Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 6

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a gargantuan (and increasing) number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

[temporaryreality]

Randomly clicked to a portion (about 4h:17min) not far from where you pointed, where the doctor on mic was talking about a nurse's request for him to show her that risk of hospitalization from covid was greater than risk from the same w/ vaccine. He said he couldn't - and pointed out that the studies undertaken to get the vaccines ready for market did not include sample sizes large enough to show myocarditis as the risk it's turned out to be... "but now we know they cause it."

He calls for a "large trial" - um, that's what he's getting in the public rollout - but goes on to say that all that's being collected is the "observational data" - by definition only valuable as anecdote.

He goes on to talk about trying to overcome vaccine hesitancy - for what reason? So that more observational data can be collected? And as though any of us who are refusing these drugs can try to be cajoled into a "real" study?

That horse (the naive (in the medical sense) population that was available to be in such a study) has left the barn. What's left are the wary wild horses standing about 3 miles upwind.

Money shot: "we do not have the clinical evidence to show these anti-vaccine activists are wrong."

[(Anonymous)]

Dont be too hard on this guy for his stance "reducing hesitancy". This is a classic example of corporate-ese. Regardless of the practitioner's personal assessment of the situation, he has to couch it in words completely enthusiastic for the narrative to preserve his years of work, his debts and his license.

I'll believe he does want broader vaccine acceptance to ease his workload, but has to be careful in voicing frustration at the assumed workload to keep from accusing TPTB. The unnamed nurse may also be a real person, or a narrative device.

In short, "Help me fix your screwup. Sirs."

As an aside, a salute to the principled doctors here and elsewhere who don't participate in the doublespeak.