SARS Quiz: Test Your Level of Intelligence
Quiz
Quotes and links
SARS Quiz: Test Your Level of Intelligence
By
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
http://www.tetrahedron.org
Toll free order
line: 888-508-4787;
Office telephone: 208-265-2575;
FAX: 208-265-2775
E-mail:
tetra@tetrahedron.org
See also:
http://www.c-cure.com
http://www.tetraassoc.com
http://www.SARScure.com
http://www.SARSscam.com
http://www.originofaids.com
http://www.deathintheair.com
http://www.allaboutsmallpox.com
http://www.healingcelebrations.com
http://www.americanreddoublecross.com
http://www.healthyworlddistributing.com
http://www.prophecyandpreparedness.com
***********************************
More SARS articles and links
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/health/20QUAR.html?th
Wielding a Big Stick, Carefully, Against SARS
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
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
http://www.sarstravel.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
by Fintan Dunne, SarsTravel.com, April 18, 2003
PART II
SARS: Sewage Acquired Respiratory Syndrome.
Read whole story at: http://www.SarsTravel.com/sars_bubble.htm
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: SarsTravel.com - - - - -
Independent Dublin based journalist
and editor of
the alternative health website SickOfDoctors.com 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: http://www.sarstravel.com/
"I founded SarsTravel.com 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]
http://www.doctoryourself.com/sars.htm
|