New York in July, 1973. What a trip. A week with a buddy on Long
Island, and then off to the NFB convention in down town New York
City. Hot and muggy, we cranked up the AC and turned on the large TV.
The first five minutes of news carried reports of all the local
murders. Later that night we went out to "look around". I told my
wife(Trish, not Cathy)that at midnight the streets of New York had
more people walking around, than in Seattle on a Saturday at noon.
It was an experience and a half.
New York was vastly more exciting than any other city I've ever
visited. And that includes nearly all of the major cities in America.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/13/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
We're all very different and our backgrounds and experiences are different.
I suppose that growing up in New York City gives me a prospective that most
people on most of the email lists, just don't have. Remember, my father was
a factory worker. But I remember eating out with my parents when I was a
child, in a restaurant where a violinist moved from table to table,
serenading the customers in turn. I learned how to appreciate eating raw
oysters on the half shell while I was still a child. There were still a few
restaurants on Long Island, near where I lived, where one could find very
fine food, up until about 2005 or so. But that really fine dining has long
disappeared for those of us who aren't part of the wealthy elite. It's just
gone, as is good quality clothing. People with low or moderate incomes could
find it if they really looked in Manhattan, a long time ago. One could still
buy decent stuff in the 90's. I could buy really nice clothing from catalogs
from certain stores without even traveling to the stores. That's gone. You
can buy lots of stuff on the internet, but the quality isn't the same.
People have become acclimated. It's like the frog in the pot of water that
is slowly brought to a boil. He'll die before he realizes how hot the water
has become.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 1:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Article on face masks
Actually I don't disagree with you, Miriam. And I don't know if any of
today's restaurants have such a dress code. It's been a long number of
years since I dropped into a fine restaurant. Until the lock down, we would
go to the Point Casino on Saturday, for the Crab/Lobster buffet. Once in a
while we would take one of our grand daughters to either the Red Lobster or
the Olive Garden in Silverdale.
Decent prices and decent food and charming service...and no tie required.
But now? It's a break in our routine when we scoot into Sequim and pick up
a Pizza from Pappa Murphy's.
Fortunately I have had the good fortune of 40 years being married to a woman
who is half Italian and half German, raised in a family of cooks where
everything begins with, "home made" .
But I was raised at the tailend of a far more polite generation.
Dressing up was the norm for most families. Going out to dinner?
Going to the movies? Going to take a train or bus? All required dressing
up. And we were taught to address our elders as, Mister and Missus. Ma'am
and Sir were also still in common use.
Even in the mid 70's when I first went to work for the State, were told to
"use first names whenever possible. It makes you seem more like one of the
group."
Back in those days I would say to a client who called me Mister Jarvis, "I'm
Carl. When you say Mister Jarvis, I look around for my dad".
Carl Jarvis
On 8/13/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know if there are restaurants that still do that. But there
were, and I went to them with a variety of people for years and years,
and there was nothing snobbish about them. There was a nice atmosphere
with people dressed up for the occasion because they were going to a
restaurant that served unusually fine food. This is precisely the same
conversation that took place on the BARD Talk list a few days ago. It
is, I suppose, the resentment of people in certain parts of the
country against people who live on the coasts in urban centers. But
you don't have to be rich to recognize that there is value in
education, that books can be beautifully written or not, and that eating a
beautifully prepared meal is a wonderful experience.
When you can see, a restaurant with lovely decor and people dressed in
their finery is a pleasurable experience.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Article on face masks
Okay, so it was a bad example. Come to think of it, I've never even
been met at the door of any restaurant I could afford, and told I'd need a
tie.
That sort of greeting would cause me to instantly lose my appetite.
My friends all referred to me as, "that cheapskate Jarvis". Maybe so,
but by tucking that money aside I'm in better health than any of
them...those still living...and enjoying this home on ten acres. But
I chuckle and tell a few Jack Benny jokes, and take them out on the
deck to listen to the sound of leaves falling...and crickets
chirping...and frogs singing...and, if they listen very carefully they
can even hear the clouds bumping against one another.
