Ik ben 15 dagen een beetje kaltgesteld door FB omdat ik in een coronagroep de emailwisseling liet zien tussen medewerkers van het Amerikaande CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Dat is al een ouder verhaal maar nu zonder zwartlakkingen: Alycia van de afdeling communicatie kwam in de problemen omdat de definitie van “vaccin” niet strookte met de werking en inhoud van de corona”vaccins”. Uiteraard waren het uitsluitend rechts-georiënteerde pandemie-ontkenners die dat was opgevallen. Dus de definitie moest worden aangepast. Omdat de coronavaccins niet aan de vereisten voldeden, werd de definitie te strikt bevonden.
Of course, criticism is immediately politicized.
The full (mostly painted) pdf is here. But at the International Covid Summit, unpainted documents were shown, see below.
Screenshots of the presentation on ICS. The definition of "vaccines" is treated as a communication problem. Medical, legal, ethical, technical or even scientific considerations are not discussed. The problem is "How do we formulate it for the public to be able to push these jabs through."
You'd almost think they don't even have a strict definition internally!
So I reported in FB-coronagroep on Facebook 'De Corona Middenweg' that this was discussed in the European Parliament, on the initiative of a number of 'awake' MEPs. My account was then restricted for 15 days. That was the third time, and it was always after I had placed something in that group. Accident?
Now there are some rascals in that group who apparently take pleasure in being constantly secured by other group members. Everyone wonders what they are actually doing. They are certainly not the sharpest knives out of the drawer, they at least drop quite a few stitches theoretheorely. While they should find enough clues in the lion's den to let the strength of their conviction speak. However, that does not happen. They mainly use these strategies:
- They attack the source of the information discussed
- They directly attack the person who writes or posts something
- They zoom in on a detail and keep sucking on it
These tactics are in the realm of 'ad hominem' and 'ad authoritatem' arguments, which are considered unsound in communication science: fallacies.
"Ad hominem" doesn't mean arguing why someone would be incompetent. It also doesn't mean that you focus your argument specifically on a specific person's statements. It just means that you judge something as false because a certain person says it, without having proven -or agreeing- that everything they say is false. A 'roast' is therefore not 'ad hominem', it would only be if it were built around, for example, 'your father is out of work and your mother... etc.'
'Ad autoritatem' is easier: Information is considered correct because it comes from a source you hold in high regard. But then you would have to prove that everything that will ever come from that source is true. But no one can see into the future and (science) history shows how unlikely it is that that will ever happen.
'Red Herring': something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question
The exception to both rules is if the interlocutors have agreed to elevate or disqualify certain sources beyond any doubt. In some fields, this plays a very strong role. Protocols, for example, are more important than common sense. And that's not because those protocols are so terribly good.
A combination of red herring and ad hominem.
Please note: we are talking about a meeting of top global scientists. Not only the organizing politicians but also many of these scientists have been characterized as ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorists for some years, just like the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) who had organized the conference.
Zo’n Facebook-groep moet geen echokamer worden dus pro-lockdowners, vaccindwepers, handwassers en wat dies meer zij. Ook zij zijn er meer dan welkom zodat voor- en tegenstanders van het beleid elkaars geesten kunnen slijpen. Maar dan moet er wel een redelijke discussie mogelijk zijn. Daar zijn regels voor (495 pages). You don't see that in the conversations. Of course, people are allowed to know that for themselves, but then they are not reasonable discussions. Even when the arguments are exhausted, people continue to troll and that is also allowed. It is clearly no longer about rational processes, the scientific method or logic. It's about who you know, what title you have, whether you're politically left-wing enough, what your profession is, who you think you are, that the person you're quoting isn't accepted, etc. etc. Making intellectual steps (nuanced or changing an opinion, for example) is not one of them.
The c-policy critical sound in Dutch politics comes almost exclusively from the right, insofar as the left/right dichotomy has anything to do at all in these globalitarian times. That should not be a reason to serve it off. The conventional left is fine with it, which has become globalists. A bright spot is The Fourth Wave, a movement that aims to also point out to the left-leaning (or those who still think they are) what is going wrong. Hopefully their message will soon reach politics.
Why does it even matter?
It's not news that the "vaccine" definition is a fundamental issue. It's not a word game. The corona jabs have been marketed as a 'vaccine' and not as a new therapy. Therefore, strict rules and important investigations could be circumvented or postponed.
Traditional vaccines rarely change composition, and if there is an adjustment at all, such as the annual modification of the flu vaccine, there is no need to go through the whole testing circus from scratch again. The mRNA injections have benefited nicely from this scheme as a 'vaccine', while the technique was brand new in vaccination country.
The same goes for the redefinitions of "pandemic" and "immunity." These changes made Corona an A disease, created an emergency that allowed safety protocols to be overridden and a new therapy to be rolled out as a vaccine.
The FDA and CDC must have been keen to make the mRNA products necessary and approved. Red flags and actual objections were dismissed, read for example comments from the speakers at one of those Open Public Hearings.
Anyone who questions this state of affairs is an ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist.
It's like the mayor gets a fine for speeding, then he increases the speed limit in that spot and then you get punished if you think the mayor drove too fast at the time.
The incident is of course nothing in itself, but it shows that the rule of law is completely lost, freedom of expression is dead, the scientific world is a pseudo-academic money laundering and the media have become propagandistic instruments.
We've just had the Durham report and time and time again it turns out that what at first sounded like a conspiracy and behaved like a conspiracy turns out not to be a conspiracy after all and is sometimes even quite well documented. In that context, an outright conspiracy story is illustrative. Dr. David E. Martin explained at the conference that the coronavirus has been tinkered with for 50 years, mainly because they offer opportunities in the context of biological warfare. Martin is a specialist in patents and reconstructs the line that this technique has followed on the basis of patent claims.
I do not find any substantial substantive objections. What I could find is about what else he does or how successful he might or might not have been, things like that. Not on the references he provides as substantiation. On factcheck.org, they even go so far as to claim, "something that is illegal to use, such as a chemical or biological weapon, is not illegal to patent." So the fact that governments are applying for patents on potential bioweapons doesn't mean anything. This should show that Martin is telling nonsense. Again: a feint to divert attention from the fact that those patents have been applied for.
I think it's an intriguing story. Take a look for yourself.
The top vid is The full Rumble link, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Because he didn't do it this afternoon, I put a local copy (lowres) underneath, which skips the first 3:20 (history and thanks).
Of course, that definition was very important to escape (much) stricter admission requirements (FDA, EMA). Furthermore: you write: "the sound comes almost exclusively from the right". Then you also count ex-PvdA voters, ex-D66 voters, etc., as well as a part of the democrats in the US (Robert Kennedy, Steve Kirsch,...), to the (far) right. What has been so sad to experience over the past year is that what used to be left-wing has changed beyond recognition, and has severely failed people who stand for fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
By the way, the link to the excerpt by David E. Martin doesn't work for me.
I did mean the party political right. I'll add that. The video did it a few hours ago. I added a local (lowres) backup.
Thanks again Anton! A question if you will allow me: do I understand correctly from that video that not only the vaccine, but also the RT-PCR test was (/ is) a terrorist biological weapon?! 😱 Or did he "only" mean that it was "only" meant to instill and perpetuate fear?
I also have to listen. Of course, you can't develop a virus without testing whether an infected ferret actually infects others. In that sense, it's part of it. For example, a vaccine is part of a biological weapon, to protect your own heroes.
Ok, I'm curious. Would you appreciate any effort to do so.
I have listened to it again but can only make it more than that both the virus, the test and the vaccine are parts of biological warfare and in that sense 'bioweapons'.
Dank je Anton. Ik vatte het ook zo op. En daar schrok ik toch wel van. Nu vroeg ik mezelf vooral af of de. RