I've been meaning to write a post about this for a while but keep getting distracted. However, I've got another hour to kill at Addis Ababa airport so I'm writing it now but without the graphics I had originally intended to do. Even now, with the abundance of evidence showing that none of the COVID interventions was effective but most were quite harmful - especially the “vaccine” - we still find ourselves being demanded to defend our analyses.
3) You can't help people who don't want your help.
Basically, my default assumption is I'm on my own, until people/institutions earn my trust. As a veteran of Wall Street, this skeptical approach comes easily to me.
An easy way to summarize this article is to quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Using that standard, the government response was a complete failure and an attack on both science and reason.
And the thing is ... they just say stuff, no defense required. Yet one would think they expect everyone else to be bullet proof. But what happens is ... they actually don't care. Is it good when our data is the best it can be, yes. But it will never be enough. They don't care how good it is, as it would need to answer every thing thing their minds could come up with as a "possibility", and even then ... they don't care.
I used to feel bad that at some point I switched from trying to be bullet proof and rely on the preponderance of the evidence ... I no longer do. (Thank you Ed Dowd, for the confermatiion).
1) The character of those involved, what they were willing to do and what they did not do.
2) The preponderance of the predictions of the actual experts (all of it came to pass). The only thing they missed was the non-blood clot. I think that took everyone by surprise.
3) The on the ground testimonies of funeral directors, doctors, nurses and etc.
Precisely. As I've been saying for 3 years now: settled US Supreme Court jurisprudence is that government action impinging on fundamental Constitutional rights burdens IT with establishing its actions are necessary and narrowly tailored. They've never bothered and never been seriously required to.
This is so right. Why are we so defensive, and where does the burden of proof lie. I imagine that this happens because we tend to debate with people in 'real life' who have a priori bought into the narrative, at least that's how I find it at times. I have to prove my position because they think their's is a done deal.
And nice to see Robin Koerner's piece being shared, something I think a few of us are doing!
I completely agree with your view that the government should be providing evidence that the vaccines work rather than trying to shame those who don't trust them. Kuddos to all those who refused to take the vaccine. I wish I had seen the light earlier before taking just 1 vaccine does, but am glad to say that the veil of propaganda has been lifted from my eyes. I am grateful for Joel and others who share their wisdom!
"The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous. Critics argue that it is vague, self-cancelling, unscientific and an obstacle to progress."
That was my frustration with our people ab initio. In their reactive excitement they forgot the basal principle "YOU CLAIM, YOU PROVE".
When people denied or ignored that basic principle, I demanded that they paid me the $10m they owed. That demand shut their mouths every time!
The three essential criteria in assessing any undertaking or thing are, in order of importance:
1. Safety - if something cannot be proven safe, or safer taking all externalities into consideration than the thing it seeks to protect, then it is a NO-NO!
2. Effective
3. Necessity
The last criterion is the easiest for any rational person to DISPROVE OR REFUTE. How? If it is not done elsewhere , then it is NOT necessary.
An overall question that should have been put to the pushers and pimps was: Why would govts need to coerce people into taking the vaccines if they could prove were are safe, effective and necessary?
(Yes, I have asked that question to some Aussie "experts". None had the game to answer me, even when they did respond to me!)
Our people, again, had - and still - forgotten the easily disproven third criteria and lost themselves in being led by minutia of data. Why focused on safety and effectiveness sophistries when we had the third criterion laid out on a table before us?!
In practice, and it is a principle of public health, another criterion is financial costs. People are hurting and dying as we speak due solely to the costs element. It is a travesty of PH principle to spend excessive amounts on one disease to the exclusion of the overall health ecosystem - unless that disease is an existential threat.
You would think, hey? To any decent average person, this is pretty much self-evident and for the longest time I struggled to understand how the various institutions and agencies involved had so singularly failed to discharge their duties.
Then I came across Katherine Watts' and Sasha Latypova's substacks. And everything tumbled into place. Read and weep.
Excellent piece Joel. Both my wife and I refused to take any of their injections at the risk of our respective 34 and 32 year careers,
mine with the Feds and her’s with a major U.S. Airline. I’m now retired, my wife is still flying.
My question about this bio weapon is I in all my working around positive COVID cases I never once tested positive since getting sick with whatever was going around in early 2019. I was ostracized along with my fellow No Jabbers for our non compliance and ridiculed by fellow teammates who we had once depended on each other since post 9-11.
My wife on the other hand, has had COVID twice, has battled the Long Haul side affects and seems to be constantly battered by working in close contact with freshly boosted Paxs and FAs shedding off spike proteins.
My last point is that my son’s mother-in-law flew in to be with his wife during the delivery of my grandson. Only problem was she flew in COVID positive and had just taken her third shot and infected my son (a BP Agent who had never to that point caught if from all the sick Illegals he handled) his wife and their newborn baby. My grandson is now 15 months old and has yet to say even spoken momma or dada to date.
Am I being a paranoid grandfather or has anyone heard of this issue before? Thank you for a excellent newsletter and informative comments! God bless you all 🙏🏻
I've learned so much from this debacle.
1) Don't blindly trust govt or HC industry.
2) Do your own research.
3) You can't help people who don't want your help.
Basically, my default assumption is I'm on my own, until people/institutions earn my trust. As a veteran of Wall Street, this skeptical approach comes easily to me.
An easy way to summarize this article is to quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Using that standard, the government response was a complete failure and an attack on both science and reason.
And the thing is ... they just say stuff, no defense required. Yet one would think they expect everyone else to be bullet proof. But what happens is ... they actually don't care. Is it good when our data is the best it can be, yes. But it will never be enough. They don't care how good it is, as it would need to answer every thing thing their minds could come up with as a "possibility", and even then ... they don't care.
I used to feel bad that at some point I switched from trying to be bullet proof and rely on the preponderance of the evidence ... I no longer do. (Thank you Ed Dowd, for the confermatiion).
1) The character of those involved, what they were willing to do and what they did not do.
2) The preponderance of the predictions of the actual experts (all of it came to pass). The only thing they missed was the non-blood clot. I think that took everyone by surprise.
3) The on the ground testimonies of funeral directors, doctors, nurses and etc.
4) And yea all the maiming and death.
Precisely. As I've been saying for 3 years now: settled US Supreme Court jurisprudence is that government action impinging on fundamental Constitutional rights burdens IT with establishing its actions are necessary and narrowly tailored. They've never bothered and never been seriously required to.
This is so right. Why are we so defensive, and where does the burden of proof lie. I imagine that this happens because we tend to debate with people in 'real life' who have a priori bought into the narrative, at least that's how I find it at times. I have to prove my position because they think their's is a done deal.
And nice to see Robin Koerner's piece being shared, something I think a few of us are doing!
The place where the truth of this post needs to get to is in the minds of the public, still captured by the spell.
I completely agree with your view that the government should be providing evidence that the vaccines work rather than trying to shame those who don't trust them. Kuddos to all those who refused to take the vaccine. I wish I had seen the light earlier before taking just 1 vaccine does, but am glad to say that the veil of propaganda has been lifted from my eyes. I am grateful for Joel and others who share their wisdom!
Statistics are always a problem as there is endless noise about interpretation.
Safe and effective is a lie , it is a lie now and it was when this started and they new this.
My MP on safe and effective says it's a done deal and we're world leaders🇬🇧
The game is on and she took the bait🐟
Wiki says -
"The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous. Critics argue that it is vague, self-cancelling, unscientific and an obstacle to progress."
I dunno, I sort of like it...
That was my frustration with our people ab initio. In their reactive excitement they forgot the basal principle "YOU CLAIM, YOU PROVE".
When people denied or ignored that basic principle, I demanded that they paid me the $10m they owed. That demand shut their mouths every time!
The three essential criteria in assessing any undertaking or thing are, in order of importance:
1. Safety - if something cannot be proven safe, or safer taking all externalities into consideration than the thing it seeks to protect, then it is a NO-NO!
2. Effective
3. Necessity
The last criterion is the easiest for any rational person to DISPROVE OR REFUTE. How? If it is not done elsewhere , then it is NOT necessary.
An overall question that should have been put to the pushers and pimps was: Why would govts need to coerce people into taking the vaccines if they could prove were are safe, effective and necessary?
(Yes, I have asked that question to some Aussie "experts". None had the game to answer me, even when they did respond to me!)
Our people, again, had - and still - forgotten the easily disproven third criteria and lost themselves in being led by minutia of data. Why focused on safety and effectiveness sophistries when we had the third criterion laid out on a table before us?!
In practice, and it is a principle of public health, another criterion is financial costs. People are hurting and dying as we speak due solely to the costs element. It is a travesty of PH principle to spend excessive amounts on one disease to the exclusion of the overall health ecosystem - unless that disease is an existential threat.
Ah, but they've cleverly lowered the bar & moved the goal posts:
https://open.substack.com/pub/boriquagato/p/moving-the-goalposts-on-safe-part?r=ft46p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/boriquagato/p/are-covid-vaccines-coding-for-that?r=ft46p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You would think, hey? To any decent average person, this is pretty much self-evident and for the longest time I struggled to understand how the various institutions and agencies involved had so singularly failed to discharge their duties.
Then I came across Katherine Watts' and Sasha Latypova's substacks. And everything tumbled into place. Read and weep.
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/american-domestic-bioterrorism-program
As DR McCullough keeps saying......it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.
Excellent piece Joel. Both my wife and I refused to take any of their injections at the risk of our respective 34 and 32 year careers,
mine with the Feds and her’s with a major U.S. Airline. I’m now retired, my wife is still flying.
My question about this bio weapon is I in all my working around positive COVID cases I never once tested positive since getting sick with whatever was going around in early 2019. I was ostracized along with my fellow No Jabbers for our non compliance and ridiculed by fellow teammates who we had once depended on each other since post 9-11.
My wife on the other hand, has had COVID twice, has battled the Long Haul side affects and seems to be constantly battered by working in close contact with freshly boosted Paxs and FAs shedding off spike proteins.
My last point is that my son’s mother-in-law flew in to be with his wife during the delivery of my grandson. Only problem was she flew in COVID positive and had just taken her third shot and infected my son (a BP Agent who had never to that point caught if from all the sick Illegals he handled) his wife and their newborn baby. My grandson is now 15 months old and has yet to say even spoken momma or dada to date.
Am I being a paranoid grandfather or has anyone heard of this issue before? Thank you for a excellent newsletter and informative comments! God bless you all 🙏🏻
Nailed it.
I saw a male primary school student in a surgical mask and a face shield!!!
It is a hot sunny summer's day here in western Sydney.