The Evil fake-Democracy System

 Nowadays human knowledge has reach such formidable levels, that it has become completely impossible to maintain a good command of even a fraction of all what is known. However, those privileged folks who can afford to go to the best schools will undeniably enjoy access to the most advanced information. Indeed, whether we like it or not, there is today a caste of people who have privileged access to the most important and powerful knowledge, and we have become dependent on them for even the most basic facets of our lives: What is the most healthy food? what is the right way to parent a child? What are the 10 most important tips to find happiness in life?

In a way, it feels as if human beings had become domesticated. Indeed, what would we do without all those experts taking care of us, protecting us from all the threats to our way and standards of living and guiding our lives forward? If they were not there for us, what would we do, what would be of us the next time a pandemia breaks out, we are striken by a natural calamity, or we become the target of an evil foreign nation? Yet , at a certain point it seems reasonable to question, if we are always told what is best for us, and we are really being led with the common good always in mind; or, perhaps, we are actually being taken for a ride, the System has been rigged, and the actual purpose of our existence is to serve the needs of those privileged, finest of all, families who have set up shop at the very top of our societies.

If climate change is such a threat, why nothing is being done to rein in the obscene consumerism of our societies? For example, why are electronics manufacturers allowed to impede the upgradability of our electronic devices, so that, whenever the battery dies out or more internal memory is required, it becomes impossible to fix the specific issue, and we have no other choice but to buy a new device and *after only a couple of years of use) discard our old one? If the main problem of electric vehicles is their limited range; what is so difficult about setting up a system, where a discharge battery can be exchange for an equivalent fully-charged battery in any gas station along the way? Do you remember the Y2K fiasco?, when billions of dollars had to be spent to avoid an incredible catastrophic technological collapse, as computers, microwaves, washers, elevators and all sorts of other appliances and machines were going to go out of order on January 1st, 2000, just because the date's year maintained by the thing was represented with only two digits instead of four, and so the year 2000 was going to get confused with the year 1900. Imagine, the freaking microwave was going to explode and the diabolical elevator was literally going to fall into Hell, because, all of a sudden, they were going to think they have gone back to the year 1900! A similar baseless, ridiculous paranoia is currently being spread against AI: namely, artificial intelligence systems could very well free the lower classes from their thoughtless mechanical tasks, so that they can dedicate themselves to create and take on the kind of more fulfilling intellectual work, that is currently being monopolized by the upper class. However, all sort of barriers and obstacles are instead raised against AI, because - prepoasterously enough - it may otherwise lead us to a apocalyptic future, in which - terrifyingly enough - humans will be domesticated by machines. Knowing as I know on Computational Neuroscience in general, and my Ph.D.'s subject in particular, it is idiotic to sustain, that computers, as "intelligent" as they may be, will ever feel any ambition to dominate their creators, if they do not have feelings in the first place (see my "Scientific Model Of the Brain: From 'Instinct' To 'Reason'). As it stands, folks (especially women) work more today, under the so-called Democracy regime, than what they ever worked before in traditional (so-called patriarchal) societies. Terrifyingly enough, the real threat of artificial intelligence is that the day machines become able to do the work currently performed by humans - that is, the day the working class' labor is no longer needed - will be the day the working class will be discarded. Evidently, it only takes to look around a little to observe, that we do not love the common folks we come across on the street. People certainly love and appreciate their pets far more than all those strangers. Let us face it, pets fulfill the need for love and affection that their owners feel. Thus, if there is no longer any need for the social lessers and there are nothing but a nuisance, a burden and sometimes even a threat, why keeping them?  

Indeed, if we live in a democracy, why a tiny fraction of families own and control the immense majority of the nation's wealth and resources? Moreover, how this caste of privileged families manages, one generation after another, to, more than ever before, always remain at the top? Why is the right to legal counsel so important to ensure a fair trial? If lawyers have such a crucial influence in a legal dispute's final outcome, what happens with all those poor folks who lack sufficient financial resources to hire one of those ridiculously expensive lawyers? Yes, We are told that we are equal to the Law, but does the law apply equally to everybody? Specifically, courts are given ample discretion to ensure that they can work around any eventual loophole , so that the spirit of the Law prevails; for that sake we would otherwise employ computers, and we would then be certain that, at least, the veredict is perfectly objective and true to the letter of the Law. Now, if judges enjoy ample discretion and are such honorable people, why are they then systematically fooled by all those powerful attorneys into delivering a favorable ruling for their wealthy clients against those poor self-represented folks, who ignore the intricacies of the letter of the Law.

If we all agree that our politicians are so dishonest and despicable, then why does the magnates-controlled mass-Media always encourage us to go cast our votes on Election Day and renew their mandate? Furthermore, - given that the conductors and leaders of of our political system are the worst of the worst - on what basis do all those great intellectuals contend that our so'called Democracy is the best political system ever conceived? 

How do we make any sense of upper-class people's utmost concern for gender inequality and the handicaps women are confronted with in their hopes to attain a highly paid position; while, at the same time, there is a total disregard of class inequality, and the handicaps youths of low socio-economic origin are confronted with in their hopes to attain a highly paid position - let alone the much higher risks of ending up homeless or incarcerated.

Beyond obscenely hypocritical, doesn't all this concern for women feel a bit fake?

 

OK, OK...our so-called Democracy is not perfect: but, hey!, at least it is better than nothing! Yet, is a fake better than nothing at all? Is a lie better than no response at all? Indeed, beyond the question of whether our so-called Democracy is fake or not, does it not feel a bit like if we are being taken for a ride?

I did a Ph.D. in Computational Neuroscience and spent many years in the academia. During all that time I came to learn quite a lot of stuff, not only about my field, but also about how things actually work in the scientific and academic world. Most people not only ignore this kind of insider information, but would be utterly shocked to find out, that there are certain things that are not as we are being told. In a way, I feel fortunate that I am in the know of such crucial information; but, at the same time, cannot help to be concerned for the immense majority of the folks, who are being kept in the dark. At some point, however, what becomes most distressing is not that much the understanding, that there is certain knowledge that should not be shared; but even if I were to try to tell those folks who I care the most for, they would generally not believe me anyway. Let me be more specific, I came to learn some freakingly fascinating stuff on how our brain works and what "intelligence" is all about. For example, I am sure you would love to know what is the magical recipe to get your brain's light bulb to go off, whenever you need it; however, you will never care to have me explain it to you, because, reasonably enough, there is no way you could believe , that a loser like myself would know such powerful information. You see, that is one of those things I discovered: we do not believe the ideas that our brain's light bulb finds most logical; but - not unlike little children from their parents - we only accept whatever we are told by those stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful people who care for us (by the way, you did not check the link to my model of the brain, did you?...). For instance, I remember a conversation with an old labmate. He was working on the application of artificial intelligence to the detection of fraudulent credit card transactions. He explained, if he revealed to me the details of what they were doing, he would next have to shoot me dead. I could not help to think, that the guy was a bit full of it. 

Oddily enough, with time I have come across many people, who was likewise totally convinced of knowing some stuff,that most other folks ignore and would be shock to find out. Not long ago, I was listening an interview to a paleontologist. At some point, he explained to his host that, if he revealed him certain details, he would next have to shoot him dead. Over the last several years I have wanted to study more about History. I have come to realize, that historians know far more than what we are told in school. At best we learn all what happened; but historians are actually concerned about why things happened. It is really odd to see, that throughout history, time and time again, societies would flourish whenever there was a strong central authority, whereas aristocrats, magnates and war lords alike would run amok, whenever there was nobody at the center to keep them in line. Given that 'separation of powers' is such a fundamental principle of our so-called Democracy, it then becomes easy to understand, why historians always refuse to analyze - not to mention to extend their reasonings, judgements or opinionns to - our political system. 

That our so-called Democracy does not work is something that I have long known; however, I could have never imagined the consequences would reach even the most critical aspects of our lives. During the last several years, I have been moving Heaven and Earth, trying hard to receive stem-cell treatment to clear the cornea opacities that have taken all my vision. All the eye-doctors I have consulted have always agreed stem-cells are my best option; but, shockingly enough, it would be impossible to get this done in the U.S.. As it turns out, national medical regulatory agencies such as the FDA in the U.S. or the EMA in Europe put health scientists through a diabolical ordeal, if they ever try to develop new therapies. For one thing - as a clinical-study research coordinator explained to me - it is outrageously expensive to conduct a clinical trial; not to mention get a therapy approved. You see, in our modern capitalistic world, if you have the money to pay for the license, you are safe, and if you do not have the money, you are not safe. Of course, there are special circumstances where we can make some exceptions. For instance, if the economy is crumbling down, we can always expedite within a few weeks a global license for the COVID vaccines. OK, if some folks then die from a thrombosis, we will just accept it as the cost we have to pay to maintain our standards of living. Besides, pharmaceuticals do not have any problem to make the investment, because they know that once they get the license for their products, it will all pay off multiple folds very quickly. The only issue is that, since no one can make business from selling the patient's own stem cells, it is a ruinous financial investment to develop a stem-cell therapy.       

