MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Day of Shame: US House Approved $2 Trillion Everything Bailout on a Voice Vote – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 1, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/david-stockman/day-of-shame-us-house-approves-2-trillion-everything-bailout-on-a-voice-vote/

By

David Stockman’s Contra Corner

Did we say it’s getting stupid crazy down there in the Imperial City?

Well, we probably have….ad infinitum. And we are doing so again but not merely owing to today’s abomination in the once and former Peoples’ House, which thinks so little of its oath to defend the constitution and the rights of current and future taxpayers that it approved the $2 trillion Everything Bailout without even a roll call vote.

Then again, like the late night TV pitchman says – wait, there’s more!

Consider the chart below, which surely the Fed heads have not. To wit, it took the Fed 85 years after its doors opened in 1914 to print enough money to fund a $600 billion balance sheet.

It wasn’t exactly the Ohio State offense – three yards and a cloud of dust – which accomplished this. But it was pretty close – even including Greenspan’s first years at the helm. Between the famous Treasury Accord in 1951, under which the Fed was liberated from Treasury-ordered yield pegging, and 1999, its balance sheet grew at a modest 5.2% per annum.

And, by your way, the Fed’s relative stinginess with the printing press was a great big no nevermind. Real GDP grew at 3.4% per annum over that near half-century period, and real median family income more than doubled from $35,000 to $74,000.

We are pondering the number “$600 billion” today because its capsulizes the insanity loose in the Imperial City. What took 95 years to accomplish in the purportedly benighted 20th century, has now taken just five days!

You truly cannot make this stuff up. The Fed has purchased $622 billion of USTs and MBS since March 19th, meaning that its balance sheet has expanded from $4.75 trillion last Thursday evening to $5.372 trillion last night….

The rest here

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Biggest Fraud in History Is Happening Right Before Our Eyes – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 1, 2020

The worst case of abuse of the truth concerning this virus has been in Italy where over 88% of alleged deaths due to coronavirus were misattributed. In other words, 9 out of every 10 deaths in Italy stated as due to coronavirus are likely false. For more information about the Italian scam, see these links here, here, here, and here.

This is about power and money, lots of money.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/gary-d-barnett/the-biggest-fraud-in-history-is-happening-right-before-our-eyes/

By

“When I consider Life, ’tis all a cheat;
Yet, fooled with hope, men favour the deceit;
Trust on, and think to-morrow will repay:
To-morrow’s falser than the former day;
Lies worse; and while it says, we shall be blest
With some new joys, cuts off what we possesst.” 

~ John Dryden, Aureng-Zebe

More and more evidence is forthcoming daily that this new coronavirus called Covid-19, is not only being blown out of proportion, but is purposely being manipulated to show many more deaths than are actually caused by this mystery virus. In some cases, as in Italy, the so-called current epicenter of this falsely identified pandemic, the obvious deception is easy to identify, but it goes on none the less; this due to the perpetrators of this fraud understanding that fear sells, and allows for the unimpeded ease of population control. This is partially due to a weakness of mind, but also to the fact that the American public is no longer independent and free, but is beholding to the state as guardian of the flock. 

Much of the hype surrounding this ordeal has been refuted, and those responsible for making magnificent and unsubstantiated death claims early on have not only backed off, but have ratcheted down their initial warnings exponentially. This was done quietly and without fanfare of course, unlike their mass fear mongering, but nonetheless their claims were patently false. This is why the continued tyranny due to this hype is so ridiculous, as the false basis for the initial fear has been exposed, but the political class and its media continue on as if their lies were not noticed. In the meantime, millions of Americans are without a job, without savings, and without any way to support their families, all due to forcible government interference into their lives in the name of “safety.” The economy was shut down, and is still shut down, with no apparent end in sight.

The salacious headlines continue, and read as if Armageddon is already here, but by some legitimate estimates, the actual numbers being reported of death due to this virus could be ten times too high. There should be no doubt at this point that this entire episode of viral panic has either been purposely staged, or used to accomplish nefarious political agendas, or both. All this for a pneumonia-like sickness that is minor compared to the common flu, but a very convenient tool if control of the masses is sought.

Much of this began due to governments’ around the world, especially in the U.S. and UK, listening to one man, a supposed coronavirus “expert,” Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson. He projected 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. and over 500 thousand in the UK if extreme actions were not taken. After the first day of the UK lockdown, he lowered those estimates by a factor of 25 down to 20,000. After this was properly scrutinized, he made a statement in an attempt to cover his own incompetence, but was not successfully in my opinion. But did things change after his fraudulent model was exposed; a model used to close down entire countries? Of course not, because that would never fit the agenda sought by the ruling class.