Ah...Paradise!
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/20, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
If I showed up at a restaurant and was told that I had to wear a tie
to get in I would realize that I had made a very serious mistake in
choosing a dining establishment, but I would correct that mistake
immediately by turning around and walking away and by never again
going near that joint. Anyway, I am reminded of when Richard Nixon
went to China. I was watching the coverage on television and there
was an American reporter standing on the side of a broad street in
Beijing.
Hoards of people were riding past him on bicycles and every single
one of those people was wearing a white mask that covered the lower
half of their faces. The reporter explained that it was the custom to
wear these masks as a precaution against spreading colds. Apparently
the Chinese have been used to these masks for a long time now.
___
Carl Sagan
“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense
of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is,
those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos
centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of
superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those
with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos,
even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices,
will penetrate its deepest mysteries.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
On 8/12/2020 1:00 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Mister Patrick Wood, I tried, I really tried to read your
drivel, I've seldom seen someone dragging red herring behind them,
while they beat up on Straw men. You go off dragging and grunting
all about
science and pseudoscience, while we are concerned with the rising
numbers of people contacting COVID-19, and what we can do to slow it
down or eradicate it. . We are learning of serious complications
suffered buy some who contact this virus. What we want is to know
what is working and what is not working.
Masks seem to block the spray from our breath, so some of us are
promoting it. Call it what you will, it still is one piece of
prevention. Washing our hands in approved solutions seems to be a
good idea, too. Until we know for certain how this virus is spread,
we need to take all the safe practices that we can. When the Fox
breaks into the Hen House, the Hens do not debate whether they
should use science or pseudo science as protection from the Foxes,
the hens just follow chicken logic and begin yelling their heads
off. There may be better techniques with fancy names, but squawking
is the one method they know. We're doing the best we can, while you
go about undermining our efforts, even to the point of questioning
the constitutionality of insisting people wear masks. It's not
found in the Constitution. Nor is wearing clothes, or driving the
speed limits, or stopping at red lights, or dumping your poop pots
in the gutter. Many of our laws and regulations are set in place to
protect people as best we can. While we can't regulate carelessness
or greed, we can establish controls. It's no different than if you
show up at a fine restaurant and are told that you must have a tie
in order to gain entrance. That's not in the constitution either.
Nor is the dog leash law. Nor is running down the street in nothing
but your undershorts. We've had such regulations from our very
beginnings as a nation. So why are you trashing our efforts to
protect ourselves now?
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/20, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I rarely forward an e-mail from another list but I just wanted you
folks to see what kind of dribble folks are trying to peddle. The
far right is trading national safety for a few misguided votes.
This is sad stuff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Blind exchange and discussion <BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Rovin Customer
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:02 AM
To: BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Article on face masks
Hello people, Ed Lopez back here. It has been a while sense I have
been on this list. Here is an article on face masks you may want
to read very carefully. Before anybody goes on this rave about
face masks, read this first.
The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing
And Contact Tracing POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1033SC ON JUNE 19, 2020
In a great suppression of free speech, technocrats working the
COVID-19 pandemic are shaming, ridiculing, bullying and
marginalizing anyone who questions their pseudo-science and
shifting positions. The state-mandated wearing of face masks,
social distancing and contact tracing are all unconstitutional and
in some cases, illegal.
By Patrick Wood, June 2020
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included
the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe,
etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners
called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new
things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no
primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups
or even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a
discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed
and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then
they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control
other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the
entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued
pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories,
assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” The
Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or
practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of
Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those
promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social
engineering goals. The solution was
simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real
science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to
the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the
three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social
distancing and contact tracing.
Face masks
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website
plainly states
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html> that cloth
face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne
transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal
or inadequate filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they
“will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible
infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate
filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled
by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html>,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear
face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent
wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without
knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic)
from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others.
