ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 70

Current Mood: bleak

Entry tags:

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 70

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There is some universal need to actively take care of your health, I had this conversation with my mom recently and she mentioned that she felt good about taking the flu shot. She had the flu last week and is fine now but said it could have been worse.

Not much to say to that, the goalposts just move from immunity to severity.

'It could have been so much worse' is indeed a goalpost about severity not immunity.
So basically the Fox is airbags that mitigate collision damage.
But don't airbags just inflate sometimes and cause serious damage?
There must be other analogies of 'protective devices' that backfire like the Fox does.

Flu in particular. They wont get more covid ones theyve said due to the fact that it targets the part of the virus that changes most frequently.

After hearing this from my mom its been my go to when discussing in my circles. That the vaccines target variants so far gone, then the virus just evolves around whatever theoretical protection might be possible.

Like always putting your spare key under your doormat.

That your mom suggested that the flu vaccine was somehow related to the degree in which she suffered from symptoms of influenza indicates that the propaganda worked 100% to equate vaccines with "makes symptoms milder" and no longer with "prevention of infection."

I'm not sure what the repercussions of this will be; still mulling it over.

Seems like secular faith to me. I wouldnt say my mom is naive either, she left a former Soviet state and is generally skeptical of being told what to do.

Even a few years ago she discovered that statins were not what they seemed and pulled my dad off them. Generally they avoid all drugs when they can. But vaccines continue to squeak through.

The benefits are too vague I worry compared to a drug with semi instant benefit or harm.

From what I can tell, the evolutionary effects of using non-sterilising vaccines are similar to the injudicious use of antibiotics... they exert selective pressures that tend towards "resistance" in the pathogens targeted.

This is not an unreasonable long term repercussion to predict, I think.

And if the goal-posts are moved from immunity to severity, then by definition the agent that does that is not a vaccine, but a prophylactic. How on earth the laws and regs can be stretched to mandate an experimental prophylactic is beyond me. But then again, as I remind y'all here from time to time, I have Asperger's Syndrome, and just don't get how "Neuro-typicals" see things.

When I explain to vex supporters that there is zero long term safety data, that most vaccine trials fail the long term study phase, and that while I acknowledge that VAERS data does not prove danger ("correlation doesn't prove causality"; which c-19 vex supporters never tire of repeating), it clearly suggests the possibility so strongly that the only responsible action is to regard the vex as causal until proven otherwise, suspend the program, and convincingly account for those suspicious deaths as being caused by something else if the vex program is really so crucial. That comment always draws blank if not appalled stares (as if I were insane), and the most coherent reply ever given to me was "You're the first person I've ever heard explain vaccine opposition that way."

Yeah, I guess I'm counted among the lunatics alright.

--Lunar Apprentice

People never realise that "correlation doesn't prove causality" is JUST AS TRUE as "correlation does not prove non-causality".

The other thing they don't do, is remember that doctors have always asked the question "what was happening in your life when X started? had anything changed that you are aware of?"

And if you said (say) "well, I had started taking that prescription Y..." the doctor is unlikely to immediately say, "correlation does not equal causation!" and make some "avert!" sign with their fingers. Instead they will probably make a note on your file saying "possibly allergic to or intolerant of prescription Y", and change your prescription.

What I've always found remarkable is the *departure* from standard clinical operating procedure in the case of vaccines...

Edited (apologies, missing last sentence) 2022-12-09 10:48 (UTC)

Reading your comment made me realize we all need a strong reply to the "correlation does not prove causality" thought-stopper. I nominate, "Where there is causality, there is correlation. So a big correlation needs scrutiny".

Any other ideas? I think we need a new meme here.

--Lunar Apprentice

"Causality causes correlation... If you want to say that THIS correlation is NOT causal, find me a better causal explanation, or hold your peace while I continue to treat this one as not-yet-ruled-out..."

Hello Scotlyn, you wrote-

[But]"causality causes correlation."

Bingo. Thank you for that.

Perhaps I would add: "Something caused that correlation, so why not take a peek behind the kimono, eh?"

or perhaps "Why not assume it's the vex until proven otherwise?"

--Lunar Apprentice

One might also mention that the lack of curiosity on the part of the CDC and media about this extraordinary correlation is itself noteworthy.

Listening to them chant "correlation does not imply causality" like a mantra makes it seem like they're trying to condition us to believe "correlation disproves causality". Wake up!

--Lunar Apprentice

Yes...

The many possible interactions of correlation and non-correlation, causation and non-causation, and the need to pursue (and rule out or fail to rule out) ALL of them is lost on many people who can recite the mantra.

For example, it is also true (especially when looking for small effects in large samples) that "non-correlation does not prove non-causation". This is especially worth understanding when reading papers that are making a claim based entirely on the presence or absence of "statistical significance" (the Evidence Based Medicine way of talking about correlations and whether they can be assumed to be causative or not).

Correlation warrants investigation. Always!

If a strong correlation shows up unexpectedly, causal or not, there is something missing in your model, cocked up in your calculations, or holey in your hypothesis.

If you don’t seek the cause of the correlation you are not doing science, you are practicing faith rites or idol worship. Scientists do NOT beg the question; they question everything. Especially, themselves.

I like "Correlation certainly doesn't prove LACK of causality."

-Translucent Jejune Octopus

"Correlation always suggests causality, because where causality occurs, there is correlation; and a strong correlation is almost impossible to get due to chance. While it doesn't prove causality, until someone provides a different, plausible explanation for the correlation, the logical assumption is that there is causality here."

The beauty here is that it tolerably often gets the other person to look into the research, and more than one person has said after doing that and seeing how flimsy the research is in various topics, more than one person has eventually changed their mind.

"Uhm - why do _I_ have to prove that these shots aren't dangerous? These are novel products. There is a very striking correlation here, with thousands of people dead, and many more injured.

You're advocating for people to take a novel drug? Go proof to me that it's safe - and good luck finding the data to support that!"

;-)

Milkyway

PS: I'm kinda sick of being wrongfully forced into the defensive, in case you couldn't tell... ;-)

Yes... Absolutely.

The *marketee* of a product should never have to made an argument for not "buying". They are always and ever free to simply not buy.

It falls always and ever on the *marketer* to make a sufficiently persuasive case to result in a sale.

At least, so people who believe in "free markets" keep telling me... ;)

"What else can cause this correlation? Occam's Razor is still a valid principle, after all."

You must know some better doctors than the ones my loved ones have dealt with. My view may be overly jaundiced, but it seems like very often if you say "I started taking the statin right before my backache began" doctors WILL sneer "Correlation does not equal causation" then order you to stop reading "the Internet."

-Translucent Jejune Octopus

I'm very, very sorry to hear that!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 70

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics

Re: The Club of Raving Lunatics