The worst case of abuse of the truth concerning this virus has been in Italy where over 88% of alleged deaths due to coronavirus were misattributed. In other words, 9 out of every 10 deaths in Italy stated as due to coronavirus are likely false. For more information about the Italian scam, see these links here, here, here, and here. If things continue as of late, the U.S. will be the next country to completely shut down, claiming death numbers that are also extremely misleading, and in fact could be outright lies.

Much of the economic damage is already done, and the continued devastation due to the extreme measures taken under the guise of protecting all of us will linger for an unknown amount of time. GDP in this country is estimated to fall 35% in just the second quarter alone, but with much of the economy completely destroyed, and possible unemployment up to 30% or more, even when these restrictions are lifted, the damage already done will prove to be unbearable. With this comes extreme psychological problems as well, and sickness and despair at every level will not only increase, but will be deadly. When all is said and done, this virus will seem tame compared to the horrible consequences of the state’s version of a cure.

The next menacing government threat of this plotted response is coming, and that is a coronavirus vaccine that will be demanded or even forced on the public. As the screws of surveillance and control get ever tighter, mandated vaccinations are in our future. Long after this virus has disappeared, the vaccines will still be with us, and most likely very dangerous. First, vaccines are questionable when all is done correctly, and over a long period of time, but a coronavirus vaccine is already being tested. Vaccines normally need at least 18 months or more to be tested properly before being used on the public. The risks and potential side effects could be deadly, and certainly could cause much harm. Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing called the government and the CDC. False claims about this new vaccination coming will abound, but caution is warranted.

This is about power and money, lots of money. Pharmaceutical companies, the CDC, and those like Bill Gates and his ilk, stand to make fortunes, and with mandates for vaccination, also will have a seemingly endless market, all due to government interference and enforcement. This is a dream for these evil people and corporations, and safety is the last order of business in a fiasco like the one unfolding.

Fear and panic have driven this monstrous response, and although government and the mainstream media knowingly fed this fear from all angles, the people at large accepted the fraud hook, line, and sinker. As I have mentioned many times previously, the death toll from the state response of shutting down the country, isolating people and families, forcing those most at risk into seclusion which is the equivalent to a death penalty, and destroying the economic activity that sustains the lives of all will certainly be responsible for many more deaths than the so-called threat of any virus. The toll on Americans from this madness perpetrated by government will be the real pandemic, and one that will continue for years to come. What a travesty, and what an exposé on the horrendous and vile nature of government and media today. Evil is as evil does, and government’s evil deeds during this manufactured crisis have laid bare the wickedness that is the political system and its criminal representatives at every level of rule.

The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.
~ Ludwig von Mises, Chapter III: Etatism

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

For Autocrats, Coronavirus Is a Chance to Grab Even More Power

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2020

As the new laws broaden state surveillance, allow governments to detain people indefinitely and infringe on freedoms of assembly and expression, they could also shape civic life, politics and economies for decades to come.

In the United States, the Justice Department asked Congress for sweeping new powers, including a plan to eliminate legal protections for asylum seekers and detain people indefinitely without trial.

New York, Kalifornia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Utah, Louisiana…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/for-autocrats-coronavirus-is-a-chance-to-grab-even-more-power/ar-BB11V0cS

Selam Gebrekidan

LONDON — In Hungary, the prime minister can now rule by decree. In Britain, ministers have what a critic called “eye-watering” power to detain people and close borders. Israel’s prime minister has shut down courts and begun an intrusive surveillance of citizens. Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections.

As the coronavirus pandemic brings the world to a juddering halt and anxious citizens demand action, leaders across the globe are invoking executive powers and seizing virtually dictatorial authority with scant resistance.

Governments and rights groups agree that these extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. States need new powers to shut their borders, enforce quarantines and track infected people. Many of these actions are protected under international rules, constitutional lawyers say.

But critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak and have few safeguards to ensure that the new powers will not be abused.

 

The laws are taking swift hold across a broad range of political systems — in authoritarian states like Jordan, faltering democracies like Hungary, and traditional democracies like Britain. And there are few sunset provisions to ensure that the powers will be rescinded once the threat passes.

“We could have a parallel epidemic of authoritarian and repressive measures following close if not on the heels of a health epidemic,” said Fionnuala Ni Aolain, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights.

As the new laws broaden state surveillance, allow governments to detain people indefinitely and infringe on freedoms of assembly and expression, they could also shape civic life, politics and economies for decades to come.

Slideshow by photo services

The pandemic is already redefining norms. Invasive surveillance systems in South Korea and Singapore, which would have invited censure under normal circumstances, have been praised for slowing infections. Governments that initially criticized China for putting millions of its citizens under lockdown have since followed suit.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has authorized his country’s internal security agency to track citizens using a secret trove of cellphone data developed for counterterrorism. By tracing people’s movements, the government can punish those who defy isolation orders with up to six months in prison. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why I Love Price Gouging–and Why You Should Too | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2020

There is a photo (that I did not save) from a Scandinavian store that charges a decent price for the first item but the second of the same thing is 10X more.

