5 Filters

The vaccine propaganda assault

#1

This article was in August’s National Geographic:

COVID-19 vaccines could become mandatory. Here’s how it might work.

It seemed essentially to be promoting the idea of compulsory vaccination by references to selected ‘bioethicists’, who seemed to be…promoting the idea of compulsory vaccination.

"This is the future as some experts see it: a world in which you’ll need to show you’ve been inoculated against the novel coronavirus to attend a sports game, get a manicure, go to work, or hop on a train.

“We’re not going to get to the point where the vaccine police break down your door to vaccinate you,” says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University’s School of Medicine."

and further down Caplan is quoted as follows:

"Even the general public could be incentivized to get vaccinated. “Oddly enough, the best way to impose a mandate is to reward people with more freedom if they follow that mandate,” Caplan says. For example, with proof of inoculation, you would be able to attend a sporting event “as a reward for doing the right thing,” he says. “And I can imagine people saying, If you want to go to my restaurant, my bowling alley, or my tattoo parlor, then I want to see a vaccine certificate, too.” "

Is that what bioethicists are for - to give an ethical rubber stamp to coercion and removal of rights by punishment?

Another bioethicist says:

" “It’s in an employer’s interest to make sure that their workplace is protected and that you can’t infect your colleagues,” Shachar says. “Having a widely accessible vaccine gets a lot of employers out of having to control their clients’ behavior.” And with a vaccinated workforce, “you don’t need to worry if the people you’re serving at the restaurant have COVID-19.” "

The article itself acknowledges the vaccine may not be effective. It cites the flu jab as being only 70% effective and requiring boosters. So…having removed people’s rights you would still need to worry about say, 30% of your customers (likely more than that; Dr Fauci has said he’d be happy with 50% effectiveness for a covid-19 vaccine) in this example.

The writer does not put this question, or any other question, to the ‘experts’.

1 Like
#2

It’s a brave new world alright. Thank God for bioethicists to do our thinking for us.

On the other end of the spectrum, here’s a clip of Dr Zelenko calling for a Nuremberg style trial for those who have successfully obscured the potential of HCQ as an effective early treatment. I note that he didn’t quibble about the numbers of people who have died as a result of catching Covid - quite the opposite.

#3

Robert F Kennedy, a leading activist on vaccination, is suing Facebook for censorship of his vaccine information.

Kennedy is head of Children’s Health Defense.
According to prolific activist Jeremy R. Hammond, the lawsuit uses three of his articles, shown below:

Why You Can’t Trust the CDC on Vaccines

CDC Lies About, and Media Repeats, Risk of Dying from Measles

CDC’s ‘Universal’ Recommendations for Infant Hep B Vaccine Not Based on Science, But Assumptions

This is an important clash of rights. Kennedy’s outfit seem to have done good homework already. Hammond in his newsletter (which you can sign up for at www.jeremyrhammond.com) explains how Facebook can be sued despite not being a publisher:

"In case you have’t heard the news, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is suing Facebook for damages to his organization Children’s Health Defense (CHD) from its censorship efforts.

Accusing CHD of spreading “misinformation” about vaccines and 5G technology, Facebook has removed CHD’s donate button, blocked it from advertising, prejudicially flagged its page with a warning directing readers instead to the CDC website, and flagged numerous of its posts with supposed “fact check” articles that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has bragged prevents 95% of users from clicking through to view the flagged content.

Yesterday, I read the text of the legal complaint and was impressed by its central argument. Because Facebook has been engaging in such activities at the behest of – and indeed under coercion from – the government, it is not exercising its right as a private company to limit what users can post but colluding to violate the right to free speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally, while Facebook is immune to liability as an online service provider, by literally overlaying CHD’s content with its own, Facebook is instead acting as a publisher with no such protection under the law. Moreover, the suit documents Zuckerberg’s conflicts of interest as an investor in both vaccine and 5G technologies"

1 Like
#4

A very interesting set of articles, Walter. It’s interesting to see the Propaganda Model used explicitly in the analysis of how consent (in the case for certain vaccines) gets manufactured by the media.

Their NYT case study is a textbook example.

Great contribution bwana!

#5

That NYT case study is also a classic vindication of the idea never to trust anything AT ALL that flows from the known orifices of official truth: none of their figures; none of their ‘settled’ science; literally nothing, without lots of confirmatory evidence gathered as widely as possible, plus routine draconian interrogation. You have to be habitually sceptical, questioning, about absolutely everything we think we know.

This comes over as an extreme position, I know. But as the sheer omnipresence of corruption in politics, media and academe grows constantly clearer, what other position can a savvy onlooker take?

#6

I know it’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway.

In a way, the situation is even worse than you suggest. Power exists at all levels; and all power corrupts. There are a multitude of petty tyrannies, shading seamlessly into larger ones (of the sort you have in mind). The mind quails, it cannot bear to grasp the whole picture.

Your suggested remedy is impossible to put into practice. One simply cannot question everything.

All you can do is trust your gut. If something rings true, accept it, at least provisionally. If something rings false, don’t rely on it, and investigate the falsehood if you can.

Corruption is even greater than we can imagine, but not everything is corrupt.

(This is advice coming from a depressed recluse who has always found the human world impossible to cope with. Caveat emptor.) :slight_smile:

As for vaccines: I’ve distrusted them ever since my daughter was given two vaccines at once, and promptly fell ill and started bleeding from the rectum, and when I told her GPs about it they didn’t want to know. Of course, this is only an “anecdote”, it doesn’t come from a “scientist” (only a “mentally ill”, skirt-wearing, male person with a mathematics degree from Cambridge, and what does such a person know of rational argument?), therefore the “scientific” GPs were acting “rationally” when they ignored my report. (More seriously: this happened many years ago, and I’d have to check my diaries to be sure that my memory isn’t deceiving me as to exactly what happened.)

