but if people can find a way to feel that way, then they have an excuse to ignore me or be lazy on their own, so it happens.

i suggest keeping track of our efforts so we can leverage them beyond squeezing a few seconds into the mass media. that works, but it can work better if we can show others how we worked on it later. otherwise most people watching mainstream TV anyway will quickly jump back into their ELF radiation bath and the next chunk of propaganda will boot the facts out of their heads again.

while it's fun to play "tag" with the media and slip some "truth" in, it's not going to work on it's own outside of satisfying us. in this little game of anti-NWO chess, all they have to do is make us happy enough to stop thinking to beat us. they can do that to both civilians and the conspirienced. yes we can be happy, but we have to think about how to make more of an impact with our time.

we should also always be making suggestions and helping each other improve each others efforts. for years i've been discussing how we're all being turned into children who need "approval" for everything we do, or unconditional, un-critical and un-thinking love. see all the people who need to get their individual (fashion, relationship, etc.) decisions validated by others to feel okay with them.

the problem is eventually we all get so thin-skinned that constructive criticism makes us cry. you can see it happening now. we have to realize that we get hundreds of things right and wrong each day with all our small decisions, so it's no big deal. a mistake doesn't make you a bad person, etc. when it comes to beating the new world order, either we'll get better and do it, or we won't.

imho, more people need to start posting on this listserve. there are 200 of the 281 on the mailing list, enough to warrant a few emails a day. we're all taught to hate "spam" more than child poverty, but if we think emails that help us work on beating the new world order are "spam", then maybe we signed up to the wrong listserve. seriously. we don't have to post right now. but soon.

we should avoid our trained pavlovian 'angry' response to lots of emails. it's what killed all the "9/11 truth" and other forwards years ago that could've saved us by now. i remember getting emails with the "folded US $20 bill" or "building 7" clips, they were pretty popular until "spam!" became public enemy # 1. right now, too many are too scared to communicate for fear of offending others.

toronto truthseekers who listen and speak wisely should work to change that. instead of just forwarding a random link with nothing else, why not try describing it in a sentence or two so others are inclined to look at it. we should also have an articles section so people can organize their thoughts, especially their local ones about the city that we're trying to get people awake enough to save.

finally, if people are having trouble getting motivated to work on stuff, we know why. the new world order is sapping our strength in a million ways, but if we give up now, soon we won't have any left. people often ask where i get my energy, so i put my philosophy into a document that's based on my research plus a lot of advice i've given that's worked for years. please check it out if you'd like.

The Planifesto: 2009 Survival Strategy



fyi, from [redacted] last i checked, the website where i found it and the article are below.

there's no doubt in my mind that the thousands of flyers and dvd's we gave away helped.

if there's any doubt in anyone else's mind, tell them to come up with a better solution.

unless they can, then we know what to do right now while always thinking of more.




H1N1 pandemic ending with a whimper, not a bang

By Sharon Kirkey, Canwest News Service
December 4, 2009

Pic: A masked girl sits with a classmate at a kindergarten in a residential estate in Hong Kong on Jun. 11, 2009.

With H1N1 poised to enter history as the least deadly of four global flu pandemics, some experts are calling for an end to Canada's mass vaccination program.

Nature is already achieving what we would hope to achieve by vaccinating, they say.

H1N1's "reproductive number" — the number of people each infected person passes the virus to — was above one when the epidemic began, which led to the explosive initial increase in cases.

Now it is less than one, because many people have become immune, and each old case is making less than one new case. When the reproductive number falls below one, the epidemic can't sustain itself, and fades away.

The drop in cases suggests Canada has hit the critical fraction of the population that needs to be vaccinated to control the pandemic, says Dr. David Fisman, a University of Toronto expert in infectious disease dynamics.

Fisman can't understand the rational for continuing mass vaccinations. He said that for a virus as contagious as H1N1, fewer than 30 per cent of the population needed vaccination to reach a critical level of immunity.