Everyone is a winner.

https://mises.org/power-market/why-i-love-price-gouging-and-why-you-should-too

Joseph T. Salerno

Yesterday I went looking to buy hand soap—not hand sanitizer, but regular old hand soap—in 7.5 ounce pump dispensers.  As you can see from the photo above, I found the shelves at my local Winn-Dixie supermarket completely bare.   In lieu of the soap, I encountered a large sign that read, in part: “Please BE KIND to one another and limit yourself only to what you really need at this time.”  Alas, the sign did not work and never really had a chance.  For it was in direct conflict with the more powerful smaller signs advertising the prices of the different brands of hand soap for $1.29 and $1.99 per dispenser.   These signs did work—to encourage people to buy and hoard large quantities of the item.  Had the smaller signs displayed much higher prices, say $10.29 and $10.99 or tenfold the actual prices, there would have been enough soap on the shelves to permit me and anyone else to purchase hand soap to our heart’s content.  Of course at those prices I would have been content with one or two bottles rather than the fifteen or twenty  I was planning to buy and hoard.  Furthermore, not only would higher prices have spared me the time and energy of going  elsewhere in my search for soap but it would also have spared me the irritation of reading that absurd sign.

soap
Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Those Yang Republicans – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2020

If Republicans were honest, they would say things like:….

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/laurence-m-vance/those-yang-republicans/

By

Andrew Yang, the son of immigrants from Taiwan, is a lawyer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist who founded the nonprofit organization Venture for America (VFA) in 2011. Yang left the organization in 2017 and filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on November 6 to run for president of the United States. Although Yang participated in seven of the first eight Democratic presidential debates, on February 11, 2020, shortly after the New Hampshire primary, he suspended his presidential campaign. A week later he joined CNN as a political commentator.

Yang’s main campaign focus was how the federal government should respond to the increasing automation of the economy. According to Yang2020:

I’m proud of the work I did at VFA. But during my time there, it became clear to me that job creation will not outpace the massive impending job loss due to automation.

So I went to Washington, and I visited Congressional leaders. I presented them with the hard facts. 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, 40% cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill, and so many live one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. A wave of automation is coming that will displace even more American jobs. I asked, “What will our government do?”

And here is what he thinks the federal government should do:

As president, my first priority will be to implement the big solutions America needs to get back on track. To start, I’d enact the Freedom Dividend: $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for every American 18 and older, paid for by a new tax on the companies benefiting most from automation.

Republicans baulked at Yang’s idea, just like they have generally run from other universal basic income (UBI) proposals. However, this does not mean that they oppose on principle the government giving Americans cash in their pocket.

The federal government twice under President George W. Bush—with overwhelming Republican support—sent Americans money.

In 2001, as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the federal government sent a $300 check to single individuals and $600 to married couples.

In 2008, under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the federal government sent a $600 check to single individuals and $1,200 to married couples. Taxpayers with children eligible for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) received an additional $300 per dependent child.

And just recently—with practically unanimous Republican support—Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or “CARES Act.” Amid hundreds of pages of pork, it directs the federal government to send checks (or make direct deposits) of $1,200 to single individuals and $2,400 to married couples. Taxpayers with children eligible for the child credit will receive an additional $500 per dependent child.

If Republicans were honest, they would say things like:

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a public health crisis.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when they need it.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy needs a stimulus.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a pandemic.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when unemployment claims drastically increase.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is an economic downturn.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except in extenuating circumstances.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there are severely distressed sectors of the U.S. economy.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the economy collapses.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a recession.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when many Americans need economic relief.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a financial panic.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when the stock market tanks.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when there is a depression.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when Americans are hurting.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when certain industries need a bailout.

It is wrong for the federal government to give Americans money—except when Republicans vote to do so.

None of these Republican-supported government handouts should be viewed as surprising. Republicans have for decades supported the federal government giving Americans money in the form of welfare. Indeed, we already have a universal basic income in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that Republicans wholeheartedly support and increase every year.

