Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 65

[ecosophia]

As we proceed through 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. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religious, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.    

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for yours. I would bet good money most cardiovascular death is caused by increased clotting, not minuscule myocardial scarring. But this remains to be figured out.

I also think that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could be a good idea, though not dragging possibly tens of millions into its docks - but who decides what is truth? These days it's a very slippery concept. Scientific studies can be designed that will "show" almost anything you want them to. Still, it would be nice for individuals who were bullied into vaccination then suffered severe side effects to tell their stories on prime-time and be offered support.

I think it's a bit of a cop-out to talk about wanting someone to be severely punished for her speech - if she names other names to earn "parole" - but then refuse to say what kind of punishment you think is fair. There's no legal risk whatsoever to supplying some details of your vision of a possible future legal regime. People openly describe desires for ethnic cleansing on the internet, inspiring extremist violence, and as long as they don't very directly threaten named individuals with imminent violence, they are not punished because of the First Amendment. (BTW, that kind of speech appears to most people to be more harmful than pro-vax-mandate speech.)

No regime on earth sentences adults to write 500 times, "I will never trust pharma executives again." People who are punished under criminal laws are deprived of property (fines or expropriation, one-time or ongoing) or liberty (probation, imprisonment/parole, or death) or both. Do you think that an unnamed person who tweeted in support of vax mandates would be imprisoned by the future government you think desirable? Would that be a few weekends in the county jail, or years at hard labor? If towards the latter end of the range, what would be done with the children and pets of all those people - because it could be a great many people depending on how widely the net was cast?

-Translucent Jejune Octopus

[tritumi]

You do seem to favor the argumentum ad nauseam, if you do not mind my noting.

It is pointless to debate SADS as a consequence of clotting vs myocardial scarring. Both arise from the spike protein and an immune response overloaded with synthetically induced instructions to manufacture spike proteins that damage the network of blood vessels and create further damage by accruing in critical organs.

The defense of epistemological relativism is invalid. What is to be considered are the spectrum of action and intent. Consider this spectrum:

+++ at risk from co-morbidity or advanced age
+++ coerced to keep employment to secure family
++ emotionally manipulated by family
++ willingly thought it protective based on available information and advice
+ willingly because want to travel
- medical personnel trained to evaluate trends
--- medical personnel insisting patients take shot
----medical administrators insisting treatment be denied unless officially approved
-- advocates of propaganda systems that inflict harm
--- administrators of propaganda systems that inflict harm
----owners of propaganda systems that inflict harm
--- scientists who accept false or dubious claims to maintain position
----scientists who participate in development and promotion of false or dubious findings
----administrators in any firm or government department or agency that mandates based on false or dubious findings
----censors, advocates of controlling debate
----politicians who support mandates based on false or dubious findings
--->inner circle of decision makers

Once again you request a hard accountancy of penalty for crime. You work it out and I will look forward to your recommendations.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry to keep on asking you to specify what you are arguing for, but that is a fair question. Your spectrum of intent above lists + signs - one presumes extenuating factors - that seem to refer not to the motives of people who *promoted* vaccination, but to those of people who *got* vaccinated. How do they enter into this debate at all - surely they have nothing to excuse?

As for the negatives, aside from the first one-minus, which I don't understand, you give two minuses, the smallest debit, to "advocates of propaganda systems that inflict harm." That would be the pro-vax speakers. Your list perhaps reasonably estimates relative blameworthiness among most other listed people, though it omits major categories, such as private employers who voluntarily coerced vaccination.

As for the punishments these people should suffer, you tell ME to "work it out." Well, under current law, speech is not "crime," so my recommendation would be that private pro-vax speakers should suffer no legal penalty. Anyone promoting a drastic change to law, such as terminating the ex post facto rule, should be willing to say what it will do and what it will cost. How many people will be swept up in it? What will the repercussions for economy and society be? We don't know if you're dreaming of banning 10,000 Americans from government employment or sending 10 million Americans to labor camps. And the fact that you're being awfully coy about it makes me worry that you indeed have a full-scale pogrom in mind. If that's paranoid of me, why can't you just say so?

