ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 56

As we move further into the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselesness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries.

So it's time for another open post. 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, the floor is open for discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm thinking of Pfizer and the CDC.

If Pfizer has a comprehensive data set from the trials and they know where all the bodies are buried, so to speak, then they would have known about the decline in efficacy before the 1st EUA. They might have still pushed it hoping for revenue from boosters. But, if they knew about the increase in all cause mortality then they would have to know what a dangerous position they were putting themselves in. If they knew that their vax was ineffective and extremely dangerous before EAU, and much more so for 6 months to 5 years EUA, then they would know they were putting themselves in the metaphorical crosshairs for financial and legal ruin. Possibly even literal crosshairs.

The CDC didn't fund Wuhan, develope or approve the vaccines, or block early treatments. They did (still are) suppressing the data that we need on a number of fronts. They promised to run the PPR tests on the VAERS data and never did. I can understand if they were trying to spin things in a positive light to avoid vaccine hesitancy in the beginning, but as more data comes out the position becomes untenable to hold in good faith. Especially if you assume that they knew the real numbers that died from covid vs with covid.

If the CDC has good data across the board then their actions so far become very difficult to explain without some very novel theories like the demon hypothesis, James Bond supervillains, or the collective unconscious going insane.

Edited (Fixed typos) 2022-08-31 04:45 (UTC)

I tend to see it in terms of dominant beliefs, mythologies, archetypes, etc.

Simon Sheridan unpacked this quite well in his "Plague Story" series:
https://www.bookdepository.com/Plague-Story-Other-Essays-Simon-Sheridan/9780648948612

Think of it this way: if your name is the Centers for Disease Control, you have a particular role to play in a pandemic story that has already been constructed in the collective consciousness and gamed out in literature and movies. You will oversee the approval and distribution of the miracle vaccine that will turn the tide. And given that this story feels effectively preordained, it is very difficult to stray from it (e.g. by putting the kibosh on vaccination). To do so would feel like a deep betrayal from within the worldview of the religion of Progress.

So...I actually don't think it is fraud, demons, gods, or supervillains so much as a hopeful, willful ignorance borne of unquestioned belief. (That's not to say there isn't plenty of fraud happening, and some demons getting involved as well...) The folks at the CDC saw evidence suggesting efficacy (high antibody titers, initial reported trial results) and limited evidence of safety (from poorly-conducted studies that they assumed were legit) and rounded that up to the miracle product that would fill a gaping vaccine-shaped hole in the archetypal story playing out.

I say this because I have participated in a parallel phenomenon, in the world of alternative energy research. It is assumed (or at least it still was ten years ago) that we will inevitably develop cheap and abundant energy sources to replace fossil fuels. So researchers focus on metrics that are improving (solar panel efficiency, battery energy density, wind turbine power output) and translate that directly to "this will save the world" while filling all of the other critical uncertainties (cost, lifespan, scalability, resource requirements) with warm and fuzzy hopes and beliefs. We're solving the most important problems, the engineers will take care of the details.

In the energy world, those ignored details usually result in failed startups, investment money poured down the drain, and a world that still runs on coal and oil. In the public health world, those ignored details can result in millions of deaths.

"the engineers will take care of the details." describes the way many, if not most, massive and urgent projects are prosecuted these days. We called it Design/Build in my neck of the woods. Not too risky for systems of smaller, simpler, common scale but get into acres under roof and inaccurate assumptions early on grow in lockstep with scale and complexity. The F35 is as good a case in point as any. It's referred to as The Penguin I hear.
Gawain

It’s also a Fox watching the hen house kind of thing and requires competent oversight.

I.E. the engineers known the budget and mysteriously the contractors change orders are for just over the forecasted costs…

"We're solving the most important problems, the engineers will take care of the details."

All too often, leaving the poor engineers stuck in situations like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

This is, perhaps, one of the greatest videos of all time.

seconded.

i was laughing out loud at this one on several occasions. it's one of the most funny things i've seen in a long while. i'm seriously considering sharing it with the management at my job.

if they don't get it, i will share it with the peeps that actually get the jobs done.

i just wish we got to see the whiteboard with all the lines drawn on it.

thanks anon for the link.

this one is just about as hilarious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mokllJ_Sz_g

Edited (had to add a link) 2022-09-02 06:38 (UTC)

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 56

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars

Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars