Rhazes

Rhazes

The year was 900 AD, and the air in Baghdad was heavy with the smell of woodsmoke, spice, and something far more dangerous.

Deep inside the Caliph’s palace, a group of advisors stood around a massive table, debating a problem that would define the health of the empire.

The Caliph wanted to build a great hospital—a Bimaristan—that would be the finest in the world.

But Baghdad was a sprawling, crowded metropolis of nearly a million people, and disease was a constant, invisible shadow in the narrow streets.

Where could they possibly build a place of healing where the air itself didn’t rot the patients from within?

They turned to a man known as Rhazes.

He was a man of science, a polymath who had already written hundreds of books on everything from smallpox to philosophy.

Rhazes didn’t look at maps or listen to the political whims of the city’s elite.

Instead, he called for his assistants and gave them a command that sounded like the work of a madman.

He told them to go to the butchers’ stalls and buy several slabs of fresh, raw meat.

Then, he instructed them to hang these pieces of meat on tall poles in various quarters of the city.

One was placed in the bustling market, another near the stagnant canals, one near the palace, and others in the high, windy outskirts.

People stopped and stared as the bloody cuts of meat were hoisted into the air.

They whispered that the great doctor had finally lost his mind.

But Rhazes wasn’t interested in the gossip of the crowd; he was conducting a silent, deadly experiment.

He knew that disease was often carried by ’miasma’—the foul, putrid air that seemed to linger in certain parts of the city.

He believed that the air which rotted food the fastest would surely rot the human body just as quickly.

Day after day, under the blistering sun of Mesopotamia, Rhazes began his rounds.

He visited every single pole, his eyes scanning the texture of the flesh and his nose catching the first scents of decay.

In the crowded center of the city, the meat turned grey and slimy within forty-eight hours.

Near the water, the stench became unbearable by the third morning.

But in one specific spot, the meat remained remarkably red and firm.

While the other samples were crawling with flies and black with rot, this single piece of meat seemed to resist the inevitable.

Rhazes had found his answer.

He pointed to that specific patch of ground and told the Caliph: ’This is where you will build.’

He had used the most basic laws of nature to find the cleanest, most circulating air in the entire city.

It was a primitive version of what we now call environmental science.

When the hospital was finally completed, it became a sanctuary of recovery rather than a place of death.

Rhazes went on to lead the hospital, implementing revolutionary ideas like keeping detailed patient records and separating those with contagious diseases.

He understood that the environment was the first line of defense in medicine.

Long before the invention of the microscope or the discovery of bacteria, a man with a piece of meat proved that the invisible world around us is the key to our survival.

He didn’t just build a hospital; he built a blueprint for how we design our world today.

True wisdom is the ability to see the extraordinary in the ordinary.

Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, History of Physicians / National Library of Medicine

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Ann Margaret and Roger Smith

Ann Margaret and Roger Smith

She was twenty-eight years old and the most photographed woman in Las Vegas. Hollywood was bidding for her time. Elvis Presley had been in love with her. Frank Sinatra wanted her in his orbit. Every studio in town was offering her contracts she could not say no to. Her doctors had just told her that her husband Roger had a degenerative neuromuscular disease that was going to slowly take his body away from him. Her agent told her to keep working. Her friends told her she was too young to be a full-time caregiver. She fired the agent. Her name was Ann-Margret.

In the middle of the 1960s, Ann-Margret was the kind of famous that made cameras malfunction. She had been born in Sweden and brought to America as a child, and somewhere along the way she had become the woman every studio in Hollywood was trying to put under contract. She was iconic before she was thirty.

And she was tired.

Hollywood is very good at turning people into products. Ann-Margret had been inside the machine long enough to recognize that she had become one. When she walked into a room, people saw a brand. When she did publicity, her smile started to hurt from holding it for the cameras. When she went home, she was alone with the version of herself the world wanted her to be.

In 1965, she met Roger Smith.

