Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, April 26, 2021

Canadian Doctor: "The most grave injustice our society has ever experienced"

(with a hat tip to Deplorable Bloggers Alliance

One short video is posted below. Then follow the link at the bottom to view next four videos. Please watch all five short videos before commenting.
 
Go HERE to view the remaining four short videos.

So, have we been "had bad"? As in...

77 comments:

  1. Of course all those fools still running around with filthy rags on their faces have been "had." The rest of us have known since about the second week of this fiasco we were being lied to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here in Northern Virginia, an arm of the federal government, mask wearing has become a religion. Mask wearers are downright pious about it. **sigh**

      Delete
  2. For easy reference: as frequently referenced by Hodkinson, here is the Great Barrington declaration, and here's one of the responses to it, the
    john snow memorandum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for providing the links. This is a scientific debate over a phenomenon with many factors. Too many people on all sides think science is a big hammer that you smash down on your opponents to say c? I'm right. That is wrong.

      Delete
    2. Did the John Snow people resurrect him, first?

      Delete
    3. Are the signators of the John Snow Memorandum all red priestesses of the Lord of Light, Dr, Fauci?

      Delete
    4. The problem is that science is a component of public health policy, not the totality of it. A dispassionate presentation of science would be catastrophically misleading to all but the scientists working in that particular field. We need guidance, and that guidance has to be informed by a bunch of things, only some of which are scientific.

      Delete
    5. Leviticus was the "science" of before the year 0 AD. Fauci's mask policy was the "science" of the black death, circa 1350 AD. You'd think that he could have done a study...

      Delete
  3. I spent about an hour looking at infection rates for the general public in all 48 continental United States. I omitted Hawaii and Alaska as being too far outside the climate range. The mandates on social activity varied quite a lot. The rates of infection did not. All were within a hairsbreadth of 9.7%. That would tend to confirm this doctor's point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The gentleman appears entirely credible. Here’s the problem — Americans, indeed most of the western societies, are by now used to being controlled by fear. For many, fear is a stimulus that directs our attention to the exclusion of all other things. But here is another problem, and one that I do believe has been intentional: large segments of our population no longer trust the social institutions that bind us. We no longer believe what government tells us, we no longer believe that educational institutions are educating our young people, we no longer believe that our courts seek justice and truth, we no longer trust the neighborhood cop, we no longer have faith in anything our gay or transgender pastor tells us. No medical doctor or research scientist is worth a spit of chaw. And because we no longer trust our institutions as an honest broker, we must revert to that which we know best ... fear ... and this drives us to compliance with idiotic mandates. The collective “we” are a sorry people. And so, what if everything we’ve heard was absolutely verifiable (which it is not — and far from it), and what if tens of thousands of people were dropping dead from Covid-19 ... isn’t it the left whose been arguing for decades that the world is too overpopulated? Finally, raise your hand if you think you have a right to live forever. Quality of life should take precedence over longevity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I follow along to a point...for those at risk..and I say that again, the weighing of the risks for those alone who have a high mortality risk, the vaccine can only be seen as a blessing.
    Since my days on this mortal coil are limited, I chose life with a vaccine. I have seen Covid mow down people I have known.
    I agree the risks should be explained.
    Still, I have spoken to Doctors from the best Medical institutions and know them well enough when asked if they would have their parents take the vaccine believe them to tell me the truth. It is an overwhelming yes. If so dangerous why not a fervent outcry from these Docs across America. Have they all drunk the kool-aid? Maybe. Thank you Moderna... I am enjoying my life now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My father was a physician, and yet my mother spent the better part of a year in a body cast because she was given an inadequately tested polio vaccine. Doctors are not infallible, and are as vulnerable to fearmongering as anyone. Con men peddling financial scams love doctors.

      Delete
    2. Even today, the polio vaccine is causing adverse effects, that as well as a many of the other "approved" vaccines. Same with medical procedures... yet we don't stop them. Life is a game of chance. one in a million? Up to each of us how we want to play the game.

      Delete
    3. The damage done by the polio vaccine was vastly more than "one in a million." The one that damaged my mother was closer to one in a few hundred. I was there.

      Delete
    4. Defective polio vaccines were administered in the 1950s, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ where it seems 1 in 100 administrations resulted in paralysis. (this may not be Jayhawk's mother's specific case.)
      It's always important to maintain a critical eye on public health interventions, as it's so easy to do enormous amounts of harm when you roll things out across the general population. That applies to anti-covid measures, including the vaccines. It does not extend, in my opinion, to pretending that the virus poses no risk. Those pushing that rhetoric need to explain what's happened / is happening in all the cities suffering with mass outbreaks.

      Delete
    5. Bunkerville,
      My doctor and I conferred and determined that I should have either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Why? Because of my history of bad reactions to vaccines, specifically, live ones. When I say bad reactions, I mean convulsions (as a child), requiring a week in intensive care and, as an adult, damage to my left kidney, such that I required surgery. And still I have neurogenic pain syndrome. The vaccine? The one for chickenpox.

      I had the J&J vaccine -- before the vaccine was paused. The reactions set in that evening and didn't dissipate until over a week later; the reactions included nausea, slight fever, cough, and shortness of breath. The most worrisome reaction was severe shortness of breath, and I still have a bit of that problem. I had the J&J vaccine on March 31.

      Yes, I reported the reactions to my doctor. Now I'm probably one of those who shouldn't get the booster shot (if required).

      Delete
  6. He's a doctor and like Jayhawk said "Doctors are not infallible, and are as vulnerable to fearmongering as anyone."

    I think everyone will acknowledge that. Pick any theory accepted by the great majority of scientists, and there will always be small numbers of other scientists who argue otherwise.

    It is incumbent on those like Hodkinson, to show the research that supports their views. That's not crazy, it's a standard scientific method. If people are appealing to their own scientific education, the "I'm a doctor" or "I'm a scientist" line when they present their ideas, they should show their scientific methods.

    Otherwise, it seems they are just making statements, that may even be true, but lack the supporting evidence to be accepted by the larger society.

    ReplyDelete
  7. THIS popped into my inbox this morning. Excerpt:

    ...000000000000000000000000000000000Traditional vaccines, like for the seasonal flu, involve injecting a weakened version of a virus to stimulate the body’s natural production of antibodies against it. But the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a novel mRNA technology that delivers genetic information directly to the body’s cells, instructing them to make proteins associated with COVID-19 so that they can recognize the virus and develop antibodies to fight it.

    It’s impressive technology, but also extremely new and relatively untested. Usually, vaccines go through years of clinical trials before they get FDA approval, but not this time. The COVID-19 vaccines went through months, not years, of trials, which is one reason they only have “emergency use” authorization from the FDA, which had never before approved an mRNA vaccine.

    So it’s not crazy to be hesitant about taking one of these new vaccines. Their long-term effects are as yet unknown....


    If, as the doctor in the videos posits, COVID doesn't really pose a big threat to our health, then should we subject ourselves to possibly-dangerous vaccines and, in effect, be lab rats?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting statement from the above link and something that I didn't realize:

      Historically, vaccine mandates in America have been rare and localized. We’ve never had a national vaccine mandate, not even for diseases like polio and smallpox.

      Delete
    2. AOW... but we did have rules that we had to be vaccinated to attend public schools if I remember correctly. In fact, the vaccinators [is that a real word?] came to our schools to inoculate us. Against mumps, measles, rubella, etc.

      Delete
    3. There have certainly been needless outbreaks of legacy diseases around communities who have followed the fashion of refusing to get the children vaccinated. There is an argument in favour of compulsion.

      Delete
    4. Jez... maybe that compulsion does take the form of a vaccine passport. Then people could choose whether they want to take the vaccine or not, based on what they want to do with their lives.

      You want to get on a plane for travel? Get the vaccine, otherwise, in a sense, exercise your freedoms and drive.

      What is the argument against private businesses requiring a vaccine for entrance, much like shoes and shirts? Or a governmental agency requiring a certain behavior for the privilege of doing something? Like when we require insurance to drive a car.

      I'm not sure I'm in for the vaccine passport, but I think it's an interesting idea. I wonder how ppl would argue against it, since it protects the rights of people to choose.

      Delete
    5. Why should the vaccinated passengers of an airliner give 2 sh*ts whether or not non-vaccinated people were aboard?

      Why should the vaccinated kids of a school care that 30% of their classmates are out sick?

      Shove your passports where the sun don't shine!

      Delete
    6. You want to feel safe? Get vaccinated. It's nobody's business but your own.

      Delete
    7. All these "vaccine passports" crap is an admission that the vaccines don't work for sh*t and that herd immunity is now and always was the ultimate fallback.

      Delete
    8. A vaccine that can confer herd immunity upon the population that takes it up works for considerably more than shit. (Re compulsion, I had in mind the more established vaccines for almost-forgotten [thanks to vaccination] diseases like measles.)

      Delete
    9. Once vaccinated, why cower behind a mask then? Either you have immunity or you don't. To wear a mask after vaccination is a vote of vaccine "no confidence".

      Delete
    10. For the vaccinated to carry passports and fret about the unvaccinated amongst them is a vote of vaccine "no confidence".

      Delete
    11. The passports are merely a mechanism for CONTROL. F*ck your government control! EITHER CITIZENS HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR BODIES, or the government can force women to get abortions or better, become pregnant.

      Delete
    12. Let's play Name That Fallacy!

      Delete
    13. FJ,
      Once vaccinated, why cower behind a mask then?

      Because it's not really a vaccine. Rather, it's a prophylactic.

      Delete
    14. Passports protect the UNVACCINATED. And if you are unvaccinated, that's a risk you've taken upon yourself.

      Delete
    15. -FJ said... " Shove your passports where the sun don't shine! & The passports are merely a mechanism for CONTROL. F*ck your government control!"

      Sorry -FJ, I wasn't aiming to trigger you. I was looking for the argument as to why a private business cannot constitutionally require patrons to prove they've been vaccinated before accessing the services of that business.

      Whether we like it or not, businesses everyday make decisions we don't like because they perceive it will be better for business.

      What about in this instance?

      As for the efficacy of vaccines, Jez hints at the reality. For centuries small pox ravaged populations until the late 1970's. What changed? What wiped out this disease?

      Years and years of vaccinations.

      Small Pox. Polio. Tetanus. Rubella. Measles. Mumps.

      All largely gone from our everyday experience because of vaccines.

      The case for achieving herd immunity through vaccinations has been made and proved time and time again.

      But I'm still a guy willing to understand where people are who decide "it's their choice."

      My question is whether they are willing to understand business when, and I believe they will, they say "No vaccine, no entrance."

      Delete
    16. I was looking for the argument as to why a private business cannot constitutionally require patrons to prove they've been vaccinated before accessing the services of that business.

      TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS)
      42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

      To deny services to those who do not abide the mask wearing religion is unconstitutional.

      To prove that mask wearing isn't a religion, it must be proven that the masks prescribed are effective. So show me the studies around which a scientific consensus was reached.

      Delete
    17. Who says there was a scientific consensus? I for one don't believe that masks are likely to do much good.

      Delete
    18. Was there ever a "small pox passport" issued in the US or Colonies? Polio passport? Leprosy passport? AIDS passport?

      If you would discriminate against them or restrict their movement's, officially place them under Quarantine or forever get out of the discrimination business.

      Delete
    19. Ever hear a shop owner state, "No vaccination record, no service?" I have, however seen, "No mask, no service".

      Delete
    20. ps - Isn't demanding a vaccination record akin to demanding ID? And isn't this frowned upon because of the disparate impact upon minorities and the poor of asking for one?

      Delete
  8. If you are involved with the medical profession there is a mandate for being vaccinated and tested regularly. Schools have required students to be vaccinated for decades unless there are extenuating circumstances.
    Some people will be allergic to air so there will be a certain percent who will have adverse affects to any vaccination. There is a reason that it is the practice of medicine because there is always so much that is unknown.

    The one medical professional that is proving every day that his opinion is for sale to the highest bidder is flip flop fauci.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, we can certainly question this man, or support him. What I remember too well is the gurney after gurney of dying covid patients being rushed into hospitals when this first hit the news......I'll never forget that; or my friend Pastor Jim who died so horribly of covid, or his wife and family who's missing him so much. Or a priest friend who had covid 4 months ago and is still just getting over the fatigue, finally.

    So, AOW, if your doctor recommended Moderna or Pfizer, why did you get J&J? Reactions to J&J among my friends has been FAR more pronounced than my many friends, and I, who had either of the other two.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Z,
    Earlier, I incorrectlytyped in as follows:

    My doctor and I conferred and determined that I should have either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine.

    Should read:

    My doctor and I conferred and determined that I should NOT have either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Why? Because they are so like a live vaccine. I react badly to live vaccines.

    Others whom I know had the J&J with little to no problems.

    The problem with these vaccines -- one problem, anyway: the difficulty with predicting how any individual will react. The same can be said of exposure to the COVID virus itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      BTW, I know of only one person in my circle of friends and clients who died of COVID: my neighbor's mother, age 100.

      Delete
  11. Key soundbite: "that they can't manage themselves." What an excellent point! It seems we can barely step off steps ourselves (the yellow lines?).

    The J&J vaccine issue seems to revolve around antibody response to a key ingredient. As I read it, about 70% of population has that. It should be OK in the other 30%. I would settle on that one if I had to, IF I could test for those antibodies first.

    Oh Jayhawk: I remember that early polio vaccine. Yes, and a member of the Salk team wanted to warn and have that manufacturer's product withdrawn when they discovered the live polio in it. Sadly, that request was quietly shelved. Now we see the human consequence. Or YOU saw t he human consequence. Of course, current polio vaccines carry a mouse XMRV virus that's been there a long time, and it's implicated in mischief too. Still, my mother had polio, and recovered but with lifelong effects.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The new mask protocol is as incoherent as ever. You can go without a mask as long as everybody else with you is vaccinated. Or if the crowd is small. But you must wear a mask if you are vaccinated but are in a large crowd. WTF?