Republicans have no philosophical objection to the federal government giving Americans cold hard cash. Don’t be surprised if round two of the CARES Act results in more checks to Americans, amidst all the pork it will contain, courtesy of the Republicans.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

Before I respond to this, one point of clarification is essential. From a Rothbardian perspective, the whole issue dissolves at once. If you have a right to certain property, then it can’t be taken away from you and that is that. Rights cannot be taken away from you because total wealth would go up if they were. Readers won’t be surprised that this is my own view, but here I’m considering the argument just on its own terms.

https://mises.org/wire/eminent-domain-are-holdouts-really-problem?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=57a3e07dc6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-57a3e07dc6-228343965

Eminent domain gives the government the power to take over private property for public use. A popular argument that this interference with private property is needed goes like this: We can’t measure subjective utility, but we can take increases in wealth as a rough proxy for increases in utility. (This assumption is mistaken, but I won’t get into that here.) Suppose, on this assumption, that some public project will add a great deal of wealth to the economy. Unfortunately, someone owns a small parcel of land necessary to get the project underway. Often, a little old lady who refuses to sell her house, preventing a road from being built, is given as an example of the problem.

You might be inclined to dismiss this argument immediately. Wouldn’t it be unfair to the old lady to take away her house, just so total wealth goes up? But supporters of the argument have an answer. They say, “Can’t we give the old lady enough money so that she is as well off as she was before? Then, the economy is better off and she is no worse off.”

I have never found this argument persuasive. I think it suffers from a crucial flaw. Before explaining what that flaw is, let’s look at a statement of the argument by the distinguished classical liberal legal scholar Richard Epstein. In his book Simple Rules for a Complex World (Harvard, 1995), he says: “Often the government needs to obtain material resources from individuals in order to supply services to the public at large. . . . Holdout and coordination problems preclude that consensual solution for certain key assets, such as specific parcels of land needed for the construction of a fort or a public road. This problem is best met by government taking with payment of just compensation. Ideally, the individual citizen is left indifferent to the loss.”

What is the crucial flaw in the argument? You might at first think that it is the failure to take account of the non-monetary value of her house to the old lady. What if has great sentimental value to her; maybe it is the house she has lived in all her life. Or what if the property taken is a religious shrine? To offer compensation based only on the real estate value seems unfair.

This is an excellent point, but it isn’t the one I want to concentrate on here. The argument is still flawed, even if you disregard this type of value. Even if the owner attaches no sentimental or religious value to her house, but views the takeover in a strictly dollars-and-cents way, there is a problem that involves the compensation that is offered.

The problem is this: When it is said that the owner has to be made as well off as she was before, something important is being disregarded. The property is now much more valuable than it was before the project to build a bridge entered the scene. By hypothesis, the bridge adds immensely to the wealth of the economy. If the government had to buy the land from the owner in order to build the road, it would have to offer much more than the value of the property, leaving the bridge out of account. In brief, the owner could “holdout” in order to capture a substantial part of the economic gain from the project.

Supporters of eminent domain have an obvious answer to this point. Isn’t the owner taking unfair advantage by holding out? Isn’t some sort of action needed to prevent the owner from exploiting the situation?

Before I respond to this, one point of clarification is essential. From a Rothbardian perspective, the whole issue dissolves at once. If you have a right to certain property, then it can’t be taken away from you and that is that. Rights cannot be taken away from you because total wealth would go up if they were. Readers won’t be surprised that this is my own view, but here I’m considering the argument just on its own terms.

Those who don’t accept absolute property rights may say the case is that that of the person who demands from a victim of thirst in the desert a million dollar fee for a drink of water. Isn’t someone who does this taking advantage of the victim’s misfortune in a morally unacceptable way? (Again, I am not questioning whether he has a right to act like this.)

But the holdout case isn’t like this example. The owner is engaging in strategic bargaining. She is not taking advantage of anyone’s misfortune, other than the “misfortune” that those who would economically benefit from the bridge will have to pay more money and will end up with less of a net gain.

But suppose that you disagree with me about this. What if you think that it would be unfair for the owner to capture nearly all the economic gain from the bridge? It does not follow that she may be deprived of any gain at all. Why should all the profit from the bridge go to those who initiate the project and none to the owner? Isn’t she entitled to something more than being put back to her previous level of well-being?

Practically no one finds my view persuasive, but, rightly or wrongly, that is usually not enough to get me to shut up. Whether it should in this instance I’ll leave to my readers to judge.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Would Rothbard Say About the COVID-19 Panic? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

In Rothbard’s view, citizens and taxpayers have the right to use public streets. Governments are not justified in restricting movement on their streets, because in fact the street is not even the just property of the state:

as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property. (1982, p. 183) 

In short, the state has no right to determine who can use public streets and who cannot. A curfew is a blatant violation of private property rights and cannot be justified.

Rothbard provides a second example for his claim that no one can be forced to help others. This example is about an epidemic and, therefore, is worth quoting in full:…

https://mises.org/wire/what-would-rothbard-say-about-covid-19-panic?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=57a3e07dc6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-57a3e07dc6-228343965

Murray Newton Rothbard died on the January 7, 1995. What would “Mr. Libertarian” say today about the government measures against the corona epidemic?

