Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 14

[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 very high number of comments, so I'm opening yet 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 plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. 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, as rumors fly that the governor of California has been crippled by one of the "rare" side effects of Covid vaccination, and the mainstream media is busy trying to insist that cardiac arrest in children is perfectly normal, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

[scotlyn]

"I'm not opposed to vaccination in principle, only those that are experimental and forced on the unwilling with the weight of corporate and state power."

Is this statement coming from you, or is this part of the "burden of proof" that has been laid on you, I wonder?

The reason I ask is that in a different context, this statement could sound like this:

"I'm not opposed to sex in principle, only [to sex that is] forced on the unwilling..."

And, it strikes me that even there, far too many rape trials have devoted themselves exclusively to proving the accuser had never had any principled objection to sex*... and should rightfully, therefore, be presumed disbarred from objecting to rape.

* instead of - as I would wish to see - devoting such a trial to the question of whether it can be proven or disproven that the accused took definitive steps to prevent the accuser from leaving or refusing - which is what exerts the kind of force that ensures a thing will happen despite the other party's unwillingness.

I guess this may be stretching an analogy further than it should go, but still,

[(Anonymous)]

It's a statement that's coming from me. Arguing in front of the Central Committee(TM) that I'm only opposed to "forced" vaxxes wouldn't hold up, because the default assumption is that you aren't being "forced", you're only making a "choice" which has "consequences", and only an unfortunate pre-existing conflict, such as a longstanding religious conviction or medical issue, can prevent you from making the "right" choice. It's unfortunate, but this is the authoritarian gaslighting dialogue that applicants for an exemption have to navigate.

Obviously, I would never admit anything of what I've said outside of this venue, which is one of the few places on the internet where I feel that a reasonable conversation is still possible. Because nuanced arguments aren't possible and freedom is denied, when arguing for my exemption, my position is that I'm opposed to all vaccination in principle, full stop. Part of their "burden of proof" was to ask me whether I had ever received any vaccines in the past, not just flu shots or the like but also any of the classic childhood vaccines. I suppose that receiving a measles vaccine as a toddler would have meant in their eyes that I have no possible grounds for opposing the C19 vax, therefore my exemption would be denied. I felt that, from a strategic perspective, I had to lie and assert that I had never received any vaxxes, period.