Roger had been famous first. He had been the lead of one of the biggest television shows in America, 77 Sunset Strip, and he had the chiseled jaw and the easy charm of the kind of leading man Hollywood produced in those years. He also had three children from a failed marriage and a quiet, growing exhaustion with the business that had made him a star. When he met Ann-Margret backstage, he did not treat her like a conquest. He asked about her family. He noticed when she was uncomfortable. He saw, with what seems to have been a kind of instant and accurate clarity, the person underneath the product.

They married on May 8, 1967, in a small ceremony in Las Vegas. There was no press. No fanfare. Just a quiet decision between two people who had figured out how to be honest with each other in a city that was not built for it.

A few years into their marriage, Roger began dropping things. Coffee cups. Car keys. His words began to slur. The diagnosis, when it finally came, was myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disease that would slowly take his strength, his coordination, and eventually his clear speech away from him. There was no cure. There was only one direction the disease moved, and that direction was down.

Ann-Margret was at the absolute peak of her career.

Her agent gave her the speech. Other managers gave her the speech. Some of her friends gave her the speech. You are too young to become a full-time caregiver. You have too much talent to waste. He has children of his own who can step in. This is not your responsibility to carry.

She fired the agent.

What people on the outside did not understand was that Roger had been quietly saving her life since the day they met. When predatory producers had circled her, Roger had been the wall between her and people who wanted to use her up. When she had doubted her own worth, Roger had been the person who told her the truth. When fame had made her feel like a beautiful piece of merchandise, Roger had reminded her that she was a person, and that the person was the part that mattered. He had given her the space to be vulnerable, to be imperfect, to be seen.

Now it was her turn.

Ann-Margret restructured her career around Roger’s illness. She turned down film roles that required long stretches on location. She canceled concert tours. She rearranged her Vegas residencies so that she would never be away from him for more than a few days at a time. When his speech became hard to follow, she became his voice in business meetings, finishing his sentences not to talk over him but to translate him for the rest of the room. When he could no longer walk on his own, she helped him walk. When he could no longer perform some of the public functions of being her husband, she made the public functions optional and kept the marriage private.

Hollywood watched, fascinated and a little horrified. This was not how the story was supposed to go. Young beautiful actresses were not supposed to give up their careers to care for sick husbands. They were supposed to move on, hire help, find a younger and healthier partner. Ann-Margret did none of those things, and she did not explain herself, and she did not apologize for the choice. She simply stayed.

It helped, probably, that what she was doing did not feel like sacrifice from the inside. It felt like the natural continuation of a decision she had already made on May 8, 1967. He had chosen her when she had needed someone to choose her. She was going to choose him back, every day, for as long as it took.

She had no biological children of her own. She raised Roger’s three children as fiercely as if she had given birth to them. She showed up at graduations, at weddings, at the births of grandchildren. She did not try to replace their mother. She simply added herself to the family, again and again, until being there had become so steady that the children stopped noticing it as a thing she was choosing to do.

The disease took its time with Roger. It took his mobility. It took his ability to speak clearly. It eventually took most of his physical strength. But it did not take the thing that had made them a couple in the first place, which was the way they looked at each other.

Roger Smith died on June 4, 2017, at the age of eighty-four. He and Ann-Margret had been married for fifty years and a few weeks.

She did not issue a dramatic statement. She did not seek sympathy. She mourned the way she had loved, quietly, mostly out of view of the cameras, with the same private dignity she had carried through the entire marriage.

Hollywood is built on illusion. Ann-Margret and Roger Smith spent fifty years inside it building the only real thing the place had.

Jonathan Kozol

Jonathan Kozol

They fired him for teaching Langston Hughes to fourth graders—what he discovered in that classroom became a six-decade battle against America’s most carefully hidden shame.

Jonathan Kozol was 27 years old in 1964 when he walked into a Boston fourth-grade classroom and realized something terrible: the system had already given up on half the children sitting in front of him.

