Vaccination Liberation - Information
Legal: Science: Misc: Searches:

Package Inserts
Ingredients of Vaccines
Artificially Sweetened Times
Books Videos Tapes
100+ Anti-Vax links
Breaking News
Smallpox Alert!

SARS Quiz: Test Your Level of Intelligence

Quotes and links

SARS Quiz: Test Your Level of Intelligence

Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.

Author of the national bestselling book
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional?

Level 1:

It is April, have we not been fools?

Last year, didn't more than 36,000 people die of the flu in the U.S.?

Weren't they, almost all, elderly or very young?

Weren't these victims, almost all, immune compromised?

Had not the major source of their weakened immunity been drug side effects and vaccine-induced toxicity and autoimmunity?

Why was there nearly no mention about this widespread mortality from flu in previous years, compared to SARS this year, which to date (April 16, 2003) has killed no one in America?

Alternatively, with zero deaths in the U.S. from SARS thus far, why has so much media attention focused on this newest microscopic menace?

Why hasn't the mainstream media asked these simple questions?

Level 2:

Why are SARS "cases" and SARS mortality rates grossly overstated and mixed-up in the press?

For instance, why are "confirmed" and "suspected" SARS cases grouped together in most news reports, when the majority of "suspected" "cases " turn out to be something other than SARS?

Why would public health officials, who know better, go along with the false and misleading 4% death rate from SARS errantly established on this inappropriate summing of "confirmed" and "suspected" SARS "cases?"

Why would epidemiologically trained public health officials completely disregard the thousands, if not millions, of other people who got SARS—people who never reported their illness and naturally healed without quarantine, hospitalization, or expensive drugs?

Wouldn't an honest projection of the SARS mortality rate seem miniscule and irrelevant?

Wouldn't that make the economic incentive from SARS seem miniscule and irrelevant?

Would SARS's irrelevance help or harm newspaper sales?

Would miniscule mortality rates help or harm health officials attempting to justify their existence and increase their budgets?

Speaking of money, if contraindications and side effects of ribaviron abound, and it has never been tested against the SARS-strain of coronavirus to begin with, then why has it been recommended and prescribed by those claiming "authority" since the beginning of the SARS scare?

Level 3:

Is it true that conservatively 10 percent of Americans are psychologically and/or pharmacologically predisposed to developing debilitating phobias with potentially deadly social dysfunctions resulting from their frights?

Is this mentally challenged population placed at highest risk from mass-mediated fear campaigns?

Is it likely that more of these 27 million people in the U.S. alone have suffered horribly from the SARS fright than those who have gotten SARS?

Is it likely far more of these people have died from phobia-induced avoidance behaviors, like avoiding outside (i.e, social) contacts, including life-saving services, in the wake of SARS coverage by the media?

Don't public health officials realize this as they "surf the SARS wave t o international fame?"

Likewise, does this SARS fright reflect irresponsible journalism?

Level 4:

Is there a specialty fiel d of science in public health and journalism known as "risk communication?"

Does a Google search on the Internet reveal about 2,780,000 "risk communication" references with recommendations as to how to communicate risks most efficiently without: a) harming the public; b) creating phobias, and c) reinforcing irrational fears?

Doesn't every public health official learn about this field of science known as "risk communication" during their professional training?

Doesn't risk communication in public health, such as applied in the field of AIDS education, seek to reduce irrational fears?

Hasn't every public health professional with media spokesperson responsibilities been made keenly aware of the need to communicate health risks honestly and appropriately with this being the intended outcome?

Haven't experts in behavioral science and public health developed "risk communication" protocols to assure the public is able to accurately assess risks to their personal health from infectious diseases among other threats?

Why has the entire field of "risk communication" in public health, along with full honest disclosure, been completely neglected in-so-far-as SARS is concerned?

Level 5: Genius Level

If far more than 99.99% o f people infected with SARS get well on their own, how did they manage to do that without government involvement?

If these people's healthy immune systems are primarily responsible for their speedy recoveries, with all the warnings issued regarding SARS, why haven't our officials published a variety of practical immune boosting recommendations?

Is it true that both fear and stress reduces natural immunity to infectious diseases like SARS?

Is it true that herbal cures for coronavirus infections were published in the scientific literature in 1995?

Is it true that government authorities have neglected to mention this fact?