    You are immune if you are in a small crowd, but you are not immune if you are in a large crowd. In what universe does that make any sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Masks are better at source control than ppe. That recommendation is in case your immunity is insufficient to prevent you from carrying and spreading to vulnerable members of that larger crowd. The risk of that happening has not been measured as far as I know (I haven't looked it up, if your worried about it I suggest you try looking for it in scholar.google.com). also it's to give organisers a much easier time identifying non-compliance.

      Delete
    2. I mean source control. As a review of the evidence for masks (published this year by the hilariously-named journal PNAS [cite them at every opportunity, kids]) concludes "Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission."

      Delete
    3. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#ref-list-1 for a start.

      Delete
    4. The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1,

      A ringing endorsement, given all the caveats in the preceding paragraphs and that the estimated Covid transmissibility number 'R' w/o masks could be as low as 2.4.

      Delete
    5. It could be below 1, but it could be above 1.... they don't quite know since a universal mask & mask materials weren't specified.

      Delete
    6. Wearing masks will ultimately prove to have been as effective as the recycling movement was. A feel-good policy accomplishing nothing.

      Delete
    7. "estimated Covid transmissibility number 'R' w/o masks could be as low as 2.4"

      What are you talking about? For covid, that means cases more than double every week. That's not a comfortable R number.

      Wouldn't surprise me, I'm not a big pro-mask guy. But I'm not going to lose my mind because I disagree with some aspect of public health policy in an emergency panemic, and there's no question that masks wouldn't help if they were not near-universal. Most of the objections I've read are risible, although I do sympathise with people working long shifts in masks.

      Delete
    8. You hang your hat on the theory that pretending to do something with a chance of helping beats doing nothing. Well, where in the country, or the world, did your lockdowns and mask wearings actually prevent the spread of Covid? Oh, that's right, NO WHERE.

      Delete
    9. What's your standard for success? You can look up which countries have had the best covid response as easily as I can.

      Delete
    10. You mean China? You hate freedom that much? Go live there.

      Delete
    11. I, personally, have no desire to be managed by my Social Credit Score.

      Delete
    12. Life must have a certain quality to have value.

      Delete
    13. China, the world leader in "source control".

      Delete
    14. I wasn't thinking of China. I think their initial reaction (coverup and denial) was even worse than Trump's!
      You really love false dilemmas, don't you? Do you find comfort in the illusion of simplicity?

      Delete
    15. Letting people decide for themselves whether to take personal defensive measures to protect themselves against COVID is pretty simple. Forcing them to do it, is something else entirely.

      Delete
    16. near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public

      Yeah, there's the rub.

      Delete
    17. Welcome to the land of "authentic individualism."

      The "authentic" means allowing themselves to be their own "authors/ authorities".

      Delete
    18. Emergency responses to emergencies are unfortunately required. Slippery slope arguments *do* apply, but so do baby/bathwater arguments. Fine judgement is called for, and it's up to the government to make those judgements. I don't like it any more than you, but I'm not going to pretend it's not necessary.
      Something to bear in mind when you vote: the winner of this election might need to wield emergency powers.

      Delete
    19. lol!

      Then DECLARE the Emergency and the powers that accompany it, as well as how that emergency will end. Have you done ANY of THAT?

      Delete
    20. What we have now is a "standing" National Emergency that can be extended in perpetuity.

      Delete
    21. It also allows regulatory bodies to "make it up as they go". Sorry, inadequate. You want people to comply? They have no reason to since what we have is a defacto perpetual unconstitutional suspension of Constitutional liberties.

      Delete
    22. The Executive has also delegated many of these powers to State Governors, with the feds supplying medical "guidance".

      Delete
    23. The approach, by definition, violates the goal for "near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public."

      State-by-State solutions prevent near-universal anything.

      Delete
    24. And given the incompetence of Fauci's CDC, giving them universal authority, is a non-starter. They even 'f'd up the original testing program and couldn't produce a non-contaminated test kit to save their lives.

      Delete
    25. It's time to end the REGULATORY War on COVID with surrender.

      Delete
    26. ...because right now we've all become subjects to the whims and Super-Egos of 50 state governors.

      . . . the advent of Law entails a kind of ‘disalienation’: in so far as the Other itself appears submitted to the ‘absolute condition’ of Law, the subject is no more at the mercy of the Other’s whim, its desire is no more totally alienated in the Other’s desire. . .

      Delete
    27. Some good suggestions here. Formal declaration of emergency would be nice.

      Delete
    28. ...that includes the test for ending it.

      Delete
    29. It should never be "easy" for politicians to suspend Constitutional liberties or declare perpetual "Wars" on terror, drugs, or even racist cops.

      Delete
  13. Jez shared... "journal PNAS [cite them at every opportunity, kids])"

    Thanks Jez for injecting some humor into the thread.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--