As a response to the epidemic, Western governments have infringed upon private property rights to an unprecedented degree in peace times. They have expropriated and confiscated medical equipment and material, they have taken control of private health companies and hospitals, they have decreed the forced closure of private businesses, such as private kindergartens, schools, universities, or retail stores. They have even ordered the closure of private parks and gardens. Moreover, they have severely restricted the freedom of movement.

What can be said about these measures from a libertarian point of view? Can they be justified?

Regarding the freedom of movement, it could be argued that most streets are government property and that the government has the right to restrict freedom of movement on its streets in order to protect the health of its citizens. Indeed, the public ownership of streets is a problem from a libertarian perspective. Streets should be private. If streets were private, the owners would decide who could use them and under what conditions. As Rothbard puts it in The Ethics of Liberty (1982, p. 119):

In the libertarian society…streets would all be privately owned, the entire conflict could be resolved without violating anyone’s property rights: for then the owners of the streets would have the right to decide who shall have access to those streets, and they could then keep out “undesirables” [in our case people suspected of being infected with viruses] if they so wished.

In other words, in a libertarian world private street owners would decide which streets would remain open, to whom, and under what conditions.

Yet we live in a world where the majority of streets are public. However, even with public streets Rothbard´s verdict is clear. Discussing the case of a McDonald’s restaurant opening and residents protesting the gathering of its customers on the streets, Rothbard writes:

as taxpayers and citizens, these “undesirables” [the customers] surely have the “right” to walk on the streets, and of course they could gather on the spot, if they so desired, without the attraction of McDonald’s.” (1982, p. 119)

In Rothbard’s view, citizens and taxpayers have the right to use public streets. Governments are not justified in restricting movement on their streets, because in fact the street is not even the just property of the state:

as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property. (1982, p. 183)

In short, the state has no right to determine who can use public streets and who cannot. A curfew is a blatant violation of private property rights and cannot be justified.

In a libertarian world with private streets and private businesses, the owners impose the rules. In the case of an epidemic, they may close their property completely to the public. Or they could invite people conditionally to their property. For instance, they could limit the number of people who can access it. They could require tests before entering the property or declare that entering is at their own risk. They could also impose certain conditions, such as an age restriction or the required wearing of masks and gloves.

Let us discuss the other restrictions that have been implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic, such as the required closing of bars, hotels, and other shops. Politicians’ argument in favor of the closures is the following: out of solidarity with the rest of the population, especially with the elderly, people should help bring the rate of infection down, because otherwise many people will die due to the limited capacities of the public health systems and the lack of provision for such an epidemic. People staying at home, confined to their houses, would save lives. They would thereby help others. And as people cannot be expected to help others and stay at home voluntarily, the state has the right to enforce a confinement that saves lives.

Now, the essential ethical question is the following: is anyone allowed to use violence in order to ensure that people will help their fellow men? Can the use of coercion to make people help others be justified?

Rothbard´s answer to this question in The Ethics of Liberty is unequivocal:

it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership. (1982, p. 99)

Note that for Rothbard and libertarians in general, the concept of “rights” is purely negative. Rights protect the radius of a person’s action that no one else can interfere with using aggressive violence. Property rights demarcate the area in which an individual can act freely.

Rothbard continues:

No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced….As a corollary, this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights. (1982, p. 99)

If that is not enough evidence, Rothbard gives two examples to argue that no one may use violence to make someone help another person. First, he discusses an example provided by Friedrich A. von Hayek. In this example there exists a “monopolist” owner of water in an oasis. Rothbard points out that the owner has the right not to sell the water to customers. The owner is within his rights in reserving the water for himself and cannot be forced to help thirsty people by selling the water:

The situation may well be unfortunate for the customers, as are many situations in life, but the supplier of a particularly scarce and vital service is hardly being ´coercive´ by either refusing to sell or by setting a price that the buyers are willing to pay. Both actions are within his rights as a free man and as a just property owner. The owner of the oasis is responsible only for the existence of his own actions and his own property; he is not accountable for the existence of the desert or for the fact that the other springs have dried up. (1982, p. 221)

Let us apply this reasoning to the current situation: the owner of a business has the right to open it. The owner of a garden has the right to use it and the pedestrian has the right to walk on the street. They are only responsible for their own actions and their own property and not for the existence of the coronavirus or for the fact that government hospitals are mismanaged.

Of course, it is a different case if someone knows that he is infected and opens his business with the intention of infecting and doing harm to the customers. This would be criminal behavior and defensive violence, such as closing down the business by the threat of force, would be justified. But how do we know that the opening of the business is really an act of aggression on part of an infected owner?

As Rothbard point out, the burden of proof is on the people using violence:

the burden of proof that the aggression has really begun must be on the person who employs the defensive violence. (1982, p. 78)

We only know if someone is a criminal when he is convicted. Until people are convicted they must enjoy all the rights of innocents, such as being allowed to leave their houses or open their stores. As Rothbard (1982, p. 82) reminds us, “they are innocent until proven guilty.”

