You should read the bedrock book that started it all so to speak. “ Rockefeller Medicine Men” by E. Richard Brown. It’s in the “Scholar Select” book series. Hopefully it’s not political yet.
The other aspect of this (and their likely future attempts?) is their (FALSE) claim that "it is for the good of the people" (can anyone smell fascism? and lies?)
This is not even a slight twisting of truth or science. It is a totally NONSENSICAL oxymoron.
Their argument goes something like "....Person A is vaccinated, but is not truly protected unless person B is also vaccinated...."
This is the dumb "logic" they try to use to create "ethical pressure" for everyone to "do the right thing" as well as to FORCE MANDATES.
For instance, if only 5% might benefit from a medical "treatment", then your likely market (and sales) will be just 5% of the population....HOWEVER, if you can convince the 95% that THEY have an obligation to PROTECT the 5% by also having the "treatment", you now can capture (in theory) 100%. ie 20x sales.
But let's look at their logic (or lack thereof...)
Person A gets the "treatment".
If the "treatment" works, then Person A is SAFE!
(An analogy would be a suit of armour or a Bio-level 4 hazmat suit. If you are wearing one, it doe not matter what others are doing!)
But if we now go to their implied logic and coercion....
1. Person A get's the "treatment", but supposedly is not SAFE unless Person B also gets it!?
1.a. This implies Person A CAN STILL GET THE DISEASE EVEN WITH THE TREATMENT if contact is made with Person B or someone with the disease
2. So this of course means that Person B, EVEN IF "TREATED", CAN STILL GET THE DISEASE.
2.a. And as we can see in point 1.a. IF PERSON B IS SICK, THEN PERSON A IS AT RISK, EVEN WITH THE TREATMENT
3. Their fall-back argument is that "At least it will keep you out of hospital and we all have an obligation to not burden the hospitals..."
3.a. First let's recognise that we have now fully abandoned the first premise of "protecting others". We're acknowledging that the "treatment" does not work to PREVENT.....it is a matter of DEGREE of illness?
3.b. The argument is now recognising that YOU'LL STILL GET SICK, BUT THE RISK OF HOSPITAL IS LESS
3.c. I'd still argue that this is personal choice based on your risk profile - but for those who want to consider the "common good and hospital burdens", let's look at it:
3.d. We need to consider FOR EACH PERSON INDIVIDUALLY, the risk that they end up in hospital - i.e. youngsters with a robust innate immune system may have minimal risk. Similarly, fit young athletes and those in armed forces who have a regular fitness regime. Next we need to consider THE RISK OF HOSPITALISATION FROM THE DISEASE VS THE RISK FROM THE "TREATMENT" ADVERSE EVENTS. 3.e. This latter analysis must also be done for projected periods of time as well as the absolute numbers and risk ratios - ie it is no good if we forestall momentary hospitalisations for a wave of AE admissions in future. Using an example to illustrate: We figure 30% need it "to reduce hospital the burden" by reducing hospitalisation from a theoretical 20% in that group down to 5%, i.e. in 1M people, maybe 300,000 might have a 20% chance of ending up in hospital (60,000) and we can get it down to 15,000. HOWEVER, with the treatment there's likely to be 2.5% initial AE's that need hospitalisation and potentially 20% in longer term, (say 3 years) complications.
So we decide to treat ALL 1M on this "hospital burden" theory.
> 2.5% have early AEs and end up in hospital - that's 25,000
> But 20% have serious issues over the next 3 years - that's 200,000
Our "flatten the curve" has turned into "delaying a tidal wave that never should have happened"
Our initial 60,000 load has been swapped for 20,000 immediately (AE's) and 200,000 delayed.
So neither the "protect each other" argument stacks up - and the "hospital burden" strategy may also totally backfire. (not to mention the devastation to 220,000 lives that are seriously impacted and were never at risk). Then of course we also need to consider FUTURE GENERATIONS - will there be even more complications passed on?
The "hospital burden" can be assessed with a PROPER trial of the treatment over decades AS WAS PREVIOUSLY ENFORCED AND WAS DRIVEN HOME WITH THE THALIDOMIDE DISASTER
The total nonsensicality is easily seen.