Logically, then, if government health experts know all of the above, are fueling fears while neglecting practical solutions, doesn't it seem as though they are actively increasing public risks and death rates?

Given the above, doesn't "criminal negligence" and "public health malpractice" best describe government officials' actions in response to SARS, thus far?

Does less than 3% of America's annual health budget go to prevention?

Does a "stitch in time save nine?"

"Is there a fox in the henhouse?"

Is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. prescribed by doctors and hospital staff?

Aren't these the first people you think of seeing when you get sick?

If yes, are you mentally ill?

Answers: All "Yes" or "No" questions (except for the last two) are definitively affirmative. If you got them correct, then there's hope for you. For the other questions, your guess is as good as mine . . . April fools.

CopyRound © 2003, Leonard G . Horowitz
The author authorizes reprinting and circulation ad libitum.

This article was provided courtesy of

Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
and Tetrahedron Publishing Group
206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
Toll free order line: 888-508-4787;
Office telephone: 208-265-2575;
FAX: 208-265-2775

See also:


More SARS articles and links
Wielding a Big Stick, Carefully, Against SARS


Public health generally doesn't go swinging the heavy hand of the law," Dr. Colin D'Cunha, the chief medical officer of Ontario, said recently, after asking an estimated 10,000 Canadians to put themselves in voluntary quarantine to stop the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS. "By nature, we're not police persons. We believe in being reasonable. But we'll take steps if we need to."
   Despite his mild words, extraordinary powers are available to Dr. D'Cunha, as they are to public health officials around the world. The authority to declare quarantines to stop the spread of disease is no less sweeping today than it was for Dr. Cyrus Hudson, the New York City health commissioner during the cholera outbreak of 1892, who told a Congressional committee, "If we see fit, we may take possession of the City Hall forcibly and turn it into a contagious-disease hospital."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

An excellent site, devoted to SARS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

by Fintan Dunne,, April 18, 2003
SARS: Sewage Acquired Respiratory Syndrome. Read whole story at:
  In Hong Kong also on 17th April, Health Secretary Dr. Yeoh Eng-kiong said the mass outbreak at the Amoy Gardens apartment complex began after a SARS-infected man who also had diarrhea visited his brother there between March 14 and March 19.
   Most of the 321 infected residents in the Amoy Gardens complex probably picked up the virus in their bathrooms, according to the Secretary for Health. Large amounts of human waste carrying the virus went into the sewage system and leaked into apartments connected by toilet pipes.
   A report prepared by Hongkong health authorities said that under-floor U-traps such as those in bathroom floors were dry in most cases. This would have allowed air from decomposing fecal matter to waft into bathrooms.
   The moist conditions there allowed water droplets containing the virus to form, the report said. Bathroom extractor fans then spread the virus into the apartments. Most of the SARS cases were in vertically linked flats in a single building, Block E.
   Media reports have described Amoy Gardens as a lower middle class housing estate. But the sanitation system rendered it effectively a slum with conditions which rivaled those in Middle Ages.
   In other words, the first headline-grabbing high-profile mass-infection so-called SARS incident arose from the oldest disease source known to mankind: exposed human excrement.

- - - - - More From: - - - - -

Independent Dublin based journalist and editor of the alternative health website  Fintan Dunne has compiled an impressive list of articles &  interviews that offer welcome relief from the current fear & hysteria being whipped up over SARS.  For an indepth analysis go to:
"I founded to bring balance to the media coverage of the SARS issue, by presenting hard questions about the changing and often rushed conclusions of public health authorities on the nature and causes of the syndrome.

For example, the recent pronouncement by a W.H.O. official that corona virus is the cause of SARS, was not based on the normal peer-review process of careful science, but on a single study of unknown scope and methodology."

The director of one of the World Health Organization's global network of 11 laboratories investigating SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), told The Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

According to Plummer "The proportion of our samples [from Canadian SARS patients] that show the coronavirus is going down." He said earlier this week that about 60% were showing the virus by PCR test; now it's only 50%.

"Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose," said Plummer "but many of the Toronto cases are epidemiologically linked, and we are finding some of the best-characterized cases are negative. So it's puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small – only detectable by very sensitive PCR."

"We have only identified the coronavirus in 50 per cent of the people being treated for SARS," health ministry spokesman Paul Gully told the Sunday edition of the Montreal newspaper La Presse."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

News Articles on SARS

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome): A Great Global SCAM

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) [And healing using Vitamin C]