Written Evidence Submitted by Keith Riley
Submission; by Keith Riley, concerning statements by witnesses offering positions regarding 'Research and Technology Capability and Influence in Global Disease Outbreaks'.
Disclosure; No affiliations, also not tied to any organisation nor political group.
Background/experience: Ex-services, Navy-Aircraft (telecommunications) with applicable training and various “topologies” of telecoms, NBCR and the many delivery mechanisms -at point(s) of contact; able to offer direct and indirect experience not fully explored.
Study: Self-developed pathways of study - toxicity, health (both fauna and flora), and investigations of liberty and imprisonment(s)(in all the ways they reveal themselves).
Capacity: This contribution is a fragment of study; discoverable with time, proximity, my interests and attention to repairing my allotment, which I took on some years ago as a thought on how to stop food poverty.
Interest in this contact: terms of reference 6 & 7.
This is an introduction and enquiry regarding engagement with the S-Tcom by an interested individual with interest and experience(s). I have noticed the 'guidelines' and have assessed that this communication is an 'indication' that I am able to contribute to this discussion in reference to communication factors from a differing position that was offered by “tied” agents, corporate arranged and 'outsourced' risks with people who have “skin in the game”.
I am provoked because of the amount of unspoken and not addressed issues of man's injuries to itself and others.
Perhaps, this commentary, is a short critique that nature is fragile and knows more than all man's science has attempted to 'tinker' with.
May I submit this short submission for the Scit to consider as of use in the consideration of compare and contrast.
The problem of 'communications' has a number of 'opportunities' to be faulty. There are numerous 'actors' who (for money) write the rules, deflect from their mistakes, hide the damage and (personally) avoid repairing a blood and treasure cost.
'Nature' does not make toxic substances that have and do make toxic wastes onto itself and other fauna and flora. Not understanding this and being cognisant of this is a deception and cost to our descendants.
We (humans) and all of natures 'creations' are not some people's tools and toys for their study, play, or 'misplaced' money need! There are too many instances of injury which has been aggressively denied, and at times until the 'problem' disappears or goes away!
This is the warning sign of 'meddling with nature', whose 'destiny' is a fragile, sacred and something to cherish, lest it becomes unable to.
From the old saying about fooling people some of the time, is correct. Though I prefer – fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. That is also applicable to nature and its fragility.
Therefore, may I request attention to the understanding that submissions to this enquiry (UK Science, Research and Technology Capability and Influence in Global Disease Outbreaks), have to be able to be congruent and the actors who submit 'ideas' (for want of a better symbolism) able to tend their own garden.
1. Requirements: ‘Pre-requisites’, to involved prior to any analysis that generates a report for possible ‘forth-coming’ talking point, briefing paper, policy frame working, and exclusion criteria to impede influence by a ‘temporary’ corporate and/or political interest(s).
There are numerous studies by pan-geopolitical State sponsored and NGO’s actions that ‘assist’ to make stable or stabilise societies and environments. NGO’s include UN(UNODA/UNHCR), WHO, ICRC, IPFRI, IFRC, and MSF as examples. Therefore, as the UK is a signatory to UN-WHO-ICRC, it is incumbent on an ‘intervening’ agency to have cognisance of the agreements and make actions suited as within the ‘aid’ deployment. That is - clean up your own mess yourself afterwords.
The UK/DFID and other ‘UK government’ assisted NGO’s have actioned a ‘limited’ and ‘selective’ assistance for a long time. These ‘UK’ sponsored interventional ‘outcomes’ have variable degrees of competence and long-term viability of worthiness or worthlessness.
The future of ‘aid’ mitigation planning, either individually or as a collective collaboratives, which ‘temporarily’ interventions to events or actions that impact onto groups or areas of disruption of their ‘local’ and ethnic norms. There is evidence that geopolitical interests have been not suited to the local situation and-or environment.
Chapter 2. History: By observation, historical -and- current government & private companies activities have and do misdirect and manipulate the behaviours of the unsuspecting, vulnerable and marginalised. ‘Corporate gaming’ of people’s vulnerabilities, ‘understandings’ and choices, whether shaped, forced (or not) can and have long-term global impacts (e.g. tobacco, cola-cola, waste dumping or certain waste ‘technologies’ - into Africa).
Corporate & political ‘attitudes’ are actively used on a daily and concurrent basis, the use of communication ‘engineers’ use deflections and green/whitewash are tools of trade. Each of ‘their’ daily ‘real life outcomes’ to others has to be ‘absorbed’ by the very planet they themselves inhabit, but can be observed to create a ‘walled garden’ to hide from their long-term costs – to others.