It is all self-contradictory
What is also means is that IF A FUTURE VAX IS PRESENTED AND THEY (dictators, sellers, govt, fascists, call them what you will...) STATE THAT EVERYONE MUST HAVE IT "TO PROTECT EACH OTHER", THEN IT IS A BLATANT STATEMENT THAT IS DOES NOT WORK AND SAFETY IS NOT THEIR OBJECTIVE
The logic and true mechanism of treatments has been in our faces for a hundred years or so.
Using cholera as an example - if you travel to a tropical area, it may be a recommended vaccine.
And if you get the vaccine, you are PROTECTED.
You can go about your holiday without any cares about Cholera.
You DO NOT need to check if any of your travel companions are also vacc'd for Cholera!
You DO NOT need to find out in advance if all other hotel guests and staff are vacc'd for Cholera!
You DO NOT need to check if travel companions on planes or tours are vacc'd for Cholera.
The entire logic and "science" was twisted.
Science died and lies, deceit, coercion, division were magnified to benefit a few.
Here's a good article written in 2018 (anything after 2020 I tend to view with more scepticism) - it raises some good thought experiments and actual examples around "utilitarianism" - but let's not forget that what we've been dealing with is not even utilitarianism and true decisions of "which is better and who do we save..." IT HAS ALL BEEN A FALSE CONCOCTION TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND CONTROL
Analyticalandcautios I have no science background but pointed this out ferociously to the covidiots.
One believed people like me should have been dumped on a dessert island, for some reason logic of acquired natural immunity was discarded in favour of only vaxx induced immunity counting as offering protection.
There’s so many holes in the theory promoted it was worse than a string vest protecting you from frostbite.
As you stated if you are vaxxed then there’s no need to worry if anyone else is, plus they flipped out natural immunity being possible which I pointed out made the jabs null and void if so. Without it being possible it meant that no jabs could work as it would be a complete immune neutralising system failure resulting in death for all.
Trying to resonate this to those who fried their brains topping up constantly on the propaganda was nigh on impossible.
Even when explaining in the simplest forms of why would you expect or mandate flu jabs, in fact any kind of jabs for someone who has had that illness, recovered so has them acquired natural immunity. All this went out of the window as governments manipulated and created hysteria amongst the public who seemed to take their brains out and place it on the top shelf out of the way.
Even some of those who still had slight rational thought disregarded how throughout history it’s always been the strongest survive due to how the immune system works otherwise humanity would have been gone long ago.
I also corrected my husband when he called me an antivax covid denier. He was set straight that I was no denier of something I’d had and I was pro choice, pro informed consent after given full facts and information. Withholding facts and information as governments did while creating exemptions for themselves truly made this stuff neither safe or effective.
Language speaks louder than words where tptb are concerned, had there been a real danger to life, they would have been first in the queue or they’d have jumped ship and run off to save themselves on some desert island or held up in a bunker.
Here in the uk I pointed out the clown theatrics at the time to my husband who was less than amused by the truth I spoke.
Every evening we had a combination of three clowns bring us daily updates. It was a different combination of Boris himself, other politicians as well as doctors and science advisors all talking utter drivel and shite.
What bemused my husband was when I stated how brave all these people were putting their lives and safety on the line mixing to bring us these daily updates.
There’s nothing more corrupt and greedy than a politician yet we were expected to believe that they had our best interest at heart so risked life and limb to save us keeping us informed, yeh right!
On the money again Elizabeth.
Thank you for this Elizabeth.
It should make us all angry at at what they did and keep doing to us.
You should read the bedrock book that started it all so to speak. “ Rockefeller Medicine Men” by E. Richard Brown. It’s in the “Scholar Select” book series. Hopefully it’s not political yet.
Thanks for the tip!
The question is, how can parents be informed to support our future health. https://vaxcalc.org/ is a good start.
They're certainly not being properly informed by the medical establishment in Australia...
See for example:
Why does ATAGI recommend COVID-19 mRNA injections for all children aged 5 to
11 years? Email to Nigel Crawford, Chair of ATAGI, 22 April 2022: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/why-does-atagi-recommend-covid-19-mrna-injections-for-all-children-aged-5-to-11-years.pdf
They are trying to carve out an exception to voluntary informed consent for mandated vaccines because well you know they were mandated.
It was a horrible thing to see happening and the threat of a reprisal is very much with us.
Kalle Pihlajasaari, there is no exception to voluntary informed consent...
FYI, see my latest article:
Coercive vaccination and mandates - no valid voluntary informed consent
Discussion with Graham Hood, John Larter, Judy Wilyman and Elizabeth Hart:
https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercive-vaccination-and-mandates
Your post brought to mind this other abuse by the FDA.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/the-defender-fda-makes-it-official
Who is the FDA to be brushing off informed consent?!
Seriously, these people are tramping roughshod over the community.
We need to go after the specific people who are coming up with these decisions, and bring them to account.
Great article Elizabeth, thanks.
The other aspect of this (and their likely future attempts?) is their (FALSE) claim that "it is for the good of the people" (can anyone smell fascism? and lies?)
This is not even a slight twisting of truth or science. It is a totally NONSENSICAL oxymoron.
Their argument goes something like "....Person A is vaccinated, but is not truly protected unless person B is also vaccinated...."
This is the dumb "logic" they try to use to create "ethical pressure" for everyone to "do the right thing" as well as to FORCE MANDATES.
For instance, if only 5% might benefit from a medical "treatment", then your likely market (and sales) will be just 5% of the population....HOWEVER, if you can convince the 95% that THEY have an obligation to PROTECT the 5% by also having the "treatment", you now can capture (in theory) 100%. ie 20x sales.
But let's look at their logic (or lack thereof...)
Person A gets the "treatment".
If the "treatment" works, then Person A is SAFE!
(An analogy would be a suit of armour or a Bio-level 4 hazmat suit. If you are wearing one, it doe not matter what others are doing!)
But if we now go to their implied logic and coercion....
1. Person A get's the "treatment", but supposedly is not SAFE unless Person B also gets it!?
1.a. This implies Person A CAN STILL GET THE DISEASE EVEN WITH THE TREATMENT if contact is made with Person B or someone with the disease
2. So this of course means that Person B, EVEN IF "TREATED", CAN STILL GET THE DISEASE.
2.a. And as we can see in point 1.a. IF PERSON B IS SICK, THEN PERSON A IS AT RISK, EVEN WITH THE TREATMENT
3. Their fall-back argument is that "At least it will keep you out of hospital and we all have an obligation to not burden the hospitals..."
3.a. First let's recognise that we have now fully abandoned the first premise of "protecting others". We're acknowledging that the "treatment" does not work to PREVENT.....it is a matter of DEGREE of illness?
3.b. The argument is now recognising that YOU'LL STILL GET SICK, BUT THE RISK OF HOSPITAL IS LESS
3.c. I'd still argue that this is personal choice based on your risk profile - but for those who want to consider the "common good and hospital burdens", let's look at it:
3.d. We need to consider FOR EACH PERSON INDIVIDUALLY, the risk that they end up in hospital - i.e. youngsters with a robust innate immune system may have minimal risk. Similarly, fit young athletes and those in armed forces who have a regular fitness regime. Next we need to consider THE RISK OF HOSPITALISATION FROM THE DISEASE VS THE RISK FROM THE "TREATMENT" ADVERSE EVENTS. 3.e. This latter analysis must also be done for projected periods of time as well as the absolute numbers and risk ratios - ie it is no good if we forestall momentary hospitalisations for a wave of AE admissions in future. Using an example to illustrate: We figure 30% need it "to reduce hospital the burden" by reducing hospitalisation from a theoretical 20% in that group down to 5%, i.e. in 1M people, maybe 300,000 might have a 20% chance of ending up in hospital (60,000) and we can get it down to 15,000. HOWEVER, with the treatment there's likely to be 2.5% initial AE's that need hospitalisation and potentially 20% in longer term, (say 3 years) complications.
So we decide to treat ALL 1M on this "hospital burden" theory.
> 2.5% have early AEs and end up in hospital - that's 25,000
> But 20% have serious issues over the next 3 years - that's 200,000
Our "flatten the curve" has turned into "delaying a tidal wave that never should have happened"
Our initial 60,000 load has been swapped for 20,000 immediately (AE's) and 200,000 delayed.
So neither the "protect each other" argument stacks up - and the "hospital burden" strategy may also totally backfire. (not to mention the devastation to 220,000 lives that are seriously impacted and were never at risk). Then of course we also need to consider FUTURE GENERATIONS - will there be even more complications passed on?