"I'm sure that the vaccine has prevented some deaths. I'm sure that there are people who are alive right now who would not have been alive if we hadn't vaccinated," he says. But the pandemic was already peaking, and then subsiding before the vaccination was rolling out in force.

"That's nobody's fault, that's just how long it took to make a vaccine against a brand new virus. Those were the cards we were dealt," says Fisman, an associate professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Despite that view, Canada's top doctor this week pleaded with Canadians to get vaccinated if they have not already done so. Chief public health officer David Butler-Jones said that, while 30 per cent of the population is now immune to H1N1, either because they have been vaccinated or because they have already been infected, "millions" of people are still at risk of infection.

Someone vaccinated today may be protected against infection two weeks from now, "if there is still enough of (H1N1) kicking around," Fisman says. But the benefit diminishes the further into the future we go, and he says other public health programs have suffered as staff and resources were redeployed to the H1N1 campaign. In some jurisdictions, breastfeeding support programs, sexually transmitted diseases clinics and other usual activities were cancelled or postponed as public health was forced to bear the brunt of delivering the largest immunization program in Canada's history.

"At this point, in terms of saying everybody must get vaccinated because there is a pandemic abroad, it's kind of done," Fisman says.

H1N1 will likely die out with a death rate lower than that for regular seasonal flu.

Harvard University infectious disease expert Marc Lipsitch is pegging H1N1's case fatality rate — the proportion of people infected with a disease who die of it — at less than 0.1 per cent, placing human swine flu in a category 1 pandemic, the lowest level of severity for a worldwide disease outbreak. Swine flu's case fatality rate is less than what was seen for the three worldwide flu outbreaks in the 20th century: 1918, 1957 and 1968.

Unless the virus mutates, and there is no strong sign H1N1 is becoming noticeably different, "it's almost certainly going to be the mildest of the four (pandemics) that we have good data on," says Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health.

When the World Health Organization declared the pandemic in June, officials warned the rogue virus threatened all of humanity. The reality is so far proving strikingly different from what was expected.

The world agency, and Canada, had done their pandemic planning with a different flu virus in mind. They spent five years watching H5N1, or "bird flu," which kills up to 60 per cent of those it infects.

We got off lucky when the real pandemic hit, WHO says, but the public doesn't always understand that.

"Adjusting public perceptions to suit a far less lethal virus has been problematic," WHO said in a statement Thursday, issued in response to media reports that ties with the drug industry among expert advisers may have influenced WHO's policy decisions related to H1N1.

"Given the discrepancy between what was expected and what has happened, a search for ulterior motives on the part of WHO and its scientific advisers is understandable, though without justification.

"WHO has consistently assessed the impact of the current influenza pandemic as moderate. WHO has consistently reminded the medical community, public and the media that the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild influenza-like illness and recover fully within a week, even without any form of medical treatment."

But some critics say WHO set itself up for blame.

"They had been talking for years about the possibility of some kind of reprise of the 1918 pandemic," says Philip Alcabes, author of Dread: How Fear and Fantasy Have Fueled Epidemics from the Black Death to the Avian Flu. "A huge amount of money and person power was devoted to preparing" for the next outbreak, he says.

But, "there was never any evidence, not from Day 1, and not anytime since, that this strain of flu was going to be a particularly dangerous strain, either in terms of its capacity to make people sick or its capacity to kill people," says Alcabes, associate professor in urban public health at Hunter College's School of Health Sciences in the City University of New York.

"Yet that's the story that's always been told, almost every single day since it appeared in April. 'We don't know what's going to happen.' Essentially, 'the sky might fall.'"

Lipsitch, of Harvard, says that when the first reports were coming out of Mexico, the case fatality rate estimates were as high as four per cent, which is twice the rate for the 1918 Spanish flu.

"If you don't know how bad your enemy is, you plan as if it's bad, and you hope that you're over-planning. In this case, that's exactly what was done," he says.

"I think the response has been appropriate for what we knew at each stage, but what we know has changed, because the data gets better."


© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


Toronto Truth Seekers (TTS)




Post a Comment

<< Home