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

[(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."