Rothbard provides a second example for his claim that no one can be forced to help others. This example is about an epidemic and, therefore, is worth quoting in full:

Suppose that there is only one physician in a community, and an epidemic breaks out; only he can save the lives of numerous fellow-citizens—an action surely crucial to their existence. Is he “coercing” them if (a) he refuses to do anything, or leave town; or (b) if he charges a very high price for his curative services? Certainly not. There is, for one thing, nothing wrong with a man charging the value of his services to his customers, i.e., what they are willing to pay. He further has every right to refuse to do anything. While he may perhaps be criticized morally or aesthetically, as a self-owner of his own body he has every right to refuse to cure or to do so at a high price; to say that he is being “coercive” is furthermore to imply that it is proper and not coercive for his customers or their agents to force the physician to treat them: in short, to justify his enslavement. But surely enslavement, compulsory labor, must be considered “coercive” in any sensible meaning of the term.

If the physician cannot be forced to help during an epidemic, then a fortiori a normal citizen cannot be forced to help either. It is certainly possible that one could help others in these times by staying home, by closing businesses, or by donating medical equipment. Yet forcing people to stay at home, closing their businesses, and expropriating medical equipment are violations of property rights. They are crimes, plain and simple. No one has the right to confine another (innocent) person to his house or oblige him to close his business.

The argument that central planning through confinement or other forms of violence would save lives is also highly problematic, because it ignores the problem of economic calculation. These infringements of private property involve (subjective) costs that cannot be calculated and compared to the benefits in a nonarbitrary way.

For instance, being confined to one’s own four walls, with the corresponding lack of physical exercise, will lead to increased cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, strokes, and thromboses, among other things. Moreover, the psychological burden of being locked up is immense. The psychological strain can cause divorces and break up families; traumatization and depression are created. Domestic violence and child abuse are expected to surge. In sum, some people may die due to these infringements of private property; others may be saved.

Moreover, the economic havoc created by these measures is potentially devastating. It is true that there would have been an economic crisis anyway due to the distortions created by monetary policy. The epidemic is only the trigger of the crisis. Nevertheless, the crisis is made  harsher by the government infringements on private property rights. If people are not allowed to produce, because they cannot leave their homes or open their businesses, production falls.

Business owners who see their lifetime achievement destroyed by the political reaction to the virus could suffer heart attacks, fall into depression, commit suicide, or become alcoholics. Similar consequences may await workers who become unemployed due to the political measures.

Furthermore, the standard of living will fall as economic activity is suffocated by the confinement. There will be less goods and services available to maintain, let alone improve, quality of life, because these goods will simply not be produced. And if the economy of the Western world collapses, the West will buy less goods and services from poor countries. The living standard will therefore also fall in the third world, where it may mean the difference between life and death for many. In general, poverty means reduced longevity. Rich people tend to live longer than poor people.

But that is not all. Governments all over the world are advancing on the road to serfdom, controlling their populations and increasing their power relative to the private sector via increased public spending and new regulations. According to the “ratchet effect,” defined by Robert Higgs, government power usually increases in crisis times. However, when the crisis recedes, government power is not reduced to its initial position. Thus, the long-term victim of the government intrusion may be liberty. More socialist regimes may be instituted. And in these regimes life expectancy is shorter. The greater the power of government, the lower will be the quantity and quality of life ceteris paribus. For instance, the capitalist West Germans had a life expectancy that was about three years longer than that of their East German counterparts.

It is, of course, true that government coercion may increase the life expectancy of some people in the short run. Enforcing confinement in an epidemic is only one example. There are other possibilities. The government may prohibit smoking, or subsidize fruits, vegetables or sports classes. It may use tax revenue to improve the medical treatments of the population, thereby increasing life expectancy.

Yet, how much artificially increasing of public health is enough? For instance, how much of GDP should be spent on healthcare? Five percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, or 90 percent of GDP? Certainly spending more might increase life expectancy. But how can the government official know the correct percentage?

Similarly, how much of GDP shall be sacrificed in an epidemic by more or less drastic confinement measures? Shall 5 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, or 90 percent of productive activities stop in order to slow down the propagation of the virus? There is no nonarbitrary way for a central planner to decide these matters. All government measures come with costs that cannot be quantified.