He could have chosen differently. He was a Harvard graduate. A Rhodes Scholar. He had the credentials to build a comfortable career far from the peeling paint and overcrowded hallways of underfunded schools.

Instead, he became a substitute teacher in one of Boston’s most neglected neighborhoods.

What he discovered there would consume the rest of his life.

The textbooks were falling apart—pages missing, spines broken, information decades out of date. Classes met in storage closets and hallways because there weren’t enough actual classrooms. Children were sorted into “low-level“ groups based not on ability or potential, but on zip codes, family income, and skin color.

They were labeled and limited before they’d even had a chance to prove who they could become.

Jonathan Kozol looked at these children—bright, curious, eager to learn—and saw something the system refused to see: they deserved better.

So he gave them better.

One day, he taught poetry. Not from the approved textbook with its safe, sanitized selections. He brought in the words of Langston Hughes—poetry that sang with rhythm and pain and beauty and truth. Poetry that reflected lives like theirs. Poetry that said: your experience matters, your voice matters, you matter.

The children responded. They loved it. They asked for more.

The Boston Public Schools fired him for it.

He had deviated from the approved curriculum. He had raised expectations beyond what the system deemed appropriate for these children. He had challenged an order designed to keep certain kids in their assigned place.

The message was brutally clear: Don’t disrupt the system. Don’t expose what we’re hiding. Don’t show these children what they’re being denied.

But Jonathan Kozol didn’t disappear quietly.

He visited his students’ neighborhoods. He spoke with their families. He listened to parents who knew their children were brilliant but watched the schools treat them as disposable. He heard the grief—and the stubborn, unbreakable hope—behind their stories.

He learned how school boards buried failure in bureaucratic language, using reports and statistics and policy papers to soften brutal truths. How “resource allocation“ meant giving the most to schools that already had everything. How “achievement gaps“ were created by design, not accident.

In 1967, Jonathan Kozol published Death at an Early Age—a devastating account of racial segregation and educational abandonment in Boston’s public schools.

The book won the National Book Award. It forced America to confront an uncomfortable reality that many wanted to keep hidden:

“Separate but equal“ had been a lie. Inequality wasn’t a bug in the system—it was a feature. And it was thriving in classrooms across America, long after the law claimed victory over segregation.

For the next six decades, Jonathan Kozol traveled across America visiting schools that most people would never see—schools that comfortable America pretends don’t exist.

He sat with students in the South Bronx, where water-damaged ceilings sagged dangerously above their heads while they tried to learn. He walked through overcrowded classrooms in Chicago, Philadelphia, Camden, and Washington, D.C.—schools without working bathrooms, without heat in winter, without books published in the current century.

He listened to teachers fighting impossible battles in crumbling buildings while the public looked away and politicians made speeches about the importance of education.

Everywhere he went, he saw the same devastating pattern:

Funding followed wealth, not need.

Children in wealthy suburban districts learned in bright, modern classrooms overflowing with resources—state-of-the-art technology, well-stocked libraries, small class sizes, art programs, music programs, Advanced Placement courses, college counselors.

Children in poor urban and rural districts learned in buildings that felt like afterthoughts—forgotten, neglected, dismissed. Buildings with holes in the walls. Textbooks from the 1980s. Classes of 35 or 40 students crammed into rooms built for 20. No counselors. No art. No music. Nothing extra. Sometimes not even the basics.

And this wasn’t accidental. This was policy. This was how America funded its schools—tying education spending to local property taxes, guaranteeing that poor communities would have poor schools.

Jonathan Kozol turned these findings into urgent, searing calls for change.

Savage Inequalities (1991) documented the obscene disparities between neighboring school districts—wealthy suburbs spending $15,000 per student while urban districts spent $5,000, sometimes separated by less than a mile.

