Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 147

[ecosophia]

We are now in the third year of these open posts. As the phrase "died suddenly" repeats in the mass media like a mantra, statistics for work days lost to illness and all-cause mortality mount up in heavily vaccinated nations, and more and more ugly facts about the official response to Covid spill out into public, we are entering what may well turn out to be the most difficult period of the Covid disaster -- the phase in which denial rises in lockstep with the death rate, and a great many people try not to admit what has been done to them by the people and institutions they trusted. It could get ugly, folks.

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, religions, 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

[scotlyn]

Here is another story from "Ye Olde Times"... ;)

as related by Annie Riley Hale, in "The Medical Voodoo", 1935, pp 54-55 (book), pp.61-62 (pdf).
This book is available on archive.org, but as I have downloaded it, I no longer have the link to hand.

QUOTE:
For several years Mr. [Charles] Higgins [American author of "The Horrors of Vaccination Exposed", 1919] carried a paid advertisement in one of the big New York dailies calling on the N. Y. State and City Health Departments to open their books, and he would undertake to prove from their own records—juggled as many of their reports were—that "there had been more deaths from vaccination than from smallpox in New York every year for the past 15 years." His challenge was never accepted.

A striking confirmation of Mr. Higgins' contention on this point was furnished by a survey made of vaccination casualties in the public schools of the rural districts and smaller cities of New York in 1914. This survey was undertaken by Mr. Jas. A. Loyster, editor of a newspaper at Cazenovia, N. Y., who purposely left out of his field of investigation the larger cities, such as Greater New York, Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, etc., because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable data from these metropolitan centers. Mr. Loyster's interest in the matter grew out of the death of his only son, a sturdy, healthy lad of 11, which occurred as a sequence of vaccination in 23 days from the time of the operation.

Despite this tragic happening, the father says—in the preamble to his report—that he purposely refrained from reading any anti-vaccination literature before beginning his survey of the schools, in order that he might keep a free open mind for facts—and facts only. He had consented to the boy's vaccination, having been vaccinated himself in childhood and survived, and not even the boy's fate had wholly convinced him of the folly of vaccination. But he found as the result of his "painstaking inquiry"—and incorporated in his published Report—that there had been 27 deaths from vaccination, and twice as many cases of serious illness—followed in some instances by permanent disability—in this partial list of N. Y. school children in 1914, while in the whole State of New York for that year there had been but three deaths from smallpox! Not that the death certificates for these 27 victims of vaccination in the Loyster report named vaccination as the immediate cause of death. The guardians of the calf-pus ritual are much too wary for that. The assignable causes of death in these instances were variously distributed among the following diagnoses: infantile paralysis, spinal-meningitis, tetanus and diphtheria—although some of them read "following vaccination."
UNQUOTE

There are many elements to this story - a refusal of authorities to release data, the parent of a child injured by vaccine carefully studying the matter and becoming more knowledgeable about vaccination than the authorities, evidence that vaccination caused many other sicknesses to appear in the vaccinated, among others - are achingly familiar, but it looks like none of them are new.

[thinking_turtle]

Wow, "there had been more deaths from vaccination than from smallpox in New York every year for the past 15 years." The irrationality continues to amaze. Thanks for sharing!

[(Anonymous)]

Forgive me if this is too "conventional"... But is that not what we would expect of the smallpox vaccine? It works. You don't get or spread smallpox. That's why there is no smallpox anymore! So once the vaccine campaign was well underway, we should expect very few smallpox deaths.

The smallpox vaccine was very safe _compared to smallpox_. Not at all safe by modern standards. IIRC it killed at least one in a thousand. So, while the vaccine campaign was ongoing, when should expect a steady trickle of deaths from the vaccine.

With most people protected, and all kids getting vaccinated... Yes, you would expect to see way, way more vaccine deaths. Exactly as you do. Is that irrational? Probably not to people who had seen a smallpox outbreak. Smallpox was no COVID.

Were those predictable but accidental deaths a fair trade off, or a human sacrifice to the goddess Vaccina? Depends on perspective, I suppose. It worked, though. There is no more smallpox.

Given how deadly the disease was, the eradication campaign and its associated "extra" deaths may appear cold, callous, or even cruel-- but you cannot say those deaths were in vain. Smallpox is no COVID, and its vaccine was no jab.

I encourage everyone to think critically and not be blinded by recent events. Judge the past on its own merits, please.

[scotlyn]

To think critically, one needs to be informed, and sometimes to be informed requires stepping outside of one's current culture and its pre-formed historical narrative. READING some of the original source materials, for example, can certainly shake one's certainty about each and every one of the propositions you've made here regarding smallpox as if they were established fact. What you've written here, I'm sorry to say, comes across to me more as catechism than as criticism.

One interesting starting point in the old original source material, that might be of interest to a critical thinker, would be the "Vaccination" article in the Encyclopedia Britannica from Edition 9 (1875-1889) This edition of the Encyclopedia coincided with the rise in smallpox, and other diseases, as post-vaccination adverse events, during the decades following compulsory vaccination laws, and wound up in the selfsame year that political blowback led to the 1889 formation of a Royal Commission—appointed to investigate vaccination and public health law and policy.

The Encyclopedia article was written by a Mr Dr. Charles Creighton, Professor of Microscopic Anatomy at Cambridge and author of "Epidemics of Great Britain" and of "Jenner and Vaccination; a Queer Chapter in Medical History". The same Dr. Creighton later testified at the Royal Commission, and subsequently found himself in the condition nowadays known as "cancelled." From the time of his testimony before the Commission, when he was considered to be among the leading "experts" in his specialty, he was later ousted from his professorship at Cambridge, his writings placed in the "misinformation" category, censored and later forgotten about and erased from the history of vaccination, where he had occupied a front row seat, and he died in poverty and obscurity.

His article on "Vaccination" - probably the last ever that was not written by a pharmaceutical shill, starts on p. 23 of Volume 24 - and you can read the entire thing here - https://archive.org/details/encyclopaedia-britannica-9ed-1875/Vol%2024%20%28URA-ZYM%29%20193639029.23/page/23/mode/1up

In it (just for example) Dr Creighton cites numerous outbreaks of syphilis following [smallpox] vaccination and re-vaccination among children and adults in various countries after vaccination became initially fashionable, and later, after the "shine" had worn off, mandatory. About the connection between smallpox vaccination campaigns and rises in outbreaks of syphilis, he says: "In so far as experiment and casual experience can prove anything, these have been proven."