Here are some posts I did during the Ebola scare of 2014 (that I also posted on the LewRockwell.com blog at the time), that I thought might be of interest and relevance while the Covid scam hoax continues into its 20th month. I replaced some links with links that work and/or Wayback Machine links.
From September 23, 2014:
I am very surprised that the usually suspicious-of-government-assertions Alex Jones is being taken in by this Ebola panic hysteria going on now as pushed by the CDC and its corporate vaccine merchants. On Infowars today is this article by Dave Hodges, who begins the article with a call for not just the U.S. government to do something, but the military of all things! The article cries, “the government should be deploying the military at all border entry points and in airports for the purpose of establishing quarantine zones for passengers suspected of exposure to the Ebola virus.” Are you serious? So, some old lady sneezes and we should get military soldiers after her? And these Infowars people are usually the ones who criticize government overkill, militarization and overreaction.
In fact, Jon Rappoport has another post on this Ebola panic, and he brings up the “swine flu” panic of 2009. Remember that? Rappoport recounts that then-CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson exposed the CDC’s hysterically fraudulent claims of an H1N1 flu epidemic, in which actual test results of those suspected of having the H1N1 virus showed that most of the results were negative for the virus. But at that time, the CDC still pushed the then-untested “swine flu” vaccine!
In a previous post on the current Ebola outbreak, Rappoport notes that the conditions in Africa are those which cause vulnerability in many people’s immune systems, and it should be no surprise that they can get sick more easily than others living in better conditions.
Remember this: when people are drinking contaminated water (sometimes pumped directly from sewage into the drinking supply), when they are profoundly deficient in all vitamins and minerals, when they are starving, when they are subjected to very toxic chemicals spewed from industrial factories, when they are living far, far below the poverty line, when they are driven from their homes and even their countries during war, the “symptoms” these people present are going to be quite horrific and shocking and strange and unpredictable.
Of course many people will have more illness in those parts of Africa than those in more developed countries. And Rappoprt makes a comparison:
Take 100 people from Scarsdale or Beverly Hills, who are living very comfortable lives, and fly them to some distant location, put them all in a six-room apartment with rats and lice, feed them a tiny portion of rice and melon every day, give them water to drink that’s polluted with industrial waste and human waste . . .
Test them all for the presence of germs, and you’ll find as many viruses and bacteria as you want to.
And in another earlier post Rappoport explains why some health care workers have become ill with Ebola. They had been “boiling hot” in these hazmat suits, losing a lot of sweat and dehydrating themselves, and on top of that having to go through decontamination treatments including the use of chlorine, and he quotes one doctor who stated that the smell of the chlorine while he was wearing the hazmat suit was “intense.”
“But of course,” Jon Rappoport writes, “this has absolutely nothing to do with why you might fall ill. No. If you fall ill, or collapse, or suddenly die, it’s Ebola.”
I’m sure that some nice U.S. Big Pharma vaccine maker will get rich from the latest panic.
But it’s a surprise to see some of the panic and calls for more militarization and “quarantining” people “suspected” of having the Ebola virus coming from Infowars, of all places.
From October 6, 2014:
I am actually very surprised by some libertarians supporting the idea of forced quarantining of people with Ebola, or perhaps even people merely “suspected” of having the disease. Some people have suggested that someone with a contagious disease is a “threat” to others. However, with Ebola specifically there needs to be direct physical contact involving bodily fluids such as saliva, etc., to possibly infect others and therefore it can be controlled. In a libertarian, free-market, voluntary society, an example of actual threatening behavior would be: “I have Ebola and I’m going to spit on you or intentionally bleed on you, etc.” That’s a “threat.” But someone’s merely having Ebola is not a “threat” to others. Other issues to consider include: what about someone who is merely suspected of having Ebola? Should he be included on the list of people to forcibly quarantine or involuntarily vaccinate (if there were an Ebola vaccine)?
So, someone’s merely having Ebola might spread it to others. We can’t violate the rights of the individual because of something that might happen. We shouldn’t use aggression against someone including involuntarily detaining or imprisoning someone because of a higher risk of something that might happen. Another example (and a lot of people including some libertarians don’t like this, I know) is drunk driving. Just because someone has had some alcohol, and that there might be an increased risk that he might cause an accident, that is no reason to stop him and arrest and imprison him. The act of driving while impaired is in and of itself not harmful to others, but it may raise the risk of such harm. In a libertarian society it is a violation of the non-aggression principle and liberty to detain or imprison someone who has not harmed anyone, merely based on risk. As Lew Rockwell wrote: “Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.”
Am I way off on this? I don’t think so.
My conclusion here is that I am much more afraid of being the victim of being forcibly medicated (and thus my immune system compromised) or involuntarily detained or hauled off to some “quarantine facility” especially based on the mere suspicion of
ignorant sheeple neighbors others, than I am afraid of getting Ebola (in which case, my good immune system would get rid of it quickly, in my view).