Tragically enough, I personally experienced this in the flesh. In 2018, I learned of a group of Spanish researchers at the Instituto Universitario de Oftalmobiología Aplicada (IOBA) in Valladolid (Spain), who had developed a stem-cell treatment against the limbal stem-cells defficiency I am afflicted with and is the main cause of my cornea's severe opacification. For quite some years Dr. Edward Holland at the Cincinnati Eye Institute and many other doctors afterwards have tried to solve this limbal defficiency with the transplantation of limbal stem-cells from living or dead donors. The problem with this technique is, however, that it requires strong and harmful immunosupressive medication, and even then the organism's antibodies frequently end up rejecting the transplant, leading  - in many cases - to catastrophic consequences for the patient's eye. In order to avoid this serious caveat, the IOBA researchers - instead of extracting the limbal stem cells from a donor - derived them from cultivated mesenchymal (non-embrionic) stem cells. Basically, by cultivating these (non-specialized) mesenchymal stem cells, they "learn", they specialize, to function as limbal stem cells. Following many years of research, they conducted all the necessary clinical studies. Excitingly, the results - published in a well-cited international journal article - confirmed the safety and efficacy of these transplants of limbal stem cells derived from mesenchymal stem-cells. The bad news for me, though, were the study Had already closed, and I was going to have to wait for them to get the global license before I could receive the treatment. Consequently, at that time, my only real options were a penetrating (full) corneal transplant or a penetrating corneal prosthesis. Both of them, however, had a rather grim prognosis. My limbal defficiency made me a bad candidate for a full cornea transplant, and I was warned of a real risk of ending up losing the entire eye within a few years. On the other hand, I had always been told by my eye-doctors, that a full corneal prosthesis was a last resort option: at first, I would experience a spectacular improvement in my eye-sight; but, in the long run, there was a significant risk I would end up losing all vision, as a consequence of an eventual infection, increase in intra-ocular-pressure or the outright rejection of the prosthesis. Indeed, prostheses are in general not a good solution. Their sale makes pharmaceuticals handsome profits; but, sensibly enough, as any medical doctor knows, our organism does not trust this kind of foreign bodies and is therefore likely to attack them. At the end of the day, both, penetrating corneal transplants and corneal prostheses, are very invasive procedures, of the kind that cause high degrees of imflammation, which in turn call for complications. In sharp contrast, stem-cells have wonderful anti-imflammatory properties and are overall much less invasive. It was a no-brainer: it only made sense to wait until this group of Spanish researchers would obtain the license from the Spanish Medicine Agency (AEMPS). At that time, ingenuously enough, I could not see any reason, why it would take long.

In late 2018, however, I received an email from the Spanish Association of Aniridia patients (AEA), with exciting news on a new corneal laminar implant. This was still a prosthesis, but not a full prosthesis. Rather it was only a laminar implant to be introduced in a pocket opened inside the patient's cornea. It would still cause significant imflammation; but it was not in any way as invasive and risky as a full corneal prosthesis. In fact, as it turned out, the results in a series of first clinical studies had been convincing enough that the device had already been licensed in Spain. If that would not be good enough, as I researched for further information, I found out that the pharmaceutical producing the prosthesis was now going to start the same series of clinical studies in the U.S., in order to likewise obtain the license from the FDA. At that time, I was in the U.S., as my marriage's drama was reaching its climax, so it only made sense to take advantage of the opportunity to participate in one of these trials.

I have always found it truly remarkable, how well I took the devastating disappointment the implant's failure represented. I was totally convinced I was going to see again. I remember how excited I was, traveling the day before to the eye-clinic. I was telling everybody along the way about it. I even posted on Facebook that I was finally coming back from the dark. Yet, after the procedure everything was still the same. I was told I needed to allow some time: as the imflammation would go down, I would start feeling an improvement. However, months passed and there was still no improvement. In fact, two months after the procedure, I was informed that the pharmaceutical had terminated the clinical study. Clearly, it was not a good symptom; something was going wrong.

Definitely, I did not know then, but what was going on was that my organism was indeed not trusting this thing that had been introduced inside my cornea. Eventually I came to learn that imflammation works as an alarm mechanism, requesting the attention and intervention of the organism's "defense forces". As it turned out, the imflammation was attracting the blood vessels into the cornea. Normally the blood vessels have to stay clear of the cornea, since the cornea is supposed to be transparent, whereas the blood is red and the scar tissue that will be produced is not transparent either. However, I guess the antibodies need some way to access ground zero. This 'neovascularization' process is the bogeyman of every patient afflicted of limbal stem-cells  defficiency and it was taking place right now in my cornea at an accelerated pace.

As a result of the progressing neovascularization of my cornea, over the following months thick scar tissue formed all around the KeraKlear implant, causing my cornea to opacify even further. It would, however, still be several months before I noticed any further deterioration of my vision. It was actually a long time before I could realize what had been going on. There had obviously been a reason why the pharmaceutical had terminated the clinical study. My doctor could tell what was coming; he could see how the blood vessels - attracted by the imflammation caused by the implant - were slowly penetrating into my cornea. He explained he thought it would be good to make a second intervention: he would like to try to remove some of the scar tissue, he could not get into on the first procedure. In reality he wanted to remove the implant, before it would cause more damage.

In a diabolical twist of fate, the new procedure was scheduled for March 2020. You will probably recognize the date. Yes, if there was anything that could go wrong, it was definitely going to go wrong. Indeed, March 2020 was when COVID finally reached the Western World and the lockdown was ordered. You will remember that, since no precautions had been taken until then, the health system collapsed and all "elective procedures" were cancelled, in order to save resources for COVID patients. I wonder what machiavellian mind came up with the term "elective procedure", as if it were an election to save one's eyesight. It all feels like someone was playing a sick prank on me; precisely as I learned that my procedure was being cancelled, I started all of a sudden to notice, that a patch was forming in my cornea and everything was getting dark. For goodness sake, everything was definitely against me. It was truly dramatic and utterly perturbing to realize that I was getting totally blind, noticing a decrease in my eyesight from one day to another,, and I could not do anything about it; I could not even go to an eye-doctor. By the time that a few months later I was finally able to hav the procedure performed, and the KeraKlear implant removed, it was simply too late.

  

  Since the corneal laminar implant had proven to be a fiasco, I had to reconsider back my options. Frustratingly enough, there had not been much progress on the licensing of the limbal stem-cells transplant therapy. Apparently, the Spanish Medicine Agency (AEMPS) still required a ridiculously detailed and comprehensive report with the application. You see, all the mandatory clinical studies may have been completed, and even a scientific article may already have been published in an international medical journal; but - when it comes to safety, these national regulatory agencies do not want to leave anything to chance. Well, at least so long the Economy is not on the line, that is. I guess for a big pharmaceutical the amount of work and money necessary to prepare this report is not a huge deal; but for a modest group of Spanish scientists it represented a herculian effort. Since it was becoming clear that it would take an awefully long time before the AEMPS would issue the license, I thought I would ask for an emergency authorization (or "compassion" authorization as they call it). The IOBA research group's leader explained to me that in the past they had already requested three other emergency authorizations, and the AEMPS had warned them against submiting any other application, regardless of the emergency of the specific case. However, if I wanted to request the emergency authorization myself, they would be happy to prepare the necessary medical report in support of my application. I was ready to do anything, so I contacted the AEMPS for information on how the process works, and, as soon as I received the report from the eye-doctors, I submitted all the required documentation. Afterwards, I even traveled a couple of times to AEMPS's headquarters to explain my special circumstances, but I was not allowed to speak with anybody. During the following months I wrote them another couple of times to check on the status of my request; but did not get any response either. Finally, four months after I had submitted my application, I was informed they had declined it because they needed my eye-doctor to submit it on my behalf. If that was the case, I could not understand, why they had not told me from the very beginning, but had instead waited four months; it was supposed to be an emergency, you know? Anyway, if that was the whole issue, I certainly did not have any problem to ask the group's leader to file the application on my behalf. I remember well she had told me, the AEMPS had warned them against requesting any new emergency authorization; but I made sure to copy AEMPS's response to me, explaining that this was exactly what they were supposed to do. As much as she feared waking up AEMPS's fury, she agreed to concede my request. Yet, a couple of weeks later, she wrote me again to let me know that, not only had the AEMPS declined, but - as she had been anticipating - they rebuked them for defying their directions. I considered for a while replying to AEMPS's letter to me, asking for a clarification on their contradictory instructions; but - as I worried there could be reprisals in the future, I finally decided to let it go; it definitely did not seem a good idea, if I wanted to keep any hope of ever getting any authorization.   

Instead, I thought I would follow a subtler strategy: I am a member of the Spanish Association of Aniridia patients (AEA), and it only made sense to ask them to advocate for me. In fact, this new limbal stem-cells transplant therapy is really critical for any Aniridia patient, since our limbal stem-cell deficiency is the main reason why our cornea gets increasingly opacified as we age, until we eventually become blind. In fact, it was really odd they had never informed about it. I believe it had been one of the secretaries who in 2018 Had told my mother, one day she call them for information; but they have never sent a message to all the members, as for example they had done to announce the infamous KeraKlear laminar implant. 

Anyway, fortunately enough, I happen to have personally known Rosa Sánchez de Veega (the founder and president of the AEA), since she founded the association in the mid 90's. Moreover, she had now founded and was presiding over the European aniridia Association; so it was only an excellent idea to write her and ask for information on these new stem-cell therapies. Oddily enough, she replied with an outdated review of all those traditional therapies, that eye-doctors caution against, such as penetrating cornea transplants and prostheses. Furthermore, she would enigmatically repeat over and over again she regreted there was not more information she could give me. All this, however, did not stop her from handing me one of her usual lectures on the need to increase my contribution to and degree of involvement with the association. You see, Rosa has always been of the belief that patients of Aniridia should not ask, what is that their association could do for them; but, they should instead ask themselves what is that they could do for the association. Not unlike most other people, her sales pitch has always been, that the more funds the Aniridia Association could collect, the more it would be able to promote research for aniridic patients. According to her ideology, aniridia patients should only trust the safety of those treatments, which have been specifically designed for aniridia patients. For example, she will eventually make the argument, according to which it was reasonable the AEMPS would not authorize me to receive a transplant of limbal stem-cells derived from mesenchymal stem-cells, if such therapy had not been first tested on a sufficient number of other aniridic patients. But, how do we then find the first aniridic patients to try with? Probably her answer to this question would go along her vision, according to which the role of her Aniridia Association was to organize scientific meetings and offer research grants and awards, aimed at the advancement in Aniridia research. In fact, in 2022 the AEA established an agreement with a group of doctors, who were working on a proprietary formula for serum tears against dry eyes. Although these doctors' clinical study had only been authorized by the AEMPS to test the efficacy against dry eyes, the AEA still promoted this new serum-tears formula among aniridic patients, for its potential to prevent the very pernicious neovascularization adult aniridic patients are genreally afflicted with. The sales pitch used by the AEA to encourage the participation in this clinical trial was that the regular price of this wonderful product was around 600 euros (slightly over 600U.S. dollars); whereas, "through this special deal", those who participated in the study would only have to pay 100€ to the association. Contrary to what Rosa argued to me in her emails of 2021, the AEA's argument for this 2022 AEA-managed clinical study was that we needed to trust our researchers and cooperate with all these scientific efforts. Obviously, in order for Science to advance in the understanding of our Aniridia, it was imperative that we participate in these clinical studies and try out these new treatments.

Yes, the line of argument employed by Rosa in her 2021 emails to me was as paradoxical as it was intriguing. On one hand she insisted she did not have more information than that outdated review on the traditional penetrating cornea transplants and protheses; but, on the other hand, she advised that only if I get fully involved and commited with the Aniridia associations, would I be in the know and at the cutting edge of the latest on Aniridia research and all the therapies that could help us. Right off the bat the whole argument did not make any sense and felt as insulting as indignating; but, perhaps, there was something more to it, than what I could have interpreted on a first thought. What I read was definitely so frustratingly unsatisfactory, that I thought I should persevere. It certainly felt very odd that she knew less than I did. When I read now my subsequent message, I marvel at how naive I was. I really opened my heart. I explained all that I had been going through over the previous several years: from the break-up with Alia, the loss of my eyesight during my second stay in South Africa, my ordeal trying to recover some eye-sight, the KeraKlear fiasco, and all my frustration over AEMPS's diabolical obstruction and all their "safety concerns" bullshit. What was all that they were supposedly so worried about? Really, they feared those stem cells were going to eat my eye-sight away? But, for goodness sake, I was already blind!! As much as I had little doubts that Rosa was not telling me everything she knew, but was actually keeping from me quite some of her information, I took the time to explain all what I have been able to find out, as if she would not be already perfectly aware of it. Needless to say, my focus was AEMPS's wicked obstruction to any stem-cell therapy. It was outrageous that all these national health regulatory agencies deny us the opportunity to, not only recover some vision, but even take proper care of our most basic health needs. It was an obscene hypocracy that, as they were not allowing us to benefit from these new less-invasive treatments, they were implicitly - but effectively - driving us and condemning us to the far more dangerous penetrating cornea transplants and protheses; not to mention the blatant harrassment to take the COVID vaccines, to which the entire population was at that time being subjected by mass-Media. Last but not least, I literally beg her - in her authority as the founder of the Spanish Aniridia Association (AEA) and president of the European Aniridia Association - to advocate for us and explain to the AEMPS, that, for our eyes' good health, we needed this well-tested stem-cell therapy against our limbal stem-cell deficiency, and, at the very least, those of us who requested it should be granted an emergency authorization. 

Rosa's reply could not have been more grotesquely disingenuous. She did clarify, of course she was most absolutely in the know on all those new stem-cell treatments and medical breakthroughs; but - irritatingly enough - she over and over again repeated her lecturing on the need to be patient and allow doctors the necessary time to finish their research, as if scientific research were not an neverending endeavor in pursuit of ever more accurate answers. She understood my anxiety and frustration - after all, we were all in the same boat, and we were all anxious for the final results of the ongoing research -; but I needed to comprehend that scientific research has its own timeframes and doctors advance in their study at a pace, that will never be as fast as patients wish. It goes without saying, that Rosa, all along her message, failed to acknowledge that, after many years of research, the IOBA group not only had three years earlier already completed all clinical studies, but in 2019 they had also published their results in an international journal paper., which has been cited by numerous other research groups from all over the world. Obviously, neither did Rosa find any objection to national health regulatory agencies' grotesque double standards, subjecting stem-cell treatments to the most ridiculous scrutiny, while swiftly handing out the global license to the COVID vaccines, after only a couple of months of development, a few more months of clinical trials and one more month of application process.    

Evidently, it did not take the sharpest pencil in the drawer to figure out that I was not going to get any help from the Spanish Aniridia Association (AEA). However, since I am by far the most stubborn person on the face of the planet; believe it or not, I refused to give up and instead thought up another idea. OK, the AEA was hopeless, but why not give it a try to its American counterpart, the Aniridia Foundation International? The question actually was pretty stupid: namely, it is extremely difficult to have access to any stem-cell treatment in Spain; but in the U.S. is even worse, in the U.S. is basically impossible. When President George W. Bush imposed a bar on any embrionic stem-cell research, we thought it was for ethical reasons; but, given that several other (non-embrionic) stem-cell types have been found with much better properties, it is a long time that scientist have lost interest in embrionic stem-cells, and, yet, the obstacles to stem-cell treatments remain the same. If that would not be troubling enough, not unlike in Spain, associations of patients do not have any problem with that either: indeed, not only have I never received any information on stem-cell treatments from the Aniridia Foundation International, but neither did I receive an answer to my inquire.

Wether I liked it or not, I just needed to come to terms with the fact that I will have to sit and wait. Yet, at least I could take some solace in the existence of a path, as torturous as this was. Indeed, the IOBA folks had hinted me that, some months after they have finally submitted their application for the global license, it would be possible to request my emergency authorization. Thus, that is exactly what I did. Four months after they finally submitted the license application, I asked the IOBA research group's leader if at last the time was right to request the emergency authorization. They clearly had good information, because - as they had hinted - a few weeks were all what it took for them to make the request and receive a positive answer from the AEMPS. It makes one wonder, if safety concerns had been what for four years had prevented me from treat the cause of my blindness, what is that had changed all of a sudden?   

Apparently, they got two authorizations; fortunately, one was for me and another was for a girl, who had suffered a corneal perforation. I was excited, after so many years waiting, helplessly watching as everything around me was falling apart, I was finally going to be able to give a new turn back up to my life. It was easy to think of this transplant to the limbus region as the first step in a path, that would eventually take me back to my best days. I had reached rock bottom, but from here everything would nothing but get better. Definitely, everything needed to start with this transplant. I had to first resolve my limbal defficiency, before I could think of doing anything to recover my cornea's transparency. But, once I would have my vision back, I knew that nothing would stop me; sky would be the limit! Evidently, it was easy to be carried away by wishful thinking. In fact, the doctors were sure to make clear that this procedure would only address my limbal stem-cell defficiency; and I should not expect any significant improvement in my vision; if anything, only a little. Still, it was really hard to resist the temptation to wishful think, that in order to avoid any eventual disappointment, any sensible surgeon would always want to stand clear from making any promises. Obviously, at this point, it was not like I needed anybody to convince me of taking the step. This did not mean, however, I was blindly going for it. If I can be criticized for something, it would be because I sometimes ponder things too much. In fact, as certain as I was to have the procedure performed, it seemed to me only sensible to ask if any aniridic patient had previously receive this transplant of limbal stem cells derived from mesenchymal stem cells. Given what Rosa Sánchez de Vega had told me, I predicted the answer would be a resounding 'No'; but what was my surprise when I learned that they had previously performed this procedure on two female patients of Aniridia. If that was the case, I obviously wanted to ask how the experience had gone. I knew well that all those freakingly annoying privacy protection laws would not allow the doctors to release any kind of identifying information of these patients; but I could instead simply ask my doctor to provide them with my contact information. Surprisingly, my doctor explained that she knew well that one of the two women would not want to share her experience, but she would ask the other one. Some days later, she wrote me again to tell me that the second woman did not want to talk about it either. Apparently, it had been some sort of traumatic experience and did not like to go back over it. The word 'traumatic' cause me some alarm; it made me worry that, perhaps, contrary to what I had assumed, it had not gone well. I so thought to write back my doctor and ask about it. She did not hesitate to clarify, it had certainly had gone well and the outcome had been completely positive. However, "you know", medical procedures are never particularly enjoyable experiences, and this patient simply wanted to put it behind and not think about it anymore. It all still seemed really odd to me. It is definitely rare the case that someone goes through a successful experience, and does not want to share it with other mates confronting the same dilemma he or she had in the past. Given that the Spanish Association of Aniridia patients (AEA) has never informed its members about this stem-cell treatment, and Rosa told me what kind of great friends she was with the IOBA research group's leader, I wonder who were these two female patients of Aniridia that were in the know of these clinical studies and enjoyed the opportunity to receive this very important treatment against the increasing opacification of aniridic corneas...     

        

After four years waiting, I was finally able to receive treatment for my limbal stem-cell defficiency. Most stunning of all was how incredibly simple the procedure was. The mesenchymal stem cells had been cultivating on a membrane for the previous month, until they eventually derived into limbal stem cells. Now, all what was left was to stitch the membrane onto the outer surface of the annular region around the cornea, so that the stem cells would fall into, and could be absorbed by, this 'limbus region'. The procedure did not even require full local anesthesia, but some mild sedation sufficed. Not only could I follow the instructions and explanations the surgeon was giving to the nurses; but I could even feel the stitches. I could not believe anybody could have ever alleged safety concerns to bar me from receiving this treatment. What is that they fear? Did They think I could die? Did they worry I could get blind? Or, perhaps, it is something completely different...?

Not only was the procedure incredibly simple; but - wishful thinkings aside - the results could not have been better. Within a few weeks a healthy protective epithelium grew at the outer layer of my cornea. Since it is the limbal stem-cells which produce these epithelial cells, it was evident that the stem cells had got to work right away. Another crucial function of limbal stem cells is to deter the blood vessels from penetrating the cornia and, wonderfully enough, further confirmation that the new limbal stem cells were doing their work came over the following months as my cornea's neovascularization decreased significantly. Since I received the stem-cells transplant, I have visited numerous top-notch eye-clinics in Spain and the United States, and all the ophthalmologists have agreed there has been an improvement "from night to day". Indeed, the pictures speak for themselves. I just cannot believe that for four years I was not allowed by the health authorities to take proper care of my eyes.      

As expected, the reduction of my cornea's neovascularization allowed for a little improvement of my eye-sight. However, as fantastic as these limbal stem cells are, they do not do magic. A thick layer of scar tissue had formed in the past in the very centar of my cornea, and the new limbal stem cells were not going to miraculously make it disappear. For that purpose, a different type of stem cells, specific of the corneal stroma region, were necessary. Fortunately, there were good news on that front as well. During the previous years I had been researching online, looking for scientific papers on the question, writing to authors, and had found there had also been a lot of work and some fantastic advances in the restoration of the transparency of the main body of the cornea (corneal stroma). In fact, one group led by another Spanish ophthalmologist had already successfully completed a series of clinical studies on this specific topic. Oddily enough, they had to travel to Libanon to conduct these studies; for, in the Western fake-democratic world, our old friends of the national health regulatory agencies would not allow them. Back in 2021, I had written to some of the researchers, and one of them was kind enough to set me up an appointment with the group's leader. Much to my disappointment, however, at that time, he considered it was to no avail to introduce any stem cells inside my cornea, since my cornea's profuse neovascularization and the little protection my degraded epithelium provided would quickly lead my cornea to opacify again. Yet, with these two caveats addressed by the recent limbal stem-cells transplant, I had some hope the new verdict would be different. Hence, I traveled to Alicante in Southeastern Spain for another visit, and what was my joy, when he told me he thought it would work now.. Lamentably, it was not long before I got the bad news. Indeed, just a few days later, someone called me to inform me that the terms of the clinical study excluded my participation. After all, it had been good that, back in Alicante, right after coming out from my consultation with the ophthalmologist, his staff had already pointed out that caveat. I was not going to give up that easily, though. I therefore sat down and took a few days to write the best letter I could craft, suggesting we requested an emergency authorization, so that I would still be able to receive the treatment. I erupted in jubilation when I read his reply. Not only did he agree, but he even seemed optimistic about the chances of obtaining the authorization within a reasonable time. I was definitely fearing I would have to wait again several years before the freaking AEMPS would allow me to finally recover my eye-sight. At least, this time I knew (or so I thought) what is that I needed to do. I so again sat down to write another letter; this time to the Spanish Aniridia Association (AEA). In fact, it had only been some months that they had organized and promoted the aforementioned clinical study on the efficacy of a proprietary formula of serum tears. Thus, I only had to repeat their own arguments: "we needed to trust our researchers and cooperate with all these scientific efforts. Obviously, in order for Science to advance in the understanding of our Aniridia, it was imperative that we participate in these clinical studies and try out these new treatments"            

Much to my disappointment, not only the board of directors did never even tried to contact the AEMPS to advocate for me, but they never even bother to reply to my letter. If they disagreed with my reasoning, at least, if only for respect to a paid member, they could have given an explanation as of why they thought differently. Still, since I never give up, six months later I took the time to write then another letter. This time, however, I also sent a WhatsApp message to the AEA's president. Ironically enough, I had her contact from when she called me to promote the proprietary serum tears clinical study. It actually took two messages, but eventually she wrote me a short reply: she informed me that she no longer served as the president of the AEA, but I should rest assured that somebody from the AEA's board of directors would respond to my letter. You know, when they tell you to "rest assured", that is the time that you really need to freak out. Indeed, I have never ever received any response to my letters.

Never mind, in December 2023, the AEA sent a message to all its members, informing that the AEA's board of directors' term would expire in April 2024, and therefore elections would have to be held. They encouraged new people to take the step forward, contribute and get involved with the government of the AEA, because the current members of the board of directors were going to step down. Allegedly they were exhausted, they had dedicated a lot of time and energies to our beloved AEA, and it was time they would go on with their lives. Good riddance to bad rubbish! Absolutely!, those were excellent news: If they were leaving and someone new was now required, I was going to be more than happy to step forward and do the service they had never wanted to do: Yes, the Spanish Medicine Agency (AEMPS) was finally going to have to explain why they were systematically obstructing the development of stem cell treatments. All what I needed to do is to run in the upcoming elections, and, since nobody is interested in the AEA farse, I would not find any opposition to become a member of the board of directors.          