This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) recommendation
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/clo
t h-face-cover.html> for all people to wear cloth face coverings
when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face
coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks,
conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such
as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is
needed most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but
it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you?
OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls
“source control”
likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the
source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific
rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health
Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a
compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various
nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems
to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits
onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight
at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also
furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’
and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic
transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small
subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively
repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s
justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the
entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific
idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected
neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose
Serious Risks To The Healthy,
<https://technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to
- the-healthy/> he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that
wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in
preventing the spread of this virus.”
(Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of
face masks for preventing disease,
States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by
all citizens when outside their home Large and small companies are
forcing their employees to wear masks People at large are scared to
death to not wear a face mask for fear of getting sick or being
mask-shamed by others if they take it off.
Breath Is Vital To Life
Many people believe that face masks lower the percentage of oxygen
available for inhaling because you rebreathe much of your exhausted
breath.
However,
a face mask itself does not retain a significant amount of your
exhaled breath since most of it is exhaled through the mask into
the open atmosphere. Furthermore, when you inhale, most of the air
delivered to your lungs comes from outside the mask.
The real science is much more complicated than the amount of
residual air contained within a face mask.
The real problem with breathing through a mask is that the lungs
and chest muscles must exert a lot of extra energy to inhale and
exhale.
In other words, you must work harder to breathe the same amount of
fresh air that you would normally breathe without a mask.
For this reason, those who already have impaired lung functions,
minor as they may be, should never wear a mask unless it is for a
specific purpose for a very short period of time. The older you
are, especially those over 70, lung capacity and muscle strength
decline rapidly.
This writer has already encountered several retail store employees,
forced by their employers to wear a face mask during work hours,
who exhibit symptoms like headache, shortness of breath or dizziness.
When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every
single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.
Workers with the most physically demanding jobs are the most likely
to exhibit these kind of symptoms. Other considerations are age,
any preexisting conditions of the lungs (like pleurisy, COPD,
chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, etc.) or chest muscles and factors
like poor physical condition and obesity. Actually, any
debilitating health condition should be a red flag. In other words,
those who are prone to get winded without a face mask will
immediately be at a disadvantage when wearing a mask. The net
effect is that the lungs receive less fresh air with vital oxygen
even as the body is under more physical stress.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of
face masks should be required to do two things: first, they should
carefully consider each employee as an individual to determine
their suitability for wearing a mask. All factors mentioned above
should be included, and in any case, no one should be required to
wear a mask if it puts too much stress on their lungs.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face
masks for all citizens in public places. They have fallen prey to
pseudo-science and are now putting entire populations at risk for
physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.
In sum, lung strength, physical condition, age, pre-existing
conditions, physical demands of the job, etc., should all be
carefully considered by all. A blanket statement that all employees
or all citizens should wear face masks it wholly inappropriate.
Social Distancing
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are
driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all
times.
This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial
establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and
shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain,
Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence
- support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/>
(UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.”
Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support
the disastrous two-metre rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in
support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might
sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer
from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.
Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember
previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look
back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they
stood from others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported
specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These
studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26
actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific
distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index
patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting
Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the
review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical
mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over
distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in
the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to
replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not
to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail
economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social
beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression,
anxiety and even serious health consequences.
Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It
is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like
Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like
chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective
only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during
the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious
disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn.
Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact
tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging
contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000
tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/cont
a ct-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html>
“Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/cont
a ct-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact>
(any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15
minutes)
of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15
minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for
asymptomatic patients,
2
days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is
isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information
will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be
instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person
could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could
be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in
Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record
the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue
who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to
social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no
effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points:
first,
the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make
tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining
a “contact”
is
bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for
a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing
a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over
people.
Conclusion
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of
pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks,
social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science
points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed,
ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the
ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to
curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control
people.
Moreover,
they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back
as
1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute
goods and services to the entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand
the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and
mandates.
Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive
to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous
to personal liberty.