87 thousand doctors & nurses denounce both Covidiocy and the vaccine

submitted by [deleted] from (gvid.tv)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

The greatest casualty of the Covid panic has been the destruction of the word "science".

Regulatory bodies around the world have re-defined "science" to mean "policy". This is a very rapid, very effective way to undo hundreds of years of learning made possible by critical analysis. In its place, we find ourselves in the same environment in which those who disagreed with the the Catholic Church found themselves in the middle ages. To say the health consequences of this are going to be severe is a radical understatement.

The WHO's re-definition of the phrase "herd immunity" is singularly the most destructive change in thought I've seen in decades.

The suicide of the enlightenment. It's logical, given the guilt embedded in our social consciousness associated with the carnage of centuries of Europeans slaughtering millions of people around the world militarily, but it's still so hard to watch all the good that Europeans accomplished be flushed down the toilet in our desperate effort to purge this guilt. Is it not possible to acknowledge the damage that was done without simultaneously destroying all the real positives that Europe also brought to human thought?

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Agreed. The word was a little twisted at times before, but COVID19 killed it entirely. It's used a lot now to mean whatever a perceived authority said. Anyone wearing a suit or a lab coat.

What was the redefining of herd immunity though?

[–]StrategicTactic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The normal understanding is that people develop antibodies to viruses usually by fighting them off- either through a weakened form of them via vaccination or just by acquiring and fighting through the virus normally. Herd immunity pre-Covid was understood to mean when enough of a population had these antibodies to effectively prevent the virus from being able to spread.

The recent change on the WHO site was to remove the thought that people could get antibodies on their own, and any herd immunity must be acquired via vaccination.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Creepy. I think most people as of now still understand it as the original meaning, but I'm sure it wont take long for the left to memory hole that, like they seem to be doing with literally everything else in society.

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You explained much more efficiently than I did.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Herd immunity for a century has been understood to be achieved through two methods: first some portion of the population is infected with the agent (perhaps geting sick, perhaps not) from which the immune system learns how to fight it (among the survivors), and the next time people are exposed to the same pathogen, people's immune systems kill the pathogen before it can reproduce. The second path (which was widely recognized as inferior, it is important to note) was to vaccinate, which is to introduce a substance similar enough to the original pathogen to awaken people's immune system so that if they later came in contact with the real pathogen, the body would be "trained" to fight it already. So two paths to herd immunity: natural infection and spread through the community, leading to a group of immune people having had it, or vaccination providing a group of people whose bodies should recognize the pathogen if they encountered it.

The WHO - in its infinite politicization - decided within the past couple of months to eliminate the natural method of developing herd immunity. In other words, the only way (per our policy overlords) for herd immunity to develop is through vaccination. According to them, the people who get the bug, survive, and provide a population of bodies that now recognize the actual pathogen, don't count. Not useful. If you're not vaccinated, you are not "immune", as they now use the term.

This is the single greatest piece of stupidity I could ever imagine, because it flies in the face our understanding of thousands of years of human evolution. Natural immunity is precisely why we are resistant to the literally thousands of potential "pathogens" that surround us in the biome. We are exposed to uncounted microorganisms daily, and we don't get sick because we naturally evolved to live alongside them.

But Gates and the WHO don't want that. They want CONTROL.

If this change in thinking is successful, it will be responsible for millions of deaths, as our understanding regresses hundreds of years.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"What was the redefining of herd immunity though?"

A means to an end. In commie thought, any means to achieving the desired socialist end is always justified.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Absolutely. We have entered a new age of scientism orthodoxy, with those who seek truth once again scheduled for (social, for now) death.

Its almost as if humans have not changed substantially in the last 30,000 years, and the 'old' behaviors we so deride. Witch burnings, dark ages, inquisition, purges, etc, etc, etc, are all just waiting under that thin veneer of western civilisation, waiting to emerge and fuck up sensible people all over again.

I hope the autistic master race is paying attention. Because it will NEVER END whilst NTs rule the world.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

NTs?

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

neurotypicals.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

over 2,000,000 dead worldwide. Over 400,000 dead in the us.

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Statistics like these are more useful as propaganda than they are as an accurate picture of our interaction with a new pathogen.

When I hear them stated "naked" like this (which is to say without any context or complex debate which is actually quite necessary to give real meaning to numbers), I hear an emotional appeal to authority rather than a well-articulated call to rational policy.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that these numbers are accurate (which is in truth debatable, though that debate is not being permitted, because of precisely the anti-science thinking I refer to in my original comment), what do they mean? Numbers of dead tell us nothing about options. They tell us nothing about alternate scenarios, and whether those numbers might go up or down depending on different strategies.

When I see these numbers, I see a call to urgency. They are usually stated with the intention of refuting the "hoax" argument of covid. They mean when used this way, "Look at all the dead bodies! This is real; it's not a hoax!"

They tell us nothing, however, about what matters: which strategies work to protect which populations against a respiratory virus? Are the strategies the authorities are mandating actually achieving the goals they are designed to achieve? What are the unwanted "side-effects" of these policies? In other words, what's the "cost" in what is (if debate were permitted) a hugely complex societal cost-benefit analysis?

These are all the kinds of questions (among many more) which in our current environment are strictly verboten. The reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration says it all. The primary signatories of that letter are epidemiological experts with decades of experience in addressing these kinds of questions. What is the reaction of the authorities to genuine scientific inquiry and debate of what is the most effective scientific response to a dangerous new pathogen? Censorship. Censorship and "Look at all the dead bodies!"

This is not science. It's a call to submit to authority, and it will lead not to safety (what they are selling) but paradoxically to more death and suffering, both from the disease itself and from the societal costs which the authorities pretend don't exist when they sell us their "solution".

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dude. It's deadlier than the flu. It disables people. It's not something to fuck with. Your idea of "science" is basically a rational for embarrassing Trump as little as possible. Had Hillary Clinton been the leader of your country, you would know damn well that 400,000 deaths is a big deal. Especially when one keeps in mind that only 25,000,000 of America's 330,000,000 people have had it so far.

I am not saying we know everything. They were wrong about some things, like how contagious covid was of surfaces, or the possible efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, or how it could spread in an elementary school setting. We need to know the virus better. It will open up opportunities as well as present challenges.

But don't waste your brain power trying to figure out how harmless covid is. That is spitting of the graves of over 2 million people.