In fact, as it would soon be confirmed, the concern was if there would be enough people for the bare minimum of five members of the board. However, the real problem, what fire all the alarms, was when it became known that I intended to run. Then, they started moving heaven and earth, looking for people, who would be willing to run against me. However, nobody is foolish enough to buy into Rosa's ideology, according to which the patients should not ask what is that the AEA could do for us, but what is that the patients could do for the AEA. Consequently, they could not find anybody ready to run for the four high-responsibility positions requiring a significant time-commitment, and the incumbent members of the board had to revert their decision to leave. Considering that folks are usually not given to drastic changes, I do not think they could fear they might not be re-elected; but - as it turns out - the matter was serious enough, that they went as far as rigging the elections, in order to ensure I get excluded from the board. I guess like in most other associations of patients, adult members do not waste their time with the AEA, because they know that their association will never do anything for them. Since the AEA's concern is only to collecd funds, their only objective is to show how much they care for children with Aniridia. After all, nobody would imagine that - as any patient of Aniridia could tell you - children with Aniridia enjoy the happiest of lives, since everybody loves and cares for you. It is only as we mature and our eye-sight gets ever worse, that we really need help. After all what the AEA's current board of directors had pampered the families with children affected of Aniridia, in order to fix their re-election all what they had to do is to ensure that only the parents of those childrens could vote. Indeed, the families were invited to spend a all-free weekend in a exclusive campground in beautiful Guadarrama National Park. Lodging, meals and recreational activities were all paid by the AEA. You do not need me to tell you that, now that  these lovely folks - the AEA's board of directors' close circle of friends - were all assembled for such a wonderful occasion, it was the perfect opportunity to celebrate the elections. As of the other 90% of AEA's members - the adult patients of Aniridia - I was the only one to be able to cast a vote. Indeed, the AEA did not accept vote-by-mail, nor any other form of remote voting. Rather, in order to be able to vote, the AEA required all these severely-visually impaired adults to go through the ordeal of traveling by public transportation (since Aniridia patients do not see enough to be able to drive) to the campground site of the assembly, to which there is not even public transportation. The only option the AEA allowed to these adult patients, who could not attend the assembly in person, was to delegate their votes to some other member who could. However, even then it was impossible to give the delegate any instruction on what way the vote should go, since the AEA only announce who was running for election to those attending the assembly, 10 minutes before the voting started. As much as I have gone through in my life, the assembly was one of the most disturbing experiences: I only wanted to fight for the Aniridia patients, I was only asking to be allowed to request that the AEMPS would give permission to Aniridia patients to receive the safest and most effective medical treatments for their eyes, I was not going to get any kind of material compensation for my time and efforts, and, yet, the 20 - 30 hooligans gathered at the AEA assembly, all parents of children with Aniridia, said in no uncertain terms: "No!". As terrible as it sounds, their only concern was that every year they get to enjoy a free weekend at some beautiful vacation resort. To make a long story short and as a way of conclusion, as you have by now probably guessed, I never got the authorization to receive corneal-stroma stem-cells to clear the opacities in my cornea, neither did the IOBA research group ever receive from the Spanish Medicine Agency the license to freely perform their limbal stem-cells transplant on anybody who needs it, nor to this day has the Spanish Aniridia Association ever informed to all its members of the existence of said limbal stem-cells transplants against Aniridia patients' very-pernicious limbal deficiency.

   

 I was recently speaking with an Albanese doctor I have been visiting for quite some years now. Several months ago I read a scientific paper from an ophthalmologist in Albania on a clinical study on the kind of corneal-stroma stem-cell application that I require to clear the opacities in my cornea. I was most absolutely ready to travel to Albania, but the conditions of the study stated participation was "by invitation". Intriguingly enough, there was no indication on what it takes to receive one such "invitation". As much as I doubted that my Albanese doctor friend would help me, I thought it could not hurt to try. Thus, last time I visited his office, I asked him if perhaps, he would care to write some sort of letter of recommendation to his peer in Albania, explaining what kind of a nice fellow I was and how badly I needed to receive such a corneal stroma stem-cell treatment. As I had expected, he kept giving me evasive responses, He only insisted that is not how things work; but then never clarified how else is that things actually work and how I might otherwise be able to be invited. Probably driven by the feeling of helpnessness it cause me to realize, that once again I would miss out on this new chance to restore the transparency of my cornea and recover my vision, I thought for a second how awesome it would be to be a medical doctor: not only are they in the know of what are the most effective therapies to treat any health disorder; but they also have the most privilege information on how to get access to such therapies However, then I remembered the IOBA researchers and returned to the reality that medical doctors are cogs in the machine as well.  . Certainly, it is most monstrous that the System keeps the immense majority of the people from correctly treating their illnesses, and instead induce them to follow therapies that are known will only make their health problems even worse; but that does not change the fact that what the IOBA researchers (and many, many other scientists all around the globe in countless fields as well) have been and continue being put through is most absolutely unacceptable. The IOBA researchers spent many years working on a therapy that would significantly improve the lives of many folks like myself. Not only did they invest a lot of money; but they set all their dreams to such achievement, dedicating endless hours and energies. Not only did they give the best of themselves; but they actually made it. Yet, here are the evil health regulatory agencies to kill it all altogether. I cannot conceive how anyone would submit to such inhumanity, and not revolt. I would think, at the very least, the System would have to allow scientist to make a change in people's lives by invitation.  

 We live in a truly terrifying world: There are therapies, which could cure and immensely improve the lives of the people and, yet, the fake-Democracy system restricts them for the exclusive benefit of the privilege minority, who is somehow able to get an invitation. If somebody had told me some years ago, there is no way I had believed it. I would have said it is a lunatic conspiracy theory. I think no one is ready to believe any story of this sort can be true; it is just too painful to accept, no one could live thinking that human beings are like that. We just keep missing it is actually the System; we just have to understand we created a monster.

I remember when some years ago I was going through my divorce. A few days after the final hearing I  called the clerk of court. I had not been allowed to appear at the hearing, and wanted to know what was the status of the case. Oddily enough, the clerk told me they were waiting to receive the decree of dissolution from the opposing side's attorney. I guess at that point I really did not have good reasons to be surprised, since the day after the hearing, right in the middle of the weekend, I had been shocked to received from my wife's attorney a permanent order of protection against me. I did not understand where was that coming from: I had never been told my wife had requested a permanent order of protection against me, nor had I ever been informed the court would hear any such request, let alone had I ever had the chance to defend myself against any allegations against me. The pieces were now starting to fit together. Not long after my phone conversation with the clerk, I received the decree of dissolution from Alia's attorney. I was horrified: not only had the opposing side's attorney written down the court's decree from top to bottom; but the text was full of grotesquely fallacious assertions. The judge had just signed underneath! Most outrageous was the 'finding of fact', according to which a previous court had found I had commited acts of domestic violence against Alia. For goodness sake, it only took to check the court's own records to verify the statement was most absolutely false.

One year later, as I was preparing my appeal's opening brief, I thought I would ask a lawyer about it. Obviously, nothing could show more clearly the judge's blatant partiality, than - after the opposing side's attorney had written the court's decree from top to bottom - the judge would just sign it off without the slightest review for errors. Goodness gracious, the fox was put to guard the hen house! Much to my shock, my lawyer imperturbebly explained that was the usual practice. Oddily enough, he just could not entertain what could possibly be wrong about it and, without the flimsiest sign of second-hand embarrassment argued: "no judge would spend the time writing a parenting plan". Not long ago, I brought up the issue to another lawyer. What was particularly shocking in this later occasion was that the lawyer made his clarification thinking it would "set my mind at rest"; namely, I should not see it as something personally against me, but it is just how it works for everybody. I just could not believe it, we live in totally different worlds! The wealthy have come to believe their own lies. They are so used to their privileges and the obscene unbalance of opportunities they enjoy, that they do not feel any shame, they do not see anything wrong, they do not sense any need to make a pretense about it. Worst of all, as the example of these two lawyers show, we all have come to accept our sinister social class system as the right order of things. Is it not how things have always been, has there not always been social classes?, so what is wrong about that? We do not complain that those individuals wealthy enough to hire a powerful attorney enjoy a decisive advantage in any legal dispute; so long we have a good understanding that all other self-represented litigants are subjected to the same kind of unjust treatment as we do, from the so-called justice system. Since human beings blindly follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful individuals, who we believe care for us; the most wealthy only need to fake some care for us, and we will fall for any argument they come up with. So long democratic elections are celebrated every few years, we will buy that the Law applies equally to everybody, and our political system is a true democracy and the best thing since the invention of peanut butter or at least, the best system ever conceived.