Amazing Grace (1995) focused on the South Bronx, telling the stories of children growing up in America’s poorest congressional district, surrounded by poverty and pollution while politicians gave speeches about equal opportunity.

The Shame of the Nation (2005) showed how schools had resegregated decades after Brown v. Board of Education, with children of color once again isolated in separate, unequal schools while America pretended the problem had been solved.

Each book reinforced the same painful, undeniable truth:

America’s education system rewards privilege and punishes poverty. It gives the most resources to children who already have the most advantages. And it abandons children whose only mistake was being born in the wrong neighborhood.

But Jonathan Kozol was never just an observer documenting from a safe distance.

He returned to the same students year after year. He remembered their names. He celebrated their graduations—the ones who made it. He mourned the ones who didn’t. He listened to their dreams and watched the system crush those dreams with systematic, bureaucratic efficiency.

He wrote about them not as statistics or case studies, but as children—with personalities, hopes, humor, and potential that the system refused to nurture.

Critics called him too emotional. Too idealistic. Too angry. They said he was biased, that he cherry-picked examples, that the problem was more complex than he made it seem.

Jonathan Kozol never apologized for his anger.

He kept asking one haunting question that made everyone uncomfortable:

Why do we accept a system that gives the most to the children who already have the most?

Why do we tolerate a country where your education—your chance at a future—depends on your parents’ income and your home address?

Why do we claim to value equality while funding schools in ways that guarantee inequality?

Nobody had a good answer. Sixty years later, nobody still does.

Jonathan Kozol never set out to become America’s educational conscience. He just wanted to teach poetry to fourth graders. He wanted to show them beauty and complexity and truth.

He wanted them to read Langston Hughes and see themselves reflected back—to understand that their voices mattered, that their experiences were worthy of literature, that they deserved the same quality education as children in wealthy suburbs.

The system fired him for that. For believing these children deserved more than they were being given.

But what he uncovered in that Boston classroom—the deliberate, systematic abandonment of children based on circumstances they couldn’t control—pushed him into a lifelong fight.

For six decades, he has fought for the children we keep forgetting. The children we’ve decided—through policy, through funding, through willful neglect—don’t deserve the same chance.

He documented the inequality we’d rather ignore. He told the stories we’d rather not hear. He showed us the schools we’d rather pretend don’t exist.

And he never let us look away comfortably.

Jonathan Kozol is now in his late 80s. Still writing. Still speaking. Still visiting schools. Still asking the questions that make people uncomfortable.

Still refusing to accept the unacceptable.

Because here’s what Jonathan Kozol understood from that first day in that Boston classroom:

Education isn’t neutral. A system that gives some children everything and other children nothing is making a choice about who matters.

When we fund schools based on property taxes, we’re saying wealthy children deserve more than poor children.

When we allow schools in poor neighborhoods to crumble while schools in rich neighborhoods flourish, we’re saying some children’s futures matter more than others.

When we accept “achievement gaps“ without questioning the opportunity gaps that created them, we’re pretending the system is fair when it’s designed to be unfair.

Jonathan Kozol spent six decades refusing to pretend.

He was fired from his first teaching job for giving children poetry they weren’t supposed to have.

He spent the rest of his life showing America what else we’re not giving them—and asking why we’re okay with that.

The answer, of course, is that we’re not okay with it. Not really. When confronted directly with the inequality, most people are appalled. Most people believe children deserve equal opportunity.

But we’ve built systems that make inequality invisible. We’ve sorted children into separate schools so we don’t have to see the disparity. We’ve used policy language to hide moral failures. We’ve made it easy to ignore what’s happening in schools we’ll never visit, to children we’ll never meet.

Jonathan Kozol made it impossible to ignore.

He brought the invisible children into focus. He told their stories with such clarity and compassion that readers couldn’t turn away. He made the comfortable uncomfortable—which is exactly what needed to happen.

Sixty years after he was fired for teaching Langston Hughes, the questions he raised remain unanswered:

Why do we fund schools in ways that guarantee inequality?

Why do we accept that a child’s education depends on their parents’ income?

Why do we claim to value equality while building systems designed to produce inequality?

If education is the pathway to opportunity, why do we make that pathway smooth and wide for some children and rough and narrow for others?

Jonathan Kozol leaves us with these questions. Not because he doesn’t have answers—he’s proposed solutions for decades. But because the questions themselves reveal our failure.

We know what equal opportunity would look like. We know how to fund schools equitably. We know how to give every child a genuine chance.

We just haven’t decided to do it.

And that decision—to continue accepting a system where some children get everything and others get scraps—is a moral choice we make every day.

Jonathan Kozol spent six decades refusing to accept that choice.

He fought for children who had no voice in the rooms where decisions were made about their futures.

He documented the inequality we’d rather ignore.

He asked the questions we’d rather not answer.

And he leaves us with one final, unavoidable truth:

If equality is our promise, our schools break that promise every single day.

The question is: how much longer will we accept it?

Godfather of AI: “If you sleep well tonight, you may not have understood this lecture.”

Geoffrey Hinton

This 47-minute lecture is the best thing I saw about AI in the last few months. It will definitely help you understand how it actually works and where it’s going. Geoffrey Hinton built the neural networks behind every AI alive, then quit Google to warn the world about it.

The part nobody wanted to hear:

AI is already developing abilities its creators didn’t intend
in most cognitive tasks it’s already ahead of us
the question is no longer if it surpasses us but when
the only decision left is which side of that line you’re on

Right now the average person opens Claude, types something, gets an answer, closes the tab. They think they’re using AI. they’re using maybe 10% of it.

I went through his entire lecture, built a practical system from what he was describing. 18 steps to actually use Claude the right way, with copy-paste prompts that work today. Full guide in the post below.

Click to view the video:  https://x.com/AnatoliKopadze/status/2054609639325434057?s=20

Vaccines – The Biggest Lie In Medicine

Dr Pierre Kory On Vaccines

Dr. Pierre Kory says there’s no bigger lie in medicine than vaccines.

“I know too much about history, too much about these lies that have been propagated for decades.”

“There’s no bigger one than the vaccines.”

“The vaccines are built on a myth that has been propagated for decades.”

“When I’ve gone deep on the polio epidemic, the smallpox epidemic… vaccines didn’t cure those pandemics.”

“Those are very complicated stories that have been simplified.”

“To a story that benefits a certain class of people: the pharmaceutical industry.”

Click to view the video:  https://x.com/ChildrensHD/status/2053973427384402134?s=20

Our Kids Are Less Cognitively Capable Due To Tech

This teacher-turned-cognitive scientist shared a disturbing reality that left the room stunned.

“Our kids are LESS cognitively capable than we were at their age.”

Every previous generation outperformed its parents since we began recording in the late 1800s.

So, what happened?

Screens.

Dr. Jared Horvath explained:

“Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory, to literacy, to numeracy, to executive functioning, to EVEN GENERAL IQ, even though they go to more school than we did.”

“So why? … The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning (screens).”

“If you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly, to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two-thirds of a standard deviation LESS than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school. And that’s across 80 countries.”

But screens aren’t just decimating learning and making new generations less intelligent than the ones before them.

They’re doing something far worse. And when you take a closer look, it isn’t pretty.

Watch video: https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2054625610551468057?s=20

The virus panickers are at it again

by Alex Berensen

How many times does Zeynep Tufekci have to be wrong before we all agree to ignore her?

Zeynep Tufecki — the sociologist who became famous during Covid for telling New York Times readers no more and no less than what health bureaucrats thought they should know — just warned the world about hantavirus!

Years after Covid blew into our lives, the main thing standing between us and the next global pandemic is luck… [and] that luck may well be running out.

Sorry, my mistake.

That’s not Zeynep warning about hantavirus.

That’s her warning about bird flu in November 2024.

