How Covid Projections and AI Could Potentially Fuel Eugenics
You may not know it, but you were the subject of a systems-level experiment recently. It was called the COVID-19 pandemic and it fit ever-so-neatly into the technocratic eugenics playbook
Allow me to explain myself. I might be full of shit. I might not be.
I am, for all intents and purposes, a systems analyst.
I have a degree in Applied mathematics which taught me the basics of mathematical modeling of dynamical systems which introduced me to the wonderful world of ordinary differential equation (ODE) modeling of all sorts of systems.
From mathematical models of neural impulses, to the “HIV-infected” human immune system, I was able to apply mathematics over the decades in order to learn more about how many biological systems work from a “bird’s eye view”.
The systems that interested me the most were the ones that involved the human body system and more specifically, the human body system that was in a “diseased state”.
Know thy enemy kinda thing, I guess.
I am not going to give a math modeling 101 course in this article, but I do want to effectively convey two things:
- math modeling can be incredible useful but
- it can also be abused
On 1.
Math modeling can be incredibly useful if the model assumptions are unbiased and as close to “real” assumptions as they can be.
For example, Avidan Neumann (my PhD advisor), was able to use an incredibly simple mathematical model to show that during the chronic phase of infection of HIV, a lot was going on immunologically, when it “appeared” clinically that nothing was going on.1
This helped us to know that it wasn’t prudent to simply let the virus run its course without interjection.
The estimated average total HIV-1 production was 10.3 × 109 virions per day, which is substantially greater than previous minimum estimates.
These findings on viral dynamics provide not only a kinetic picture of HIV-1 pathogenesis, but also theoretical principles to guide the development of treatment strategies.
I won’t go into the HIV story here, but I will soon. It’s an important one. For now, and for the sake of “benefit of doubt”, these findings did help a lot of people live longer and better quality lives, in the end.
On 2.
One perfect example of the recent abuse of mathematical modeling for the wrongful perpetuation of false death projections in the context of a virus was the Neil Ferguson model.
It was called CovidSim, and it was used by Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College team to generate the death projections in Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand (March 16, 2020).
I personally think that everyone whose name is on that “paper” are responsible for countless deaths and should be held accountable.
The model’s extreme unmitigated projections were dramatically higher than reality (orders of magnitude in some comparisons early on), fueling claims of alarmism and false conclusions.
Defenders of this model (like our friend Jeffrey S. Morris) say it correctly showed catastrophe but without strong action → and action was taken, wasn’t it?
CovidSim assumed (and produced) exponential growth of key biological variables, such as new infections, prevalence of infectious individuals, and cumulative cases, during the early phase of the epidemic in its unmitigated (no-action) scenarios.
It was bullshit. Sorry, but it was.
If I were to list just some of the pitfalls and abuses of this model, they would be as follows:
- Massive overestimation of deaths in unmitigated scenarios (~510k UK, ~2.2M US) vs. actual outcomes (even after interventions/”vaccines”).
- Poor code quality – old, undocumented, buggy (ie: non-deterministic runs, memory issues, random number generator typos), hard/impossible to verify/reproduce.
- Overly pessimistic assumptions – high R₀ (too high), IFR (not correct), transmission, limited accounting for voluntary changes, heterogeneity, or focused protection.
- History of alarmist overpredictions (prior flu/swine flu/foot-and-mouth models).
- Treated as firm predictions by policymakers/media, despite being conditional worst-case scenarios.
The legacy jerk-mos took this doom determination station and ran all the way to the bank with it.
It’s almost entirely because of this one guy – who has provably been wrong time and again – along with the institutions and people who propped him up, that we were all subjected to the COVID-19 experiment through his abuse of the model and their relentless fear-mongering.
The report team produced a model which showed predicted fatalities from Covid-19 if different measures were put in place. The model estimated that if no measures were put in place, deaths over the next two years could reach more than 500,000. This was not a prediction of how many people would die from coronavirus in the UK.
The model focussed on five measures to slow the spread of the virus: home isolation of cases, home quarantine, social distancing, social distancing of those over 70 years, closure of schools and universities.2
It was all nonsense, and not based in biology, or reality. And by the way, it was rules for thee, not for he, as you can read in this article published in The Telegraph on May 5, 2020 entitled: Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover.
Class act all the way.
The reason I’m making you relive this stupid crap is because the abuse of math modeling – and systems sciences in general – is all around us. All the time.
The reason for this is that EVERYTHING, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, is linked – and unfortunately, nowadays, it is more of a controlled system, and these systems are all incepted by the few, and they were designed to control us.
Think banks. Think taxes. Think surveillance. Think passports. Think IDs. Even think birth certificates. I know how nutso that sounds, but it’s the truth, insofar as I understand what the truth is.