-Translucent Jejune Octopus

[tritumi]

You ask how those I described with a + sign "enter into this debate". In the first instance, I detail these groups in order to ensure the fulll spectrum is represented. In the second place, the people in these groups are the victims of the groups designated with - signs. Surely in any discussion regarding potential criminality and social justice you do not wish to ignore those victimized and harmed?

Indeed, I agree, under law, speech is not a crime. However, under the WOKE rules by which most if not all of these "pro-vax" agitprop actors operate, harmful speech is not free from penalty and sanction. They must certainly accept the logic of their own propositions. Penalty resides on a spectrum. Some agitprop actors incited violence, literally. Some demanded state violence, others coercive measures of varying severity. The harms are real and are no less than harm under libel or fraud. That would be a good starting point and it is by no means a drastic change of law to assert damages under fraudulent claims as requiring repair and redress. Think false advertising, for example, especially when appearing in commercial entities.

I note you are particularly protective of the speech rights of the agitprop actors. My intent is as I stated, to learn the hierarchy of command and control systems that incentivized and empowered this group. Penalties under fraudulent action judgements would begin with ensuring they are no longer empowered and disgorge any material benefit received as their incentive (with additional damage awards as appropriate). One hopes but cannot expect that all will feel and display remorse and shame and co-operate with a Truth and Reconciliation commission. That will serve to feed legal testimony into the Nuremberg 2 that is reserved for those well decorated with -s.

I note that you have nothing to say of those politicians, administrators, managers, owners, and medical staff who violated both their Hippcratic Oaths as well as the even more basic rule of "do no harm". Harm these - sign folk have done, death and destruction in great measure. To the degree a just society is able, the truth matters.

As you are asking, yes, it does seem to me that you are being paranoid. There is a lot of that going around, of course, and nearly all of it intensely generated by the members of society who have a - sign in the descriptive grouping I assessed above.

Our institutions have failed, expecting resurrection or rejuvenation is a form of prayer, perhaps, for balancing the ideal and the pragmatic as replacements for raw power and greed. - sign in the descriptive grouping I assessed above.

It may well be, as Gordon White writes, that is fairly foolish to expect better of society and that the responsible powerful people will skate. After all, Obama did not prosecute one banker for the frauds that caused the Great Recession. My comments are in the frame of a better world, not the one we have. I recognize that the failure of institutions to navigate justly initiate entirely different social dynamics. There is a reason I am an expatriate.

Our institutions have failed, expecting resurrection or rejuvenation is a form of prayer, perhaps, for balancing the ideal and the pragmatic as replacements for raw power and greed.

[hearthspirit]

The disgorging part is one of my favourites.

"You have to think like the monster to defeat him," he says. "Like dissolves like." He points with his eyes to a line of dense shrubs at the edge of the woods. "Give him a taste of his own medicine," he says with a smirk...
He looms above me, wild red eyes blazing against the hoar frost of his face. He bares his yellow fangs and reaches for me with his bony hands. My own hand tremble as I thrust into his bloodstained fingers a cup of scalding buckthorn tea. He slurps it down at once and starts to how for more--devoured by the pain of emptiness, he always wants more...
I see him doubled over, overcome with violent retching. The carrion stench of his breath mixes with the reek of shit and the buckthorn loosens his bowels. A small dose of buckthorn is a laxative. A strong dose is a purgative, and a whole kettle, an emetic. It is Windigo nature: he wanted every last drop. So now he is vomiting up coins and coal slurry, clumps of sawdust from my woods, clots of tar sand, and the little bones of birds. He spews Solvay waste, gags on an entire oil slick. When he's done, his stomach continues to heave but all that comes up is the thin liquid of loneliness.
...
I run back to the house for the second pot and carry it to his side, where the snow has melted around him.... I hold the cup to his lips. He turns his head away as if it were poison. I take a sip, to reassure him and because he is not the only one who needs it... And then he drinks, just a sip at a time of the golden-pink tea, tea of Willow to quell the fever of want and Strawberries to mend the heart. With the nourishing broth of the Three Sisters and infused with savory Wild Leeks, the medicines enter his bloodstream: White Pine for unity, justice from Pecans, the humility of Sprce roots. He drinks down the compassion of Witch Hazel, the respect of Cedars, a blessing of Silverbells, all sweetened with the Maple of gratitude. You can't know reciprocity until you know the gift. He is helpless before their power."
--Defeating Windigo, Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer.