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.
I like the quote--and I think it's perfectly applicable.
I'd add that reason is the basis of science and that the best way to attack science is to attack reason first.
It's an obvious hypothetical, but methinks most rational folks would agree that Sagan would have been far more likely to accept the COVID propaganda than Aquinas.
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!
In the past she has not responded at all so I'm feeling positive at the moment🥰
Will have to wait to see if she responds to my reply🥴
I know someone who works for the government, helped set up the C19 roadshow in the UK and has so far failed to answer a single question asked and tells me I talk rubbish🤣Safe and Effective tm
"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 found it infuriating listening to an episode of The Spectator's youtube channel where they described the government keeping the country locked down as adhering to the precautionary principle when it was precisely the opposite.
The precautionary "principle" is nothing of the sort. It is irrational risk mongering without limitation and would merrily exterminate the Human Race were it permitted. It is become politics. It would serve as a justification to terminate every pregnancy.
Every Human Being is (by current mores and politics) a mass of dire risk to the environment, other people and to wider society and economics.
Such is the deep doctrine underpinning the COVID cull, climatism, EU and Worldwide "environmental" legislation and wider UNEP/UNFCCC dogma, the dogma of Maurice Strong and his Sinophilic communist cohorts.
One sees the precautionary principle applied to control speech, putative micro-aggressions, "15 minute" cities, to cancel development, the building of base load power capacity, to arrest anti-vaxxing proponents, to detain incipient demonstrations against the loss of liberty and bodily sovereignty and on and on it goes, sustaining and fuelling a Regressive Agenda.
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.
And even if number 1, 2 and 3 are "proven" if someone thinks something may be a risk to them, no matter how small that risk, they should be able to flat out refuse it without fear. Period.
Those were principles. With people being all different, there are always exceptions and must be recognised and respected. Take milk and nuts as classic examples.
Ultimately no one, no one, should be coerced into doing or not doing anything, especially putting anything inside the body.
If there is a real public health threat and a medication or medical measure is 100% safe, effective and necessary for people as a whole, then it is a matter of fairness that those who decline must be physically isolated somehow to protect the public.
They have inverted and corrupted this principle by locking down healthy people en masse.
Remember that the idea behind JAILING - an extreme form of physical isolation - was to protect the public from potential further acts of those criminals. There is no difference between criminal acts and deleterious health concerns.
The same principle could be properly applied in cases of extreme public health.
I'll add that in my observation, we can trace a direct line from the irrationality we're witnessing among our "covid believing" brothers and sisters to the desolation that was introduced by Vatican II.
I don't believe that the evil forces could pull off a global crime of this magnitude without infiltrating and corrupting the most rational institution on Earth two-plus generations prior.
Very few among those who've held true to the Latin Mass of our fathers have played along with this nonsense.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Pope Francis has spent much of the past three years facilitating the covid scandal and persecuting the remnant of the old traditional rite that remains.
(I refuse to claim to know definitively whether or not Pope Francis is actually the Holy Father, but the evidence I have observed lends credibility to those who claim that he is an unholy imposter).
Yrs. I agree that it took at least two generations for the infiltrate most institutions.
Fat Francis is a vaccine pimp!
Another woman should bravely try to grab his hand again. That was a revealing fakery. People of good faith and at peace not have reacted like he did! The memes were funny!
"you do not suddenly just discard 100 years of regulatory and pharmacological practice, pandemic guidelines, and general standards and sense on safety. SOMEONE HERE MADE CHOICES. these goalposts got moved so far that they are not even on the field anymore.
and demanding to know who, why, and on what basis this occurred is the key to preventing this from happening again." ~ bad cattitude
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 🙏🏻
My sister did not talk for a very long time. People would tell my mother there was something wrong with her and to take her to the doctor. My mothers said nothing was wrong with her and that she just didn’t want to talk. Eventually , my sister began talking. She’s 61 and still not a big talker. So while I obviously don’t know if your grandchild was affected, I do know that some kids just don’t talk when we think they should. Can you tell if he can hear? Does he startle at loud sounds, or if you call his name when he’s not facing you, does he look at you?
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.
I like the quote--and I think it's perfectly applicable.
I'd add that reason is the basis of science and that the best way to attack science is to attack reason first.
It's an obvious hypothetical, but methinks most rational folks would agree that Sagan would have been far more likely to accept the COVID propaganda than Aquinas.
Yeah, I just can’t make sense of what you’ve written here.
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.
Please help thinking of some mirror where a narcissist would recognize he/she is ill.
ONLY THEN healing MIGHT be possible.
( https://naturalhealer.com.au/2016/09/natural-healing-narcissists/ was the only thing I found on this topic.)
I often perceive whole entities as infected by pathological narcissistic behavior.
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🐟
Sounds like mine!
Yeah ,I remember the post👍
In the past she has not responded at all so I'm feeling positive at the moment🥰
Will have to wait to see if she responds to my reply🥴
I know someone who works for the government, helped set up the C19 roadshow in the UK and has so far failed to answer a single question asked and tells me I talk rubbish🤣Safe and Effective tm
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...
I found it infuriating listening to an episode of The Spectator's youtube channel where they described the government keeping the country locked down as adhering to the precautionary principle when it was precisely the opposite.
The precautionary "principle" is nothing of the sort. It is irrational risk mongering without limitation and would merrily exterminate the Human Race were it permitted. It is become politics. It would serve as a justification to terminate every pregnancy.
Every Human Being is (by current mores and politics) a mass of dire risk to the environment, other people and to wider society and economics.
Such is the deep doctrine underpinning the COVID cull, climatism, EU and Worldwide "environmental" legislation and wider UNEP/UNFCCC dogma, the dogma of Maurice Strong and his Sinophilic communist cohorts.
One sees the precautionary principle applied to control speech, putative micro-aggressions, "15 minute" cities, to cancel development, the building of base load power capacity, to arrest anti-vaxxing proponents, to detain incipient demonstrations against the loss of liberty and bodily sovereignty and on and on it goes, sustaining and fuelling a Regressive Agenda.
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.
And even if number 1, 2 and 3 are "proven" if someone thinks something may be a risk to them, no matter how small that risk, they should be able to flat out refuse it without fear. Period.
Those were principles. With people being all different, there are always exceptions and must be recognised and respected. Take milk and nuts as classic examples.
Ultimately no one, no one, should be coerced into doing or not doing anything, especially putting anything inside the body.
If there is a real public health threat and a medication or medical measure is 100% safe, effective and necessary for people as a whole, then it is a matter of fairness that those who decline must be physically isolated somehow to protect the public.
They have inverted and corrupted this principle by locking down healthy people en masse.
Remember that the idea behind JAILING - an extreme form of physical isolation - was to protect the public from potential further acts of those criminals. There is no difference between criminal acts and deleterious health concerns.
The same principle could be properly applied in cases of extreme public health.
I think you're 100% right...
I'll add that in my observation, we can trace a direct line from the irrationality we're witnessing among our "covid believing" brothers and sisters to the desolation that was introduced by Vatican II.
I don't believe that the evil forces could pull off a global crime of this magnitude without infiltrating and corrupting the most rational institution on Earth two-plus generations prior.
Very few among those who've held true to the Latin Mass of our fathers have played along with this nonsense.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Pope Francis has spent much of the past three years facilitating the covid scandal and persecuting the remnant of the old traditional rite that remains.
(I refuse to claim to know definitively whether or not Pope Francis is actually the Holy Father, but the evidence I have observed lends credibility to those who claim that he is an unholy imposter).
Francis is just another obese man! Nothing more.
Yrs. I agree that it took at least two generations for the infiltrate most institutions.
Fat Francis is a vaccine pimp!
Another woman should bravely try to grab his hand again. That was a revealing fakery. People of good faith and at peace not have reacted like he did! The memes were funny!
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
The bar is not set by them. It's set by us which is exactly the argument Robin uses for coming to his own personal choice.
Nope. we didn't change the rules, they did.
"you do not suddenly just discard 100 years of regulatory and pharmacological practice, pandemic guidelines, and general standards and sense on safety. SOMEONE HERE MADE CHOICES. these goalposts got moved so far that they are not even on the field anymore.
and demanding to know who, why, and on what basis this occurred is the key to preventing this from happening again." ~ bad cattitude
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 🙏🏻
My sister did not talk for a very long time. People would tell my mother there was something wrong with her and to take her to the doctor. My mothers said nothing was wrong with her and that she just didn’t want to talk. Eventually , my sister began talking. She’s 61 and still not a big talker. So while I obviously don’t know if your grandchild was affected, I do know that some kids just don’t talk when we think they should. Can you tell if he can hear? Does he startle at loud sounds, or if you call his name when he’s not facing you, does he look at you?
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.