Pollution is a broad term, there is much evidence of long-term blow-back on to local conditions, environment and can break a chain of people’s knowledge to understand their ecology. - Noting, by study, there is ample evidence of ‘pre-history’ knowledge of ‘environment’ planning, farming, water irrigation, construction and ‘medicine’ (e.g. TCM, Ayurveda and ‘Folk-lore’). There is ample evidence that ‘ancient’, spiritually developed knowledge bases have been ‘ignored’ or viewed as ‘foolish’, especially when a ‘developed’ countrys’ agenda’s are intervening; so the ‘assistance’ becomes conditional on its use locally.
Choices of an ‘Aid’, assistance -or- the with-holding of an ‘easy choice’, which is viewed as ‘(shovel) ready’ can be an immoral and unjust act. This can and has been used as a weapon(s) of war, understanding and acknowledging this is in future ‘Aid’ deployment!
Therefore, ethical and thoughtful self introspection is important. Via; if ‘they’ can and do/did this to my community, would I want, like or change my historical, cultural and spiritual norms. ‘Noting there a many historic gathering places (e.g. (village) greens, ‘churches’ and monuments) all over the world that are now empty because of ‘unusual’ and ‘imported’ changes.
Chapter 3. Engineered dependence, ‘creative destruction’ and last man standing(e.g. Mr. Bezos & the tactics of Amazon PLC.): ‘Temporary’ policies (corporate & governmental) have used “tobacco” science, 'corporate communications' to shape needs and wants that are so-called ‘necessary’ for life on earth.
Pictures and reportage can deceive; any study of history shows a litany of evidences of reporters or ‘picture’ takers have used opportunity to ‘mask’ or not choose to reveal the causes or are the mechanisms of a ‘distressful’ situation. Also, of those ‘distressful’ occurrences had ‘precursors’ (small, easily spotted and remedied); unfortunately, whistleblowers and analysis reveal ‘the facts’ and show other distant factors caused the ‘event(s)’ as a more costly situation!
Nation States (including past USA Presidents) have emotionally invoked onto the unsuspecting eye. Hidden (national and geopolitical) agendas are used to create activities for corporate ‘friends’ and ‘mobilise support’ for what may be a temporary or undeclared outcome.
The ‘Aid’ deployment issue to ‘what, where, why and when’ can highlight ‘Tobacco science’ in action, regardless whether it is inside government, university, NGO’s (e.g. via ‘Foundations’, grant agencies or secular donations) or ‘personal gifts’. The adverse affects to the local environment, people’s independence is within the ICRC, IPFRI and similar NGO publications and stated ‘knowledge’. That is, these have become aware of the challenges and ‘side-effects’ of intervening into an-others situation; and become control 'tools' such as coercion, deceit, debt-loading and ‘(natural resource) theft’.
Chapter 4. Toxic world and toxic minds.
There is much study of NOEL and NAOEL by scientists; noting which only come about because of man’s harm to itself and its environment, and always being ‘after the fact’. Also, many ‘distressful’ events have been vengefully denied by successive governments, corporations and the people (who seek wages and approval to remain ‘in-post’).
This suggests beware of unintended consequences as nature (i.e. all fauna and flora) will ‘avoid’ your ability to survive.
Therefore knowledge of your creations ‘outcome’ suggests it to be more important than the before and during its knowledge to that ‘creation’!
Chapter 5. Nature itself ‘suggests’ and ‘proves’ an eco-system; ‘toxic’ substances seemingly cannot exist in the natural world and natural ‘nutritional’ processes reduce disease(s).
Technocracy can be described as near to being a dictatorship without responsibility, because there is little or ‘no money’ left for the after-effects and re-instatement. Note the Amazon and glaciers are shrinking and no technocratic corporation (or their executive boards) are ‘voluntarily’ funding or making the repair.
Our ‘human’ bodies have multiple levels of immune systems, whether on the skin, lung or blood. Likewise fauna and flora have similar processes. Seemingly all Fauna and Flora (with sufficient ‘nutrients’) have the ability to fend off viruses, ‘bad’ bacteria and other pests. All of these were not (man) designed and constructed by a profit demand outcome.
(Current) knowledge of our biome is a recent event, as an example, placing a new borne baby onto a mothers body so imparting ‘factors’. Likewise as does colostrum milk which imparts ‘information’ & ‘signals’ other than nutrients. None of this ‘information’ are possible from a ‘test-tube’ or factory; unfortunately there have been many attempts and current ‘technological’ designs that distract from that ‘fact’: Even though the very people who use this (Bio) ‘science’ also need this natural event for themselves, their offspring and their environment!
To conclude: ‘Eco-systems’ are possible, as nature reveals. But ‘we’ (humans) are unable to create such ourselves from water and earth. We (humans) can only guess at the things necessary to survive and ‘hope’ it goes ok – with a bit of ‘adding’ and ‘subtracting’ where possible, though we mostly or always fail. Therefore we need ‘nature’ and natural processes to be able to solve it for us. This suggests we humans are to blame, and we let a very few by blind compliance wreck it for the many!