The "hospital burden" can be assessed with a PROPER trial of the treatment over decades AS WAS PREVIOUSLY ENFORCED AND WAS DRIVEN HOME WITH THE THALIDOMIDE DISASTER
The total nonsensicality is easily seen.
It is all self-contradictory
What is also means is that IF A FUTURE VAX IS PRESENTED AND THEY (dictators, sellers, govt, fascists, call them what you will...) STATE THAT EVERYONE MUST HAVE IT "TO PROTECT EACH OTHER", THEN IT IS A BLATANT STATEMENT THAT IS DOES NOT WORK AND SAFETY IS NOT THEIR OBJECTIVE
The logic and true mechanism of treatments has been in our faces for a hundred years or so.
Using cholera as an example - if you travel to a tropical area, it may be a recommended vaccine.
And if you get the vaccine, you are PROTECTED.
You can go about your holiday without any cares about Cholera.
You DO NOT need to check if any of your travel companions are also vacc'd for Cholera!
You DO NOT need to find out in advance if all other hotel guests and staff are vacc'd for Cholera!
You DO NOT need to check if travel companions on planes or tours are vacc'd for Cholera.
The entire logic and "science" was twisted.
Science died and lies, deceit, coercion, division were magnified to benefit a few.
Here's a good article written in 2018 (anything after 2020 I tend to view with more scepticism) - it raises some good thought experiments and actual examples around "utilitarianism" - but let's not forget that what we've been dealing with is not even utilitarianism and true decisions of "which is better and who do we save..." IT HAS ALL BEEN A FALSE CONCOCTION TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND CONTROL
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-philosophy-of-the-greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number-have-any-merit/
Bottom line Analyticalandcautious...
Voluntary informed consent...that's it.
See my latest article:
Coercive vaccination and mandates - no valid voluntary informed consent
Discussion with Graham Hood, John Larter, Judy Wilyman and Elizabeth Hart:
https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercive-vaccination-and-mandates
Analyticalandcautios I have no science background but pointed this out ferociously to the covidiots.
One believed people like me should have been dumped on a dessert island, for some reason logic of acquired natural immunity was discarded in favour of only vaxx induced immunity counting as offering protection.
There’s so many holes in the theory promoted it was worse than a string vest protecting you from frostbite.
As you stated if you are vaxxed then there’s no need to worry if anyone else is, plus they flipped out natural immunity being possible which I pointed out made the jabs null and void if so. Without it being possible it meant that no jabs could work as it would be a complete immune neutralising system failure resulting in death for all.
Trying to resonate this to those who fried their brains topping up constantly on the propaganda was nigh on impossible.
Even when explaining in the simplest forms of why would you expect or mandate flu jabs, in fact any kind of jabs for someone who has had that illness, recovered so has them acquired natural immunity. All this went out of the window as governments manipulated and created hysteria amongst the public who seemed to take their brains out and place it on the top shelf out of the way.
Even some of those who still had slight rational thought disregarded how throughout history it’s always been the strongest survive due to how the immune system works otherwise humanity would have been gone long ago.
I also corrected my husband when he called me an antivax covid denier. He was set straight that I was no denier of something I’d had and I was pro choice, pro informed consent after given full facts and information. Withholding facts and information as governments did while creating exemptions for themselves truly made this stuff neither safe or effective.
Language speaks louder than words where tptb are concerned, had there been a real danger to life, they would have been first in the queue or they’d have jumped ship and run off to save themselves on some desert island or held up in a bunker.
Here in the uk I pointed out the clown theatrics at the time to my husband who was less than amused by the truth I spoke.
Every evening we had a combination of three clowns bring us daily updates. It was a different combination of Boris himself, other politicians as well as doctors and science advisors all talking utter drivel and shite.
What bemused my husband was when I stated how brave all these people were putting their lives and safety on the line mixing to bring us these daily updates.
There’s nothing more corrupt and greedy than a politician yet we were expected to believe that they had our best interest at heart so risked life and limb to save us keeping us informed, yeh right!
🙏
Look at this: https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/national-arms-grand-jury-petition?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
I wish we had grand juries in Australia
Thanks for the link Carol.