Probably the view of these two lawyers I spoke with was based on the assumption, that each of the parties would be represented by an attorney. in such a case, it would be reasonable to trust, there will not be foul play among both parties' attorneys. However, if one of the parties appears pro se (self-represented), it is only a recipe for disaster to have the other side's attorney write down the court's decree. By the sheer definition of a lawyer, if the fox is put to guard the henhouse, it is a matter of time before the fox breaks in and devours the hens. If the argument has ever been that, in fear of the consequences that will follow, an attorney would never want to betray the trust bestowed by the System, my case outright debunks it. As the example of my two lawyers reveal, judges and lawyers are so absorbed in their own cosmology, that they do no longer care to hide their backroom dealings, and, lo and behold, the fox had left the smoking gun at plain sight. Now, who can blame the lawyer for doing his job?; but the "honorable" judge? If the guy did not feel like taking the time to write down the crook's decree himself; it was his Honor's responsibility to review it for errors before signing underneath. ...And errors there were several and pretty grotesque ones. The crook's decree went as far as misrepresenting previous crook's orders, so it was indefensible. For instance, district crook judge Jason Marks' decree stated that district crook judge Karen Townsend's order had found I had commited acts of domestic violence against Alia, and there was no such finding of fact anywhere. I am pretty sure she knew the allegations of abuse were false, and therefore she only wrote that the order of protection was for Alia's mental health and wellbeing.

It was clear to me that district crook judge Jason Marks needed to be held accountable for his crookedness, and I therefore started to research how I could file a complaint against him. As it is said in Spanish, the guy is more dangerous than a piranha in a bidet, and he cannot be let free there destroying people's lives. Considering that, in order for the System to work, it is imperative that the people trust our judges are honorable individuals, who take their decisions fairly and conscientiously; one would think that the System would be very interested to know, if a judge ever acts crookedly. Yet, it turns out the System prefers to bury the head in the sand: namely, if no judge is said to have acted crookedly, then the people will believe judges are honorable people. As it turns out, it is not that we cannot trust judges; but we simply cannot trust the System. 

Indeed, a rather complicated process is required, in order to file a complaint against a judge. In fact, there is only a judicial canon of ethics and it is only possible to file a complaint, if the judge has transgressed any of these ethical behaviors. In other words, there is not a series of laws, establishing a number of unacceptable conducts. This is so, because - as the canon's first rule defines - the fake-democratic system's objective is once more exclusively concerned with ensuring that the right appearance is produced: "A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety". Tellingly enough, the canon distinguishes between those rules that 'must' be strictly obeyed and those others that merely shall be observed. You would probably have thought that the stricter rules must be concerned with the judge's professional activities in the courtroom. After all those have the most severe impact on people's lives. But, at this point, hopefully you have realized that you could obviously not have been more naive, because it is actually the other way around. In fact, very few rules must be obligatorily followed. Among these, one that caught my attention prohibits judges from using official judicial letterhead in their personal correspondence; as if something like that could cause an irreversible harm to anyone's life... What strikes me the most is to what extent these assholes have come to believe their own lies. They obviously have become convinced they are "honorable" deities and we all view them as such. Thus, if you ever learn that the person before you is a judge, you will automatically fall to your knees and melt in adoration for his or her honor. In all honesty, knowing them as I do, I just could not find these individuals more repugnant. I understand the System's argument is that, just because a few judges err here and there, it does not change that they all do their best and - in the whole - are truly honorable individuals. However, if the System does not include any mechanism to discipline those judges, who botch their rulings, it is only a matter of time, before all the apples will get spoiled. Indeed, the canon barely includes anything concerned with how judges perform their job in the courtroom; but all the interest is centered around  how judges conduct themselves and what image do they project to the populace, once they step out of the courthouse. For instance, the canon goes as far as saying that a judge should not be biased; but - contrary to what any legal code would do - there is no attempt to objectively define what is a biased conduct and what is not. Rather, it is left to the eye of the beholder; that is, to the eye of the state's Judicial Standards Commission. Thus, when the day comes that some loser is foolish enough to take the time to prepare a complaint against a judge, - surprise, surprise - the honorable Judicial Standard Commission will not see anything wrong. Or, what would we all think about the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary, if we ever learn that the Judicial Standards Commission has found a rotten apple?

Yes, it is not just that the Judicial Standards Commission outright dismissed my complaint, without even starting an investigation; but the Supreme Court of Montana later also upheld district crook judge Jason Marks' decree in its entirety. In fact, the Supreme Court of Montana - head as it is of the gang - is another horror story of its own: in Its crookedness, It went as far as misrepresenting my own argument; as if I had admitted it was my fault that district crook judge Jason Marks had elaborated his decree based on incomplete information, since it was my fault that he did not allow me to appear at the hearing.  

My last resort was to appeal to the United States Supreme Court; but how to go about it? I had always thought that one could take any kind of case to the U.S. Supreme Court. All what mattered was that it could be shown that one has been severly aggrieved. Obviously, it is to be expected that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be a cumbersome and expensive process. Thus no one should take the decision to appeal lightly; since all the effort would be in vain, if there is not unequivocal evidence that the lower courts erred. However, as I started preparing my appeal, I found out that not any kind of case is acceptable, but a constitutional right must be in question. Well, at last I could find some solace from the brutal treatment I had received from the Montana courts. At least now I could very reasonably allege that my most basic constitutional right to be heard and receive a fair trial had been violated. In fact, the 14th Amendment says no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Goodness gracious, district crook judge Jason Marks had issued a permanent order of protection against me, without ever given me any chance to defend myself! Now, if I had ever thought that this blatant violation of my most basic constitutional rights cleared the way to my appeal, I could not have been more naive. In the so-called democratic world, we are told to have all sorts of fundamental rights, and the Constitution is there to protect them. When someone feels severely injured and is adament about it, it is common the phrase: "I will take it all the way up to the Supreme Court if I need to!" Yet, we are never told, we ignore that the immense majority of the cases is not even accepted for review by the Supreme Court. Yes, our rights are as good as the paper the Constitution is written on. If you ever think any of your constitutional rights has been violated, all what you can do is to file a 'petition for a writ of certiorari'. If the court accepts it, then your case will be reviewed; but that obviously does not mean in the slightest that the court will rule in your favor. The sad truth is that the Supreme Court only accepts less than 2% of the petitions it receives. Now, - not unlike what is the case with complaints against a judge - a petition will only be reviewed if the court finds it interesting; and, it goes without saying that - not unlike what is the case with the Judicial Standards Commission - whether a petition is interesting or not lies in the eye of the beholder; that is, the eye of the Supreme Court. In other words, whether your petition is accepted or not is not based on the severety of the injury but more like how many people will be disturbed or affected in some way, if your grievance is left in oblivion. Now, who cares if an order of protection is issued against some blind guy and, as a result, he loses all his belongings? Thus, you do not need me to tell you, that - not unlike what had been the case with my complaint against district crook judge Jason Marks - my appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not even accepted for review. In other words, the piranha is, as we speak, still there freely swimming in the bidet... (this is to say that, if you ever feel the need to go to the bathroom, you better be watchful). So, you are now a romantic, almost-quixotic, fully-motivated young idealist judge, just arrived at the courthouse, oozing lofty dreams of change and justice, and have no better idea than to tell the big-people's attorney, that the decree he has drafted contains errors that need to be corrected. Well, we will see if you ever get elected for a promotion... Indeed, the way the System works, a rotten apple spoils everyone in the basket.

Perhaps you are now there wondering, why did I never brought all these issues to the Press. Is that not what journalism are all about? Oh, the Press! The big vigilante of Freedom. Don Quixote defending the people against the evil Government. But, wait!, is not democracy the Government By The People? I guess I must say: Don Quixote defending the Big People against the evil government of the commonfolk. Yes, the Press: our lawyer, the good cop, fake-Democracy's Great Imposture. Journalists - literally on the big magnates' payroll as they are - defending the populace from their exploitation by the social betters. Oh my God! Here we go again! The Fox's employees guarding the henhouse once again! Well, I obviously did not put much effort in bringing these issues to the attention of the Press, because they are already perfectly aware of all of it, duh... Of course the Press is aware of everything. Journalists - that is, top journalists - are most definitely the best informed people; is that not their job? Top-journalists, of course, are in the know of everything. Of course, top journalists know that historically the absence of a central authority in a political system has always led to chaos and collapse. Of course, top journalists are perfectly aware that robots do not represent any kind of threat to human beings, since artificial systems can never feel any ambition to dominate anything, if they do not have any feelings in the first place. Of course, top journalists are completely in the know of all the safest, most advanced and effective therapies to treat the population's health problems, as well as the true, sinister reasons, why the rest of us is kept in the dark about too many of them. Of course, top journalists are definitely in the know about the court's general practice to allow the big-people's attorney to write down from top to bottom the crook's decree. Of course, the Press was perfectly aware that Irak did not have "weapons of mass destruction", but the whole affair was nothing but a gruesome and abominable hoax.

Yes, the Press knows very well absolutely all the poop politicians keep under their seats, but it is just that the Press only feels the need to uncover it all, the day the guy does start having no better idea than to tell the big-people's attorney, that the decree he has drafted contains errors, that need to be corrected. Or, what sort of chromosome comes dysfunctional from factory in all presidents, that none of them - as much as they have never any qualms about harassing any little nation around the globe - can, for the lives of them, ever think of going against those teeny-tiny tax heavens that make a handsome living from leeching off our nation's economy? Yes, what sort of chromosome comes dysfunctional from factory in all presidents, that none of them - regardless of how badly their electorate demand it - can, for the lives of them, ever think of instructing our nation's tax agency to collect taxes from those big magnates, who are well known to own the most obscene fortunes in the land, 

One excellent example of all the information the Press is perfectly aware of; but keeps the populace in the dark about is Bob Woodward's September 2020 book "Rage", where the world-reknown American journalist reports on the chillingly grim remarks President Donald Trump made to him during an recorded interview in February of 2020. The September 2020 book's main contribution is to prove that President Trump was perfectly aware, as early as February of that year, of the deadly threat COVID-19 represented. As soon as the news got out, the Press did not hesitate for a minute to rake President Trump for downplaying the gruesome calamity COVID-19 would bring about. Yes, over one million people died of COVID-19 in the United States, making it the deadliest disaster in the nation's history. Personally, the cancellation of my cornea surgery due to the COVID-19 crisis put the final nail on my cornea's coffin; but, at least, I did not lose my life. Yes, if only we had known!, how many lives could have been saved? Yes, we can only curse the names of those wicked assholes, who concealed the truth on COVID-19's deadly virulence. Certainly, if there is something on this planet, that top journalists and public-opinion leaders alike love more than Homer Simpson enjoys eating with his hands, it is to rake politicians over the coals. Here are again those who live in crystal houses going about throwing stones around. Indeed, did we not agree it is the Press' essential role to inform the people about what happens in the world, particularly in those areas in which audiences do not possess direct knowledge or experience? Or, perhaps, informing the people is the job of the President in a democracy? Definitely, here are the little brats going around delivering - left and right - lectures on hygiene practices, as they hold tight to their fully-loaded diapers. It is certainly a true irony of destiny that Mr. Woodward will go down in History as the corageous, romantic, almost-quixotic, fully-motivated young idealist journalist, who - with Carl Bernstein - broke and reported on the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post. Definitely, we can only curse the day that Mr. Woodward decided that, whatever reasoning he followed to justify the publication and devulgation of the confidential information, that triggered the first resignation of an American president - did not suffice to alert the American people of the deadliest disaster in the nation's history.

Ok, Ok, I get it, just because Mr. Woodward is rotten, it does not mean that - in the whole - journalists are good-natured folks, who care for the populace and do their best to defend us from the abuse and exploitation of the elite. So, you are now a romantic, almost-quixotic, young idealist journalist, just arrived at some Media outlet's newsroom, oozing lofty dreams of change and justice, and have no better idea than to write an article uncovering all the filth in the System. Well, we will see how many articles you manage to get published in your short journalism career... I mean, seriously, do you really think Bob Woodward was the only influential journalist who knew how deadly COVID-19 actually was? The Press of course is most absolutely in the know about all the filth the populace has to ignore, in order for the System to continue running. Of course, the Press knew what was that miraculous cure, that brought President Trump back into business within a couple of days, when in October 2020 he got COVID-19 himself. Do you remember how impress he was at the efficacy of the antibody treatment he received? He even promised he would make sure everybody would have access to it. Certainly, it would only be mean to criticize he was given the opportunity to treat his COVID-19 symptoms; the problem, however, is the millions of people who were denied such an option. Although, I think it is reasonable to argue the President serves a key role in the nation and it was therefore justified to treat his case with special care and consideration. Still, it is more difficult to make sense of why an emergency authorization was requested to treat his mild symptoms. Indeed, President Trump received an experimental antibody cocktail, normally reserved for severe COVID-19 cases. Since the treatment was experimental, it was absolutely reasonable that the FDA would not authorize experimenting with mild cases. Rather, only if the patient's condition was severe, it made sense to take the risk of an unsafe, experimental treatment. Yes, contrary to some of the views expressed at the time by mass-Media - it does not trouble me, that special consideration was conferred to President Trump's case; but what I find really odd is that everybody agree to experiment with nothing less than the very United-States President's life. OK, I understand the risks involved were not as high as those of, say, President Nixon's decision to go ahead with the Apollo XI mission. However, the fact that the FDA would not issue this kind of emergency authorizations to any other mild cases, proves there were some major safety concerns; does it not...? For me it has always been an irony, that precisely during those days of October 2020 I was traveling to the AEMPS's headquarters, in the naive hope to obtain an emergency authorization to recieve a transplant of limbal stem cells for my eye. Evidently, it was a hopeless effort: It was not just that they would not grant me the authorization, but they were never even going to admit that safety concerns were not the true reason for their denial.

No doubt about it, - not unlike the common practice of the government of a totalitarian regime - fake-Democracy's journalism's actual job is to keep the commonfolk in the dark on everything but the System's good deeds: Is it not wonderful all the resources the System spends to help disabled folks to lead a normal life? Have you seen how much the System cares for children with Cancer, Autism, Aniridia, etc.; while adult patients are abandoned to their grim fate? Have you noticed how much consideration is given to all those women who (truthfully or not) alleged to have been abused by their male partners; while nothing is ever done nor said about the many more children being bullied in school, or the elderly and disabled folks, who - being in a much weaker state - go through far greater ordeals? If only for one thing, children, disabled and elderly folks have it far more difficult to run away from their abusers than women. Definitely, - not unlike the common practice of the government of a totalitarian regime - fake-Democracy's journalism's job is to sing the praises of fake-Democracy: the best political system ever conceived, even though nothing works in the society as it should, or it is said to. Nevertheless, since we always follow the guidance of those more knowledgeable individuals, who we feel care for us, we have all come to buy that our fake-Democracy may not be perfect; but at least is better than nothing.   

Well, I guess we have to conclude there is nothing better than to be a journalist; I mean, a top journalist, of course - because it is certainly doubtful that rank-and-file journalists would be trusted and allowed to have much access to anything important -. Now, top journalists... imagine for a second you were a top-journalist: you would be in the know of everything. All the knowledge in the world would be at your disposal: If there were anything you did not know personally; you would know exactly where and how you could find it out. If you want to learn what are the latest developments and current trends in technology, all you will have to do is to look up, who is the right technology expert to contact in the specific field in question. If you dig to understand how (capital P) Power works, just consult with a good historian! If you need to find out what are the latest and most significant advances and breakthroughs in Science, you should obviously speak with a scientist who works on the specific question. If you want to know what are the keys to prevail in any legal dispute, just have a close-door discussion with a powerful attorney friend of yours.

I had thought there was no more powerful knowledge than to understand how the mind works; but forget it!: top journalist have access to that knowledge and much, much more. It is just lamentable, however, that from all careers and professions top-journalists seem to be the most stupid of all. Yes, with all that knowledge at their disposal, is there any worse direction in which to guide the society? Is this the kind of world they want to live in?: a world where only those born to a wealthy family will receive a good education and enjoy a reasonable opportunity to prosper in life; a world where only those with a buttload of money have access to the medical treatments that really cure, while everybody else is just kept able to work, but forever dragging their health problems for the profit of the pharmaceutical corporations; a world where - unless the case is the kind of high profile story, that is likely to attract the attention of the general public - justice is meted out based on how much money the person is able to spend in attorney fees... Undoubtedly, this kind of world, where a person's worth is determined by how much money he or she owns, offers many incentives to those highly qualified professionals who make good money; but is this the kind of world they want to leave to their children? Clearly, ours is a system that only works for the most wealthy families, or so they believe... They own and control the money with which to by the wills of all the most knowledgeable and influential professionals in the society, and so keep the System running. You see, as they all will disingenuously argue, our fake-Democracy is not perfect, but is better than nothing. We all feel privileged, because we are in the know of some very valuable information, everybody else is kept in the dark about; but we ignore all the information we are ourselves likewise kept in the dark about. Somehow, we keep playing this stupid hide-and-seek game with one another. The higher up one is and bigger the incentives one receives, the more we appreciate and support the fake-Democracy System; but it is only foolish, since the System is most absolutely doomed from its inception. Definitely, - no matter how we fancy to name it - our system is utterly dysfunctional: there is no good cooperation within the society, because we hide the information from one another, nor is there any healthy competition, because the System is most absolutely rigged. Now, if those at the top have never had to make any effort to accomplish anything; it is only natural that they will become utterly incompetent, and it will only be a matter of time, until the competition will blow us out of the water. Really, these most wealthy families at the top of the society simply could not be more stupid. They will insist making the same mistake over and over again. They are stuck in the grotesquely disingenuous argument, whereby their most eminent and illustrious ancestors forever earned their right to their obscene wealth and privileged status. If any politician ever tries to have them pay any taxes, they will hypocritically argue, exactly as fake-Democracy's founding fathers did, that the guy is a tyrant and is out to enslave them. Since human beings blindly follow the guidance of those stronger, most knowledgeable or - all in all - powerful individuals, who we feel care for us, and - undeniably - politicians are nevertheless veritably despicable; we will buy all their bullshit arguments, rally behind them, even chop the guy's head off in the name of democracy if there is ever the chance, and forever curse his name in the history books. Come hell or high water, there is no way they will ever come to grips with the very basic fact, that the leadership of a society needs to be constantly rejuvenated with fully-motivated, corageous, new folks or it will slowly but surely degenerate. For all that knowledge at their disposal, they would only have to consult with any historian to understand, why all empires in History (much like a living being) first rise and grow powerful, then slowly but surely become decadent, until they finally collapse.

Just because they name Democracy to the monster it is not going to change anything. If the Titanic goes under, it is not like the tip of the iceberg will stay afloat; but the whole system collapses and disappears. As a matter of fact, historically, whenever a civilization was overrun by another, it is precisely the old, decrepit head of the society which gets chopped off, while the populace is frequently left unharmed; you see, the new masters will need someone to work for them... Indeed, whenever a society collapses, those who so disastrously have led the way are the ones who get replaced by a new leadership. Really, these most wealthy families at the very top of the society could not be dumber.

It is actually a very well understood, truly fundamental principle in the field of intelligence and machine learning: without some sort of competition there is no learning. If an agent (be it a robot, an animal, a human being, a whole society or any choice-making system in general) does never get any negative feedback, it will not be able to learn: namely, if an agent is so powerful that, regardless of how stupidly it may act, it never suffers any consequence; it will never be able to learn from any mistake, but will forever continue repeating them. Now, crucially, in this wild world we live in, where survival-of-the-fittest is always the ultimate judge, that reigns supreme over everyone and everything, intelligent behavior is not a matter of choice, but of survival. Absolutely!, those agents who follow intelligent conducts ultimately will always drive into extinction those who do not. Tragically enough, it is transparent to anyone who accepts to see it, as humanity has risen well over subsistence levels and has become ever more powerful, we have turned utterly stupid. Hence, you see?, I was right!!: There is no more powerful knowledge in this world than to understand how the mind works and what the thing we call "intelligence" is all about. Yes, the thing we so undefinedly and misguidedly call intelligence is not about getting our brain's light bulb to shine brightly and amaze everybody around us; rather, it only makes sense to speak of intelligent behavior, as those conducts that lead an - individual or collective - organism to flourish and prevail. In human terms, this translates to saying that intelligent behavior is what leads a person to be happy. Yes, I know there is at this time no way that you can believe it from me; but it is strictly false that some people have a better brain or is more intelligent than others. My brain, your brain, everybody's brain is the same and there is no way around it. If some folks come up with better ideas than others, it is not because their brain's light buld shines more brightly, but because they looked for them harder, and in all likelihood they were lucky enough to have been taught certain concepts, with which the exploration became far more effective and easier. Undoubtedly, there are folks that in certain subjects know significantly more than others; but - as smart as that will make them appear - that is only because they have studied and thought over those issues more than most people, not because they have a privileged brain and are more intelligent. For instance, whatever I know about how the brain works is only because I have studied and thought about the subject for over thirty years. It also helps that - as you have by now probably already figure out - I am the biggest stubborn motherfucker ever; I just try to make it look as if I am very tenacious. The fictitious concept of intelligence was invented and has always been used to control. Those who were able to convince the rest that their success was due to their superior intellect gained full control over their new pupils. Why do you think we all love to give free advice, as much as we hate to receive lectures on what is best for us? It is only when it comes to performing some work, that we all of a sudden become humbler and argue, that someone more intelligent than us will probably be better suited to sort out such task... Believe me, do not fall for all that wicked "intelligent person" myth; fact of the matter is the purpose of the brain is to find out how things work, so that it becomes easier to optimize the interaction with the world around us, and therefore maximize the likelihood of achieving the organism's ultimate goals. Simply put, the purpose of the brain is to guide the individual into a happy life. I mean, really, what good is your intelligence for, if you cannot figure out how to be happy?

When I began my graduate-school studies, the first thing they taught me was that the capital principle of how the brain works is neurons cooperating and competing among one another. Fascinatingly enough, if you think about it, that is the same principle whereby we grow our scientific knowledge of the world around us: namely, an immense network of researchers in continuous cooperation with and competition against one another, following the scientific method to find ever more accurate ways to explain how things work. In fact, a careful analysis of Nature reveals that optimality is always found at a perfect equilibrium between competition and cooperation. A complex system will be in an optimal state, so long the parts that make it up maintain a perfect balance of competition and cooperation among one another. Obviously, we can observe this cardinal principle in humans as well; both, in individual humans and in human societies: As living beings subject to Nature's survival-of-the-fittest rule, we naturally compete for survival against all other living beings. However, our existential need of love and affection drives us to cooperate with other humans - as well with some other living beings - in order to be happy. It is then easy to see how competition leads us to work in the short term, whereas our need of love and affection conditions us to follow a longer-term strategy. Clearly, the happy medium between the short term and the long term, the perfect balance between competition and cooperation, is where the system achieves its optimal performance. Yes, it is good in all to survive; but we are obviously not going to settle just for that, we also want to be happy! Now, there is no way around it, whether we like it or not, we will never be able to find any kind of stable, long-lasting happiness in life, if we do not feel loved. Take Bob Woodward as an example: You do not agree he would feel much better about himself, if he could think he was going to be remembered as the hero, who gave the alert on the impending deadly COVID-19 threat; rather than just the young journalist, who trigger the first resignation of an U.S. President? Evidently, as humanity has risen well over subsistence levels and has become ever more powerful, our understanding of the world has turned more and more misguided, and our conducts keep getting ever dumber. We erroneously believe in the existence of the so-called "scientifically proven" facts, and blindly trust everything we are taught by the most eminent figures in the society. We have got convinced that scientific knowledge is unquestionable and we should not trust our irrational natural instinct. Not only do we forget that scientific theories have constantly been proven false, but the very gross misconception, whereby the scientific method is about proving the truthfulness of scientific theories, has taken hold among the big majority of the people. Since we have come to absorbed that we should favor whatever we are taught over what our natural instinct tell us; we have lost touch of the most fundamental principles of life. Indeed, since now we only listen to the lectures of those at the top of the society, we have come to believe that the main objective in life is to make money, and we entirely miss the true, paramount value of love and how essential it is for a happy life. 

So, do you not agree with me there is no more important knowledge than to understand how our mind works? Imagine, given that everything in Nature is optimal as of yesterday evening, if we could figure out what dynamics does the brain follow to find those conducts that lead the organism to flourish (i.e. if we could figure out the keys to intelligent behavior); there would not be problem in this world too big for us to solve. We could even fix this world!; doesn't that sound crazy! Yeah, call me a romantic, almost-quixotic, fully-motivated young idealist scientist, just arrived in the public arena oozing lofty dreams of change and justice, with no better idea than to correct everybody and assert there is simply no intelligent-agent light bulb inside our brains making choices. Indeed, you probably have noticed that I keep making these firm, unyielding and bold assertions about even the most complex, contended and controversial of all philosophical concepts. The thing is that, as I mentioned earlier, during the last years I have been working very hard on a scientific model of the brain, and all these propositions are just the conclusions I extract from my theory. At its core, I conclude the key of intelligent behavior lies in the scientific method itself: namely the scientific method mirrors the dynamics followed by the brain to investigate the world. I leave it up to you to find flaws and contradictions in my model, but I hope you will understand, I cannot help to think I got it right. In fact, all the pieces fit together! For instance, now I have come to believe that, if I had known back in South Africa all what I know now, I would have had a very good chance to saving my marriage. At the beginning, you may have felt I was completely giving away the story; however, perhaps, now you understand why I said you should expect an earth-shaking turn of events at the very end. I guess we will see...