What evidence is there to support the hypothesis that public health experts are not trying to kill stupid people, instead of saving them?

Reports of patient abuse at Hawkesbury (Windsor) Hospital in Sydney

I have just received a report from a family member (A) about another aged relative (B) being hospitalised with Covid at Hawkesbury Hospital in Sydney. B was fully vaccinated. A was on the phone with B and she overheard a nurse abusing another patient in the same room for coughing without covering his face. The patient then said “Can I please have some cold water. I just gave you some money.” To which the nurse rudely replied “Just drink this water, whats the difference.” B also reported that he was given many tablets per day but nurses refused to tell him what the medications were, only that Dr prescribed them. B felt increasing sick, lost appetite, at which point A decided to take him out of the hospital. At home, without any medication, he quickly regained appetite and energy. Additional information from B is that Dr’s do not enter the rooms of patients with Covid for fear of catching Covid (despite being fully vaccinated), so there is no Dr-patient interaction whatsoever. Nurses avoid entering Covid-positive rooms by throwing bottles of water onto patient beds. Verbal abuse of patients is rife, and the behaviour of nurses was described as generally disgusting, psychopathic. I have advised my relative to make a formal, written complaint to the hospital.

Reflections on Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset”

1. Economic Growth

The focus on Economic Growth (“tyranny of GDP growth” in the words of Klaus Schwab) is not an arbitrary value commitment of capitalism, it is not motivated by greed of bussiness owners, nor is it an inherent property of free market; it is an inherent feature of the global financial system based on imperfect transfer of purchasing power, namely, on creation of M3 money by the banking system in the form of credit. Bank Credit is not a true Loan but an unbacked monetary claim on the future, or creation of new money as debt; the value required to pay-off the existing credit (which is to say, pay off today’s entire money supply with interest) requires perpetual expansion and monetisation of tradable value just to remain solvent. Another way, the planetary economy in the present system has to feed a perpetually growing parasite, or more precisely cancer, which is the banking system itself. The Great Reset is the banking system’s realisation that nothing more can be extracted without killing the productive host; it is the cancer’s strategy for its own survival. The cancer has thus reinvented itself as a system of total control (or perhaps, transcendence) of what it has already appropriated. If the goal is to control all value, then the Reset will fail, because control is anti-consciousness and therefore destroys he very possibility of value and of control. If the goal is transcendence (an interesting, potentially redeeming idea, but I wouldn’t hold my breath), then I am curious about the details of the plan. In both scenarios, the cancer will probably seek new ways of sucking the juice out of the real economy to sustain itself, under some new pretext/pretence (inclusiveness, sustainability, diversity, solidarity, equity, empathy). Nevertheless, the only sustainable solution is to destroy the cancer itself; everything else is a lie on par with the disingenuous premise of the tyranny of economic growth.

Paraphrasing Wilhelm Reich, “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”, 1946.

I just had a lengthy conversation with a very experienced emergency department doctor. The lesson learned is that the trauma of dealing with trauma creates an utilitarian mindset, which tries to apply the trolley problem to every situation where life and death decisions about treatment are made. A trolley problem is a utilitarian calculation of how many life-years am i saving through action A vs action B, in a absurdly simplified scenario, which imagines that there are no other possibilities and you cannot possibly put additional patients on the ground but they all need a bed, or they will instantly die, etc. This kind of emotional thinking seems to devalue principles of ethics for the sake of ‘reality of the situation’, of ‘real human experience’. I suspect that this is one of the main reasons that doctors act unethically, willing to commit literal murder by pulling older patients out of beds, knowing that they will die, just so a younger patient can be treated. A very dangerous, self-destructive attitude, because ethics is ultimately the structure of our being. For this doctor, everything seemed to be reducible back to some emotional experience of having to tell someone that their loved one had died from a preventable disease because some other people were unvaccinated, and this is the reason to have mandatory vaccination, to save millions even if it would kill some innocent people. I tried to explain that mandatory vaccination is an actual killing, it violates the right to life of some people, and by doing so we devalue human existence and therefore our own humanity, progressively destroying ourselves. On the other hand, even if a particular vaccine had no medical side effects, and on this basis we accepted that medical treatments can be forced by the government on the people, we would open ourselves up, as well as our children and future generations, to being medically murdered under the pretext of public health, or perhaps for political reasons, because we gave away that one crucial right, that one protection we have from crimes against humanity being committed by our own government and the military.

Many doctors genuinely believe that vaccines are amazing, safe for most people and necessary for all, for example Pertussis or Small Pox vaccines. I am happy to work with this common premise because the empirical arguments pro and against vaccines cannot be closed, a can of worms, and these doctors do not deny that some people can die from vaccines. This is more than enough for me to work with without rejecting their primary beliefs, and I find this approach is more productive, sometimes convincing. But even if vaccines were completely safe, they still change our healthy biological constitution, and by doing so under coercion violates humanity in principle, so even safe vaccines cannot be ethically mandated.

Vaccine mandates are a legalised killing of some people for the benefit of the majority.

Another reason why vaccine mandates are always unethical.

Even if a particular vaccine had no medical side effects, and on this basis we accepted that medical treatments can be thereafter forced on the population in the alleged interest of Greater Good, we would then open ourselves, our children and future generations to being medically murdered under the pretext of public health, or perhaps for political reasons, because we gave away that one crucial right, that one legal protection we have from crimes against humanity being committed by a corrupt government or by foreign agents, all under the guise of a legitimate medical intervention. I suggest we have the moral duty to preserve the right to free, uncoerced medical consent for future generation, because without this right we have no rights at all, and we invite calamities far greater than smallpox.

I know uneducated old people who did not fall for the lies. Why not. Because they would never even consider protecting themselves at the expense of their grandchildren, they would never put a mask on a child, or hide from their grandchildren just so they don’t catch some virus. No, this is not just about deception; it is also about moral character. People who are deceived to the point of not even wanting to consider evidence to the contrary are not passively deceived, but the deception appeals to them and resonates with their personhood, reveals the propensity for collusion in crimes against humanity. Many engage in discrimination against the unmasked and the unvaccinated, sneer, exclude, backstab and abuse, and no amount of deception is an excuse for inhumanity. This was a test of moral conscience and most have failed miserably.

So don’t tell me you did this for others, you hypocrite.

Most people do not learn rationally but only through suffering. By creating a too economically comfortable, safe world, an important lesson was perhaps lost, related to the economic-social-moral feedback. This may be the problem with the first world, that people’s immorality found cultural expressions other than fighting for survival at the expense of others; addictions, meaninglessness, escapism, hedonism, nihilism, passive aggression, all leading to more mental illness (this is consistent with my theory about unethical behaviour leading to mental self-disintegration). I am speculating on the following point, but I think that focus on rationality will ultimately bear better fruit than systemically sheltering people from committing moral errors and from the consequent suffering. Or perhaps a combination of both is necessary just to be able to pick any fruit at all.

Without the right to free medical consent you have no rights at all, because every other right can be medically subverted, under the guise of public health emergency.

Covid has proven that postmodernists were right about one thing - hypochondria can be socially constructed.

Logic does not engage with empirical facts; logic does not purport to know empirical facts. Logic/rationality deals with beliefs about empirical facts by means of logical relations indispensable to meaning/sense.

Optimal strategy for defeating vaccine mandates.

A) Do not focus on the health risks of vaccination, this only makes you look selfish and is used to discredit the cause.

The argument against mandates must work even if you cannot prove any side-effects. Agree that the vaccine is safe; we cannot afford to be stuck in endless scientific debates, especially if you are not a top scientist qualified in the relevant field. Let others work this out for themselves and just agree with them for a joke, it shouldn’t matter. In the end this will make you appear more humble, reasonable, and therefore more persuasive.

B) Do not focus on YOUR freedom and rights, this only makes you look self-centred and is used to discredit the cause.

Focus on the fundamental rights of others, on preserving the rights of children and of future generations. This is bigger then you, this is not about you, this is about doing the morally right thing even if you have to suffer for it, even if you are spat on and discriminated against, made unemployed, you will not acquiesce to the removal of the right to free medical consent from children and from future generations, because without this right they would have no rights at all. Every other right can be medically subverted, and we know from history that no virus can match the crimes against humanity committed by governments.

You are fighting for humanity.

https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/653

Charles Richet has received the 1913 Nobel Price in Medicine for the discovery of anti-immunity (Anaphylaxis). “Richet experimented with several protein toxins, of animal and vegetable origin. If one of these toxins is injected beneath the skin of the test animals, in such a small dose that the subjects do not react, and if the injection is repeated after an interval of two or three weeks with an equally weak dose, this is almost always followed, sometimes even during the second injection, by the most violent toxic symptoms. These can cause the death of the animal in a few minutes, or else the animal is seen to recover completely and with equal rapidity.“ Today we know that the underlying immunological mechanism involves IgE mediated sensitisation (allergy), a natural anti-parasitic response of the immune system to insect bites. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/ceremony-speech/ And now consider how this effect can arise in response to non-target antigens (contaminants) in vaccines: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-12461.html