This is her warning about hantavirus!

Wealthy nations must do everything possible to stop the disease’s spread… [or] the United States and the rest of the world may get an unfortunate shot at a Round 2 of the virus too…

Wait, dang it, wrong again.

That wasn’t hantavirus either! That was Zeynep writing in August 2024 about mpox [nee monkeypox].

Hold on, I know Zeynep has screamed about hantavirus like Chicken Little after an-all night crack binge recently offered careful, measured public health advice.

Ahh, here it is:

There’s no question that another pandemic will strike, but no one knows when or which virus will be the cause…

If we’re lucky, this hantavirus outbreak will peter out… if we are unlucky? It should be unthinkable, but here we are.

(Just Zeynep being Zeynep, with apologies to Manny Ramirez)

Unthinkable, indeed.

Maybe let’s think about it instead.

To review: people generally are infected with the pulmonary variant of hantavirus after inhaling urine or feces from infected wild mice or rats. Most people do their best to avoid inhaling rat urine, so human hantavirus infections are pretty uncommon.

The first two patients in this outbreak are German birdwatchers who likely contracted it after they visited a landfill in Argentina. They then spread it to several other people aboard a cruise ship, more or less the ideal vector for passing viruses, respiratory or otherwise.

Hantavirus can spread from person-to-person, according to a 2020 New England Journal article that tracked an outbreak in Argentina in winter 2018-2019 which infected 34 people and killed 11. But doing so almost always requires prolonged and close contact with an infected person showing symptoms, often in social settings where people are likely to be talking loudly and with their mouths close together. Even hospital workers caring for patients during the Argentina outbreak faced almost no risk.

And the outbreak in Argentina ended quickly once authorities isolated people with hantavirus and asked their close contacts to quarantine.

In other words, hantavirus is not Covid or the flu. Though it can spread between people, its primary target is its rodent hosts and its mode of transmission zoonotic — from animals to humans. This is very typical for more lethal viruses like hantavirus, which burn through humans too fast to spread quickly.

Nor is hantavirus likely to have changed much since that outbreak; it is generally very slow-mutating.

In only the last two years, Zeynep Tufecki has sounded urgent warnings about three different viruses that collectively kill a couple of hundred people a year worldwide (mostly from hantavirus, mostly in Asia).

By way of comparison, about 150 people die every hour of every day from traffic accidents globally. Nor is there any evidence that hantavirus, mpox, or even bird flu are becoming or will become more dangerous in the wild.

Why? Why do Tufecki and all the other panickers in the legacy media and health bureaucracies keep doing this?

Three possibilities come to mind.

First, health bureaucrats need to stay employed. Your fear is their work.

Second, talking up these threats is a backdoor way to lionize vaccine companies — mRNA companies in particular, which supposedly can produce vaccines against emerging threats very quickly — and thus attack Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Tufecki mocks in her hantavirus piece.

And third, all this nonsense distracts from the fact that the only really serious respiratory virus epidemic in 100 years almost certainly leaked from a lab and would never have happened had virologists not caused it.

Here are two predictions that are LEAD-PIPE LOCKS — as the guys advertising to gamblers on late-night sports-talk radio used to scream.

First, this hantavirus outbreak will burn out quickly, with a death toll in the double digits at most. (I’d say single, but I want to be conservative.)

Second, Zeynep will be back in 2027 or 2028, 2029 at the latest, to warn her faithful sheep audience at the New York Timee about pigeon flu or funkypox or Sars-Cov-6 or whatever.

Why wouldn’t she? Being wrong doesn’t matter.

Fear is her business. And business is good.

Quote of the Day

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci – Artist, Inventor, Genius (1452 – 1519)

Food For Thought-Taxation

I read somewhere the term “tax farm” and it instantly struck a chord with me. That’s why I am so please to see the two party system being thrown out in the most recent election here in Oz.

Food For Thought-Taxation