Some claim that when it came to COVID vaccine efficacy or danger, all of us were guessing in the beginning. None of us had anything meaningful to go on. Others claimed there was no sure way to claim that anything untoward or dishonest was happening.
This article intends to demonstrate that this is not the case by using straightforward thinking and an unwillingness to be persuaded to forget inconvenient facts. Mainly the latter.
Before this all started, there were things we all knew axiomatically. Things so well known and proven you didn’t, and still don’t, need examples, proof or evidence of them. “Things fall down” level obvious things.
When you took these things, 5 things specifically, and looked at the events of the last few years with them in mind, they gave you a very clear picture of exactly what was wrong with what was going on. Keeping these facts in mind meant that while you might not have known what was true, you definitely knew what wasn’t.
1 – You can’t trust big pharma
This begins something I’m going to have to keep up for five points where I’m going to be saying effectively the same thing: this is obvious, but I’m saying it anyway, because some people seem intent on pretending to not know, or to have forgotten it. In short, these are just reminders.
Big pharma is the author of the opiod crisis. $600 insulin. There’s evidence that Johnson & Johnson knew baby powder caused cervical cancer in women and covered it up. They will gut you for a dime. They have before. They will again. Though they prefer to do it for many dimes. To date, the largest fine given to any company in American history was to a big pharma company. Of all five of these points, this is perhaps the most shameful for so many to have pretended doesn’t exist. The pharma industry kills people. That is a lot of sin to forget so quickly.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist. I’m saying taking them at their word, and thinking they’re above lying for profit, even with human lives on the line, is not just ahistorical, but anti-historical. It’s not just untrue. It’s anti-true.
anti-true : adj. – Not merely “not correct” but an exact inversion of the truth.
Example: “The idea that big pharma would never lie or cheat, even with human lives, for profit, is anti-true.”
Dictionary I Made Up
2 – The more profitable or political a thing is, the less you can trust the government about it
Especially when it comes to our health. Especially-er when big money is involved. There are few literate adult Americans these days who haven’t heard of the “revolving door” – the tendency of the heads of US government agencies that regulate an industry to go from running that industry, to running the regulatory agencies that regulate that industry, and back to running that industry again. The people who stand to profit the most from an industry tend to be the ones who make the rules for it. Therefore, one can expect that the regulatory body will operate in a way that benefits the industry over the citizen. How did you think we got $400 bags of saline solution? A vibrant economy of competition?
But it’s worse than this. The government has a prominent tendency to try to opt for simple solutions that don’t work so politicians can tell the people they “fixed” something. In the 1960s, over the objection of a number of scientists saying there was no data to support it, dietary guidelines were created that eventually led to the food pyramid. Now we find ourselves living in a country where about a million people die every single year of conditions that were vastly less common a century ago. A million people. How many 9/11’s is that a day again? And it’s not just diseases of the old and infirm. It’s children. It’s young people. Obesity, liver, cardiovascular issues plague all walks of life, old and young, of all ethnicities. Did you know that the number one cause of fatty liver disease isn’t alcohol, but sugar?
Sugar consumption really took off when the US government said eating fat was bad. We’ve been paying the price ever since. No apologies. No justice. Little correction.
And this was all just because of food lobbies, and a senator who wanted his food stamp program to succeed.
By contrast, COVID is white-hot politically, careers rising and falling, living and dying in its wake, and the greatest potential profit maker for a large industry since the last major war. To think our government agencies can be taken at their word in such conditions is a masterclass in idiocy.
3 – Censorship taints data. Duh.
This is the only one where I decided to let the obvious word: duh, into the headline. It’s because this is the only point that is so painfully obvious as to be a tautology in only three words. It is so vulgarly plain that explaining it feels like an insult. It should feel like an insult.
Say you’re a programmer at a major game development company. You need to choose between two competing platforms to host a service your game will use. You schedule a bake-off where the platforms will line up against each other, head to head, feature for feature, may the best platform win.
But one of the platforms marketing department recently bought your CEO, your team lead, your HR director and the COO a shiny new Porsche each. Obviously in no way connected to that, or so they insist, mentioning anything disparaging about that platform will get you muted on your team’s slack for 24 hours. Doing it again loses you your parking space. More than that loses you more than your parking space.
What’s weird here is that I’m not exaggerating with this analogy. If anything I’m underselling. Because in reality, this has been a moving target. Whatever the organization we covered in point 2 says, goes, and it might be opposite things from one day to the next. Maybe one day saying one thing is the only permissible thing and anything else is a ban offense. Another day, they might switch.
“The science changed” is not a defense against this either. If you’re not sure of your conclusions to the point where you might see things completely differently the next month, and lives are hanging in the balance, silencing disagreement is tantamount to murder.
No-one ever takes into account the power of self-censorship either. Most doctors already operate under a model of assume-no-liability by only ever operating according to official guidance, even when that official guidance is probably wrong, or even demonstrably harmful.
Hey you know what will help that neck pain? These opiods.
– Doctors
Add to this the potential for scrutiny in the face of daring to speak against the status quo, combined with the white-hot politicization of this topic, and if you think doctors would be speaking up en masse if something were glaringly wrong, you should think again. If you still doubt that, ask yourself this: Did doctors rise up with one voice the world over to condemn western governments when they started this pandemic by saying that wearing a mask without medical training INCREASED the risk of infection of a respiratory virus? Did doctors the world over rise up with one voice when the opposite became the dogma? They didn’t for either.
If you didn’t know why, now you do. Censorship means that one side of data is suppressed. Therefore, you must assume that whatever the truth is, it is likely to be leaning toward what is being suppressed. Censorship is a hand on the scale of the distribution of information. If censorship is pressing on one side of the scale with 3 imaginary information units, you can expect that the truth is 3 imaginary information units in the opposite direction that the hand of censorship is pressing.
4 – In medicine, you don’t have long term knowledge without long term observation
Among these five, this one might be most forgivable. All it requires is that have never wondered why so many people who took some drug or another may be entitled to financial compensation, which is conceivable to imagine someone doing without completely abdicating their mental faculties, unlike the lobotomy required to miss the previous three points.
We’re bombarded continuously with new findings that a thing we thought was safe was, in fact, not safe. The curious among us might have chanced across, here and there, the information of how long drugs typically take to become approved for use in the United States. Some might even know that number averages to about 10.5 years. It follows, obviously, that the reason this takes so long is not usually the development time of a new drug, but the safety testing.
Can’t we just do some calculations and take the things in a drug and put them in an equation and have a computer pop out a yes or no on whether a new drug is safe? If you thought that’s how they do it, you get a pass on this point alone. The fact is that while we understand a lot about how our bodies work, the system is so complex that predicting how new factors will play out with certainty is beyond our reach. We understand a lot, a lot more than we did before, but there is a very, very long way to go.
This is why safety testing on new drugs is done for such a long period of time, and why even despite that, so many get through that end up doing severe harm that they quite simply did not see coming. We test for so long because our bodies are so complex that when we put a new thing in them, all we can do is wait and see what happens.
And if you haven’t waited, you don’t know what happens.
5 – Follow the money
The fifth and final point is the axiom of the world: follow the money. If you want to know what is happening, will happen, did happen, is likely to happen: follow the money. And in this case, there is not a little money to follow.
Tens of billions of dollars, liability-free, is quite possibly the sweetest deal in the history of deals. What would a person do for a hundred thousand dollars? How about a million? How about thirty thousand times that much? What would they do? What wouldn’t they?
What does the seeking of profit and self-service dictate the people involved in our present-day scenario would do if we correctly imagined that profit-seeking were the primary driver of motivation and not some mythic noble aspiration?
What if these profit seekers knew that, as established in points 2 and 3, they could see to it that governing bodies, individual politicians, and the main channels of information would cover for them as they sought to maximize profit?
What would they do then?
Conclusions
And there you have it. Five points you already knew by heart in 2019, which, by combining them, could guide you with absolute certainty through many aspects of 2020 and beyond.
When you were approached with the information that “these 8 month old vaccines are safe and effective”, you only needed to remember that in medicine, you don’t have long term knowledge without long term observation to initiate your doubt. They didn’t observe. They don’t know. If they claim to know without observing, they are lying. But do you have any reason to believe that they would lie, when human lives are on the line? Yes. Easily. You can’t trust big pharma, and the more profitable or political a thing is, the less you can trust the government about it, and there have been very few things in American history as profitable and political as this. What is more, the topic is being censored in personal and public discussion and censorship taints data. Duh. What it is that is being censored and to what degree then indicates to us in what direction, and how far in that direction, the truth would likely be. But why? Follow the money.
And thus we have covered how anyone with both a brain and a spine might have predicted the future from 2020 onward. There are very few people who lacked a “brain”, that being, the axiomatic knowledge of any one of these five points. The vast majority of those who failed to predict or detect any malfeasance or deception I would argue, lacked a spine. The spine, which holds the brain up, supporting it against the blowing wind of adversity or coercion. A lack of which might cause one to allow basic truths to slip one’s mind as intimidation or encouragement to do so makes these facts inconvenient to retain.
Not everyone lacked a brain or a spine who accepted and took the COVID 19 vaccine. Like everything, this is a matter of degrees. Even with full awake knowledge and accurate processing of the risks involved in taking an untested drug, you might have decided that the risk of COVID was greater, and for a majority of elderly, obese or otherwise vulnerable, I personally understand and even agree with their decision.
But those who parrot the line “100% safe and effective”, and behave as though it were the case, who discard all risk assessment in balancing the truth their brains and spines might present them with against their equally diligent assessment of COVID, these are the one who clearly lack one or the other.
And for those who would remove the choice of evaluating these risks for themselves from others, or force it on those who they know full well will only gain risk from it because the risk of COVID to that person is so small, it’s not only a brain or a spine they lack, but also a soul.
These five things can’t necessarily tell you what is true. But they can definitely tell you what isn’t. And once you’ve established that some entities are comfortable with using lying as a core part of their tool set, that affects their credibility in every other aspect. Once you know that lying is on the table, everything they say becomes subject to the scrutiny they have invited on themselves. Every further statistic, statement, number or conclusion is subject to suspicion of being twisted or fabricated, because this is the reality of liars. And now we find the need to state a bonus axiom:
6 – Liars lie
Once caught in a lie, all other things they call truth that are convenient to them properly come under suspicion as lies. People who would claim that the things we can identify as lies are lies, but all else from the same source are truth, without applying the increased scrutiny the liar’s reputation should earn, are forgetting this sixth axiom, which is the most basic of all, understood even by small children.
Perhaps you’ve stood firm this whole time, never allowing these truths to escape you despite pressure, but struggled to express to others why you did, what exactly it was that you knew for certain when there was so little certainty to be had. I hope this essay helps express that.