Let’s pivot to eugenics (Don’t worry – I have a point)
Back in the old eugenics days (late 19th century), British scientist and statistician Sir Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s half-cousin – and yes he drew on Darwin’s natural selection theory) coined the term “eugenics”.
He wanted so bad to “improve the human race” and turned this ego-maniacal idea into a field of study called eugenics. Or tried to, at least. He believed that there were those of us who were “unfit” to breed.
And yes, this was based on race and blood lines.
Eugenics is the deliberate application of evolutionary principles (which utilizes systems theory) to human society to enhance inherited traits like intelligence, health, and character (not really a trait!).
It is a pseudoscientific movement that gained a lot of traction across Europe and North America in the early 20th century before being somewhat discredited after its association with Nazi atrocities.
Apparently, the discreditation wasn’t enough.
Eugenics lives on in modern forms in terms of designer babies: polygenic embryo screening, IVF trait selection, and emerging biotech tools that let parents pick embryos for lower disease risk, higher predicted IQ, or other desired outcomes.
These are driven by private companies, fertility clinics, and pro-natalist tech circles. Even though they spark debates about inequality, discrimination, and a quiet return of genetic hierarchies, it continues.
There’s power in money. And that’s pathetic.
Fiat currency, and soon CBDCs, are massively problematic systems of control. Fiat has proven flaws (inflation risks, power concentration), and CBDCs create huge privacy/surveillance concerns.
If you’ve been paying any attention to the Ep-shit-stain scandal, you’ll know that “designer babies” are mentioned many times in his personal emails, and there are some (like me), who believe that his abuse of little girls and young women was part of his own eugenics plan to create “better” humans using his, and others’ “DNA”.
They seemed to prefer blue eyes. If you type in “blue eyes” in the jmail url, you’ll see it comes up 414 times. Poor Barbora – seen only as a “subject” in an email. There are even first-hand personal accounts about girls being used as human incubators.
You get it.
Imagine that the eugenics program never really stopped (why would it have with Operation Paperclip?) and the systems currently in place that control every aspect and detail of our current lives are being influenced by these eugenicists?
What if, they are now being infused with AI agents? What will that mean for us? I skipped to the punchline, so let me explain.
Literally everything we do is monitored, and what is monitored is etched into 1s and 0s. How many of us so-called COVID-19 dissidents have pending indictment files on us, just waiting to be opened and used against us?
Most of what’s in there is bullshit. I am no anti-vaxxer, for example, but “they’d” say I was, and mislabel me with names like “misinformation spreader” and wrongfully claim – according to their “recommendations” – not laws – that I’d committed crimes.
See what I mean?
All of the data being collected could potentially be used against you – either with intention or by mistake – and I am not sure which one makes me more nervous.
Here’s an example of a real – not pending – threat.
In the link below (see the source document – Ed) Meredith Whittaker, president of Signal, gives a warning about how AI agents are embedded in operating systems and how this could undermine your privacy, despite their awesome encryption algos.
Signal’s awesome encryption algo won’t mean a thing, you see? As she says, all you’ll have to do is leverage the type of access that the AI agents will already have, like to your intimate data. Pervasive agents will have been given that data by YOU.
Do this. Do that. Book this. Book that. Access to calendar. Access to passwords. Access to credit card numbers.
This isn’t about Signal not doing their best to guarantee privacy, this about the undermining the concept of encryption itself because the AI agents already have enormous numbers of data access points.
The vulnerability will be inherent due to the fact that the agents are already in your apps and data, because you let them in.
See the problem?
The bottom line here is that it will come down to both the intentions of the humans creating the AI agents, and what happens “naturally” when the agents are incorporated into our systems with regard to outcome.
I personally believe that it is going to become increasingly likely that there will be no such thing as privacy very soon. Everything – even our “evacuations”, are currently translated into data and recorded onto some digital roster, somewhere.
AI agents will be able to have access to all of this data. Some of this data will even be attached to DNA records. Most of it will be attached to medical records.
Whoever has access to this data in the human realm (or whoever controls the agents), will literally have total access to you as a data “entity”.
See the problem?
What if the data holders are eugenicists? I can almost see Dr. Evil laughing now. This data could be used and abused to identify and remove the “unfit”, non?
I am not saying AI agents were or are designed for these purposes, but I am saying that they could be. And things can go wrong. And systems – especially complex systems – are often unpredictable.
See the problem?
I might be out to lunch with this or have gone a little too far down the branch of imagination, but if I can imagine it, why wouldn’t someone else be able to?
And if some cra-cra eugenicist has, and has access, power and control over the agents that are becoming irrevocably integrated into our systems, then what happens to human agency?
What happens to the “unfit”?
To be continued…
See more here substack.com
Header image: Forbes
Some bold emphasis added