From October 7, 2014:
Several emailers responded to my post on the Ebola panic, some people agreeing with my points and some others disagreeing. One accused me of being insensitive to the situation of a possible epidemic or pandemic, and I understand that so I apologize if I have seemed insensitive. I just happen to be against involuntary quarantine, confinements, imprisonment of any people who have not harmed anyone. Most people who know they have Ebola would probably self-quarantine, in my view. The situation is different now than it was in decades past, as far as advances made in medical treatments and in prevention. The Ebola outbreak in Africa is escalating continuously now because the conditions over there are extremely unfavorable to the health of the general population. Such conditions involve sanitation, water and sewage infrastructure, and malnutrition. Such general conditions are much more favorable in the U.S. than the conditions in Africa. So far, anyway, I am still more concerned about the hysteria and panic than I am about Ebola.
Another aspect that is different now than decades ago is the power and strength of governments here, federal, state and local, in which the bureaucrats and their enforcers now have phenomenally much more power than they did in years past, and such multiplying government jobs have attracted the lowest of the low, the power-grabbers, oath-breakers, usurpers and psychopaths. The attitude now for many of them is “Never let a crisis go to waste,” to fulfill their lust for control over the lives of others. You can say, “What a right-wing, paranoid conspiracy nut” if you want to, but to some of the emailers who wrote about their fear of losing their children to Ebola because of irresponsible infected people going out in public, I would point out the many, many “Melissa Harris-Perry” types who are out there to whom you really could lose your kids. We know that from all the CPS and DCF horror stories now, what’s going on in the public schools, and if there might be an Ebola crisis in the U.S. those family-hating fascists are ready to take advantage of it. I could be way off, of course, and that might not be the case. But we saw the zeal of the child-snatchers in the Justina Pelletier case and there have now been quite a few other similar cases, in addition to all the police- and “first-responder”–related horror stories.
And my other issue is, aside from those who may actually be diagnosed with Ebola after having tested positive for it, there may be many people who might be “suspected” of having it. Should we forcibly quarantine them, too? Should we demand their blood to have it tested? What if someone is suspected but doesn’t want to give his blood to the “officials”? Should we forcibly take his blood? We know now that the vampires of the police state are taking innocent people’s blood and putting it into government databases. It is something to be concerned about.
From October 9, 2014:
Well, some libertarians such as Walter Block seem to be in disagreement with me on the Ebola situation regarding voluntary vs. involuntary quarantine of people with or suspected of having Ebola. Becky Akers shares my concerns, and she points out her past article on what U.S. gov did with Andrew Speaker in 2007, the persecuted TB carrier. And John Keller makes some great points regarding private property rights to resolve those issues. Ryan McMaken also points out the private property solution as well as points out how the U.S. gov has bumbled several other contagious disease situations. And he also linked to an article by Robert Murphy on how the free market would handle quarantines. And Butler Shaffer discusses why the U.S. gov would want to actually patent the Ebola virus. Also, Robert Wenzel had posted this post on how you can and can’t get Ebola. By the way the gubmint now wants to screen airline passengers by taking their temperatures, but Washington’s blog points out how that will be useless.
And finally, From October 28, 2014:
I’m really tired of writing about ebola. But for those including alleged libertarians who want to forcibly, involuntarily apprehend and incarcerate someone who is accused of having ebola, you really had better have actual scientific proof, such as blood tests which reveal the actual ebola virus, such tests of which should only be performed if symptoms such as vomiting and bleeding are occurring. A “fever” is not sufficient in my view. The nurse who had a slight fever but was exhibiting no other symptoms then had a more accurate temperature reading and was shown to not have a fever. Traveling by air has various effects on people. The stress of traveling and dealing with changes in climate etc. could have effects on someone including one’s body temperature.
While the subject is not ebola but fishing expeditions to find drunks, this Infowars article discusses unconstitutional mandatory roadside blood draws. Now, do those who support mandatory-quarantine/testing for ebola want to have checkpoints in which everybody’s blood must be drawn, without reason to suspect that specific individuals have ebola? (I think that panic and fear have been winning over reason and common sense. It is common sense to understand that government bureaucrats and their enforcers cannot be trusted with the power to seize property, money or bodily fluids from peaceful and presumably innocent people without suspicion and probable cause.)
Meanwhile, Patrice Lewis says that perceptions of ebola can be just as damaging as the virus itself.
And Brandon Smith explains why he will not submit to medical martial law.
Walter Williams says it would be better if Western nations didn’t send aid to Africa.
Robert Wenzel writes about the U.S. gunvernment testing ebola as a bio weapon. (Hey, U.S. bureaucrats: why the hell do you need to use “germs” to attack foreigners? Why don’t you just shoot them and bomb them? I guess being sadists, the bureaucrats like to cause people extra suffering and misery, so they will give “the enemy” ebola.)
And the New York Times writes an editorial on the dangers of forced quarantines. But because they are so entrenched and enmeshed with government, the
Slimes Times doesn’t mention that the real danger is the harm such policies will do to innocent and non-ebola-carrying people. By the way, if politicians and police forcibly throw someone into an “ebola quarantine facility,” regardless of whether they actually have ebola, and they don’t have ebola but then get it from someone else at the facility and then they die, do the families of these innocent victims of government bureaucrat-Nazis have the right to file murder charges against those who forced people’s loved ones to their deaths?