There is only one alternative to the arbitrary central planning of government, with its violation of private property rights. This alternative is the libertarianism, the alternative that Murray Rothbard always staunchly defended: the voluntary decisions of private property owners.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Police, Military Begin Door to Door Searches to Hunt Down New Yorkers Seeking Refuge – Activist Post

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

And you thought that martial law stuff was baloney.

https://www.activistpost.com/2020/03/police-military-begin-door-to-door-searches-to-hunt-down-new-yorkers-seeking-refuge.html

By Matt Agorist

https://1bzk83pdqbs1pbyph40x4fm1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/raids-1050x525-1.jpg

Rhode Island — In perhaps the most unprecedented attack on the Constitution on which the Free Thought Project has ever has ever reported, the governor of Rhode Island has announced that the National Guard will begin conducting house-to-house searches to hunt down New Yorkers seeking refuge in their state.

Not only will cops be violating the 4th Amendment rights of citizens in their homes, the governor also announced that Rhode Island cops have already begun pulling over every vehicle they see with a New York license plate.

In a move that is reminiscent to that of Nazi Germany, the governor labeled an entire state a threat. Checkpoints have been set up along the interstate and vehicles with New York plates were being stopped without probable cause on Friday.

“Right now we have a pinpointed risk,” Governor Gina Raimondo said. “That risk is called New York City.”

It is no question that New York is the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak and their citizens should remain self-quarantined to prevent the spread of the virus. The state has over 46,000 reported cases and 450 deaths reported as of Saturday morning.

However, police officers and the National Guard have no idea if the person they are stopping or searching has been in the state for weeks or days.

As Bloomberg reports:

Rhode Island has just over 200, and it has begun an aggressive campaign to keep the virus out and New Yorkers contained, over objections from civil liberties advocates.

Raimondo, a Democrat, said she had consulted lawyers and said while she couldn’t close the border, she felt confident she could enforce a quarantine.

This draconian police state action comes in spite of the fact that many New Yorkers own summer houses in Rhode Island and have every right to be there. But the governor could not care less. According to Bloomberg, “many New Yorkers have summer houses in Rhode Island, especially in tony Newport, and the governor said the authorities would be checking there.”

“Yesterday I announced and today I reiterated: Anyone coming to Rhode Island in any way from New York must be quarantined,” the governor said. “By order. Will be enforced. Enforceable by law.”

Those caught seeking refuge, even in property that they own, will be subject to hefty fines and even jail time.

National Guard members will be stationed at the T.F. Green airport, Amtrak train stations and at bus stops. The citizen-soldiers will be following up with people at local residences. The maximum penalty for not complying: a fine of $500 and 90 days in prison.

Naturally, this has advocates of civil rights up in arms, and rightfully so. On Friday, the ACLU lambasted the governor’s unconstitutional measure, accurately pointing out that she has no right to “suspend the Constitution.”

“While the Governor may have the power to suspend some state laws and regulations to address this medical emergency, she cannot suspend the Constitution,” Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown said in a statement. “Under the Fourth Amendment, having a New York state license plate simply does not, and cannot, constitute ‘probable cause’ to allow police to stop a car and interrogate the driver, no matter how laudable the goal of the stop may be.”

This move comes after other Orwellian steps by officials across the country. Earlier this week, TFTP reported that cops were raiding sleeping truckers trying to get some shut eye as they delivered essential supplies to those in need.

Because many rest stops are closed across the country, Truckers have been forced to stop on the side of the road to sleep while hauling these supplies. Instead of realizing this, NYPD cops raided the sleeping truckers, issued them fines and impounded their vehicles — for sleeping on the side of the road.

Completely oblivious to the heinous nature of preying on people trying to keep the nation from falling into chaos, the officers who conducted the raid took to Twitter to brag about it.

What’s more, New York and California are deploying drones to spy on their citizens and ensure they are complying with shelter in place orders. Other states have implemented hotlines for citizens to snitch on their neighbor if they think they are violating a shelter in place order.

Make no mistake, the threat of COVID-19 is real and people should take proper measures to protect themselves. However, as states across the country continue to roll out such tyrannical measures, we are inching closer to the idea of creating a cure far worse than the disease itself.

This is not okay.


Article source: The Free Thought Project

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Corona: The Case Number Game – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

“Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory illness that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/jon-rappoport/corona-the-case-number-game/

By

Jon Rappoport’s blog

In this episode of public health bureaucrats go crazy, let’s look at their numbers. Let’s accept their reality for the moment—the reality they claim to be working from—and trace the implications. Buckle up.

Start with Europe and just plain flu. Not COV. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Europe [1], “During the winter months, influenza may infect up to 20% of the population…” That’s ordinary seasonal flu.

The population of Europe is 741 million people. This works out to 148 million cases of ordinary flu. Not once. Every year. EVERY YEAR.

According to statista.com [2], “As of March 23, 2020, there have been 170,424 confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) across the whole of Europe since the first confirmed cases in France on January 25.”

I urge readers to roll those comparative figures around in their minds, and realize that ordinary flu has never been called a pandemic, and has certainly never resulted in locking down countries.

If we take the COV Europe numbers I just quoted, which cover a period of two months, and multiply by six, to estimate the number for a year, we arrive at 1,022,544 cases. Even if you want to build up this figure by claiming it’s accelerating, do you really believe it’ll reach 148 million for the year, the number of ordinary flu cases? And again, 148 million is the estimate for EVERY YEAR. Every year—and no mention of a pandemic. No lockdowns.

Let’s go to Italy. According to statista.com [3], “Italy has the highest amount of confirmed [COV] cases in Europe with 59,138…” That’s as of March 23. If you multiply by six, to get the annual figure, you arrive at 360,000 cases. You want to blow that up, because of acceleration? Go ahead. How about a million cases for the year? Two million. Three million.

Now let’s look at ordinary flu cases for Italy in a given year. According to sciencedirect.com [4], “In the winter seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17, an estimated average of 5,290,000 ILI [influenza-like illness] cases occurred in Italy, corresponding to an incidence of 9%.” That’s 5 million plus each year. Not just once. Was a seasonal flu pandemic declared in Italy? Ever? Was the whole country ever locked down as a result? No.

Finally, let’s look at figures for ordinary flu, for the whole planet. A study published in the journal, Pharmacy and Therapeutics [5], states, “Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory illness that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.”

A BILLION cases EVERY YEAR. Is this called a pandemic? Is the whole world locked down every year? No.

Feel free to track the purported number of COV cases as time passes. As I write this, the number is 392,286, and deaths are 17,147. Let me know when the COV case number reaches A BILLION for the year and the number of deaths passes 300,000. Then keep me posted on how the one billion COV cases are repeated EVERY YEAR with at least 300,000 deaths annually.

And that concludes this episode of public health officials go crazy and wreck economies and lives in the process.

There should be a tracking “world-o-meter” providing live updates on THOSE figures.

NUMBER OF ECONOMIES WRECKED BY PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERS—

NUMBER OF LIVES WRECKED BY PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERS—

Sources:
[1]. [Europe] 2018–2019 influenza season: what we know so far
[2]. Number of new coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in Europe from January 25 to March 26, 2020, by date of report
[3]. Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy – Statistics & Facts
[4]. Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)
[5]. Influenza Update: A Review of Currently Available Vaccines (P T. 2011 Oct; 36(10): 659-662, 665-668, 684.)

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Did a Vaccine Experiment on US Soldiers Cause the ‘Spanish Flu’? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/no_author/did-a-vaccine-experiment-on-u-s-soldiers-cause-the-spanish-flu/

By Kevin Barry

The 1918-19 bacterial vaccine experiment may have killed 50-100 million people

“The first casualty of war is truth.” – US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson, Progressive Republican from California – 1918

“The question is whether we are to have (vaccine) experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults (and soldiers?) who are human in form but not in social potential.” – Dr Stanley Plotkin, virologist who spent years working at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania, associate of Paul Offit, credited with inventing the rubella vaccine and an advisor to pharmaceutical corporations

“During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas.  The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.”

“The American Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and its experimental bacterial meningococcal vaccine may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic ‘vaccines save lives’.”

“The crude vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.”

“According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 Pandemic autopsies reviewed.”  

“Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program.

“In 1918, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers…with disastrous results—but in 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given.  The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 American children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness.”

The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true?

What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin?

Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry.

In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery.

Summary

The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.

More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.

The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.

The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.

From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.

During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.

One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)

The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime.  Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.

When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.

During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the anti-meningococcal serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers.

Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.

I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu.  Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families.

On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy.  Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy.  She died from “the influenza” in 1919.

On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City.

I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.

In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin.  It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today.

It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky.  In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.

Why is What Happened 100 Years Ago Important Now?

Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society.  I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occurred in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases.

1. Clean Water and Sanitation

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today.  New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2)

2. Electricity

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home.  Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases.  Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases.

3. Rockefeller’s Pharmaceutical Industry

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University).  The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse.  The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.

US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available.

Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers?

If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018?

The Disease Was Not Spanish

While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918.  I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected?

Why “Spanish”?

Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I.  Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press.

Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain.  The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground.

One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic.  If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named.

In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic.

It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic.

If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar.  The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many.

It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people.

“The American Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and its experimental bacterial meningococcal vaccine may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic ‘vaccines save lives’.” – Kevin Barry

The Disease Which Killed so Many was not Flu nor was it a Virus.  It was Bacterial

During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness.”  Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu,” like the one in 1918-19.

Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion-dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer.

It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact.

According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed.  It is likely higher than 92.7%.

The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results.”

“… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples.

“There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3)

Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied.  That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer.

Where Did the Spanish Flu Bacterial Pneumonia of 1918-19 Originate? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »