The authoritarian scientific establishment

TheEngineer
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:46 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by TheEngineer »

The news on Invermectin in another article is to be welcomed. We should be accredited with some common sense (a virtue almost entirely absent from those in government) and allowed to purchase it freely as we do with other cold/flu treatments. If that is obstructed by government then the only reason can be their intent to cause us harm, which was probably, along with control, behind the virus in the first place.
We need to take back our freedom using all and any necessary means; peaceful if possible but not discounting any other action which becomes necessary ..

miahoneybee
Posts: 1334
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by miahoneybee »

Spot on jmc..even the questions are not intelligent....if the 77th brigade dont like an answer fair enough but there is no intelligent counter arguments/ discussion of any intelligence that follows..I therefore thing you are correct in your benny assumption 😊...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nobody
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by Nobody »

Since we are not scientists producing data on this, in the end, our views can only be second-hand opinions, this is precisely the dynamic the pandemic is exploiting: we cannot contest the science and the science can therefore be used to defend political and economic interests.
What we can comment on, with legitimacy, is the nature of the government's response and discuss whether it is effective or morally justified. I have sought to introduce aspects for consideration that concern the effects of lockdowns and the rest of the behavioural forms we are being required to adopt and their attendant consequences.
At the end of the day, as the video I posted yesterday showed, there are serious structural problems with the legitimacy of science which arise from its efficacy which means it is a strategic resource for powerful people who desire to influence the state of affairs characteristic of the world we inhabit by both affecting its natural and social forms and using it to justify these changes. However epistemically primal science is, it still operates in a political and economic context that informs it, even distorts it.
When there are doctors world-wide expressing concerns over the vaccines and when we know that pharmaceuticals companies have an appalling human rights record being, more or less, criminal enterprises, well, I think being suspicious the wholesale annihilation of historical cultures under the guise of a pathogen which kills people, on average, of 81 year old (or whatever the figure is), and seeing the manipulation of people's lives to enforce vaccination, well, who can't be suspicious?
New Zealand is fining workers who do not take the vaccine and Germany has declared that it will put anyone denying covid under surveillance as a danger to the state. This logic seems a natural effect of the way the state has mobilised behind the virus and should indicate something deeply sinister. Canada is bringing in internet censoreship to protect citizens. It seems to me that the state apparatus is heavily invested in the reality of what exists representationally: via scientific procedures that disclose, constitute and signify the reality and nature of the pathogen. It seems to me that, given such conditions, we all have a right, an obligation, to question this and resist it. It is clear that pharmaceuticals companies don't operate beneficently. Even charity has become a means of appropriating wealth and extending fortunes and many of the elite are heavily invested in turning public perception of their beneficence into further income, well, who can doubt their narcissism? Look at the track records of these people. Look at the world. Why has this virus been used to further solidify divisions? Why are the policies adopted so convenient for the elite? Why do the effects arising from the policies suit their interests? Why attack churches, for example? A priest was arrested in the UK for standing on a portable step-ladder. Why? A man in Ireland had his children removed under the mental health act after he filmed the police closing a church. Why? These are things that are worth thinking about. Why did people fight the second world war? Closing churches, assaulting priests, it seems to me that the state is manifesting a fundamental change in its nature and the state is now vehemently pro-vaccine. So, we have the manipulation of the legal rules governing accession to public existence with a vaccine. The state, globally, is deeply invested in this vaccine for some reason. Now, we have no evidence as to why this might be, apart from knowing the vaccine is ineffective and unsafe and is being used to treat a virus whose lethality rate is 0.15% and that the risks posed by the vaccine, in terms of side-effects, is far higher than the risk from the virus. So, what can we conclude from this? Do we believe the state is another beneficent entity that is really deeply concerned about our health? it seems to me that the extent to which the global state apparatus is so invested in enforcing this vaccine is something sinister and we should all not take it on these grounds.
So, knowing nothing about immunology or any other relevant science, this is what I surmise. Aristotle referred to Phronesis, the highest form of wisdom relating to practical matters. Knowing how institutions work, and understanding how elites treat subordinate populations, I think rejection of vaccination is the only sensible outcome. There are simply too many indications of malevolence and oppressive practices that are defending it which tells me the state apparatus is invested in it and so, if it is so wonderful, why this transformation of the public sphere around it as if our citizenship and human status now depend on vaccination. People need to show that their human status and the status of the rights that ought to be attendant upon that does not reduce to accepting enforced vaccination.

lockdownquestions
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:19 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by lockdownquestions »

thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:31 am Except the GBD didn't actually propose how this focussed protection would be accomplished and neither did any of its advocates.
It's pretty simple. Isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives. Have a think about that.

lockdownquestions
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:19 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by lockdownquestions »

thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:02 pm
So you have a PhD, but have a mindset where you will accept a technical/medical viewpoint stated by a maverick minority of fringe figures over the viewpoint expresses by the vast majority of qualified professionals worldwide.
Nonsense. Some of the wisest people in the world have spoken out against these nonsensical lockdowns and masks. They've been silenced which is why you don't hear about it more often. If you chose to get your head out of the proverbial and did some proper research you'd find the truth. You choose to only listen to MSM for your news which is why you don't know anything.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

lockdownquestions wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:50 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:31 am Except the GBD didn't actually propose how this focussed protection would be accomplished and neither did any of its advocates.
It's pretty simple. Isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives. Have a think about that.
OK, give an explanation of how a large subsection of the population could be isolated/protected and still have access to key essentials like healthcare, social care, food, work........ What would you do with multi-generational households?

If you give it a moment's thought, you will realise they need to come into contact with the non-isolated people, who have families, friends etc. Using your proposal all those would have a high level of infection.

I look forward to your explanation. Please include proper estimates of the numbers of people involved, all the types of contact involved, then estimate their numbers and their contacts in the "free" society.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

lockdownquestions wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:50 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:31 am Except the GBD didn't actually propose how this focussed protection would be accomplished and neither did any of its advocates.
It's pretty simple. Isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives. Have a think about that.
Interesting,, your answer actually supports the statement you object to.

Where is your proposal of "how this focussed protection would be accomplished"?

Have a think and write it down, for us.

lockdownquestions
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:19 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by lockdownquestions »

thinksaboutit wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:18 pm OK, give an explanation of how a large subsection of the population could be isolated/protected and still have access to key essentials like healthcare, social care, food, work........ What would you do with multi-generational households?

If you give it a moment's thought, you will realise they need to come into contact with the non-isolated people, who have families, friends etc. Using your proposal all those would have a high level of infection.

I look forward to your explanation. Please include proper estimates of the numbers of people involved, all the types of contact involved, then estimate their numbers and their contacts in the "free" society.
Are you serious or just trolling?! It is pretty simple to do. Focused protection is not hard.

Isolate the vulnerable, put them up in establishments where they can be given the care they need. Ideally you have younger, immune people looking after them. SIMPLE.

lockdownquestions
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:19 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by lockdownquestions »

thinksaboutit wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:21 pm Interesting,, your answer actually supports the statement you object to.

Where is your proposal of "how this focussed protection would be accomplished"?

Have a think and write it down, for us.
Ok, I apologise. Looks like English is not your first language and you might be having issues with comprehension. I've explained how focused protection can be done quite simply in my previous response to you. Suggest you use google translate if you're having difficulties understanding. Good luck.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: The authoritarian scientific establishment

Post by thinksaboutit »

lockdownquestions wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:42 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:18 pm OK, give an explanation of how a large subsection of the population could be isolated/protected and still have access to key essentials like healthcare, social care, food, work........ What would you do with multi-generational households?

If you give it a moment's thought, you will realise they need to come into contact with the non-isolated people, who have families, friends etc. Using your proposal all those would have a high level of infection.

I look forward to your explanation. Please include proper estimates of the numbers of people involved, all the types of contact involved, then estimate their numbers and their contacts in the "free" society.
Are you serious or just trolling?! It is pretty simple to do. Focused protection is not hard.

Isolate the vulnerable, put them up in establishments where they can be given the care they need. Ideally you have younger, immune people looking after them. SIMPLE.
So put perhaps 10 million people in secure establishments... is that the plan you would have done last spring. Where would have these establishments come from. Then find millions of immune people to tend to them? Where would you get these immune people from?

The fact that you think it would have been simple is stunning!

What you are outlining is internment camps! Is that what you really think?

Post Reply