I may also have something to say about the cult of “statistical significance”, at some stage. The Fisherian concept of “confidence intervals” has stunk of rotten fish to me ever since I tried to study statistics, decades ago, and long before people began to publish books (for the general reader) critical of the concept, and Bayesian inference began to be more widely accepted. (Not that I really understand that, either.)

As for COVID-19: I don’t have any serious disagreement with the Lifeboat captain on that topic (only on the inept way he handles conflicts, disagreements, and personal attacks), and I’m one of those who subscribes to what you call “Terror Derangement Syndrome”. By that, I take it you mean the belief that the virus is real, and is really dangerous. Perhaps you only mean the belief that the crippling measures taken against the pandemic are necessary? (Sorry, I’ve got a lot of catching up to do.)

Excuse me for rambling off-topic. I hope it’s just because I’ve only just found the forum, and I’ve scarcely discussed politics, science, or anything else since last year, so I’m tempted to sound off too much.

I like the fact that this new forum is organised in “categories”. (Similar to “tags”?) I’ll try to respect that organisation, once I’ve got myself a bit more organised. (At the moment, I’m just catching up on the 12 days or whatever it is since the forum started.)

1 Like
#7

Thinking about Terror Derangement Syndrome: What I’m pointing to is the striking, spectacular phenomenon that we’ve been watching in astonishment get starkly demonstrated this year, when a sudden massive rush of shouting propaganda crying “Danger! Death! Death! Danger, danger, danger!” seems - inevitably I suppose - to cause an awful lot of people simply to shift into flight mode, and just stop thinking in any calm, rational way.

Apparently, this makes the stampeded minds seek reassuring leader figures, and to anoint them with infallibility, so as to latch on to their pronouncements as the one sure path safely out of the terror. Essentially, infantile comfort-seeking for insupportable distress.

Excellent for steering masses of people into accepting - thirstily - whatever policies you wish them to accept, even with the tattiest of cover stories. Makes them angrily dismissive of anyone who dissents, too - which is very handy for the power-wielding stampede-steerers. They get their hounding and silencing of the opposition done for them by rabble-roused followers, facts, reason, sound analysis, open-minded scepticism, and the precautionary principle all notwithstanding.

It was watching aghast as this sort of mob-insanity played out repeatedly at a website which had no adequate democratically-agreed moderation system in place to cool it down, which made me try out shifting to another vessel. And so far I don’t feel any motivation to go back.

As to how far is terror justified: Well, clearly there’s some sort of rather nasty disease about, which kills a percentage of vulnerable people - as does the seasonal flu every year. Whether this one’s death-tally will be substantially worse than usual doesn’t seem to have appeared yet, through all the fog of argumentative shouting. It is pretty nasty for some people, though, not necessarily just the old and already ill and fragile. There are also the cases of the long-haulers, who have a really bad struggle with the pathogen - whatever it really is; I don’t think even that’s entirely clear yet - this struggle going on for weeks, and leaving nasty after effects, including neurological damage, rumbling on open-endedly thereafter.

So the people stampeded by the terror-shouting have something real to fear; but - as the smoke clears - it appears to be a good deal less monstrous and emergency-worthy than we’ve been conned into believing. And yes I do mean conned: I don’t see signs of any grand global conspiracy, but it’s clear that a motley assortment of politicians and lots of other chancers-on-the-make have scrambled aboard the band-waggon, once the heavily compromised WHO started it rolling. Clearly, too, some of these chancers have been speculating amongst themselves previously about the profitable possibilities of such an emergency, once a suitable new pathogen turns up - maybe spontaneously, maybe by prior design, who knows? - which can serve as a handy vehicle. Lots of extra WealthPowerStatus to be harvested from steering the situation right.

#8

Good to have your twisty twirly comments on this thorny subject Twirlip, always stimulating even if one disagrees!
We certainly have TDS here in VIctoria with police and soldiers walking the streets instead of people, as they stay inside for fear of the bogiemen, and fines. a 76 year old man was fined/arrested today for inciting people to join an anti-lock-down protest in Melbourne tomorrow, about which I know nothing as the media doesn’t tell us and communication is dangerous. The chief spy was on radio this week saying how ASIO is resorting to old fashioned spycraft nowadays to avoid cyber crime. Like putting notes under rocks, or “pizzini” as the Mafia called them. Of course ASIO DOESN’T do this! But we may have to, as trying to talk to someone wearing a mask and six feet away without raising your voice or being moved on by soldiers is difficult. Anyone stopping to talk to another person not a family member will be charged with loitering with intent, and called a “boof-head” by police. The term applied to the 76 year old. We have fallen so far!

#9

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi seems to have a sensible handle on it all:

Sorry, it’s happening again. Can’t post YT address. You can YT search with this line:

Immunity and Immunization by Prof Sucharit Bhakdi (English subtitles) re upload

#10

And Brian Rose at London Real interviews Del Bigtree, with his big fund of highly-informed good sense about vaccines: neither anti, nor pushing mindless accepting of everything the BPh gangsters are pushing at us. Simply fact-and-truth based, and balanced:

1 Like
#11

Couple of good livestreams right now - Saturday afternoon 3 - of demos in Berlin and London against the panicdemic measures. Look like pretty good crowds, especially in Berlin despite ban-court-unban-police re-ban-demonstrators giving then the massed fingers and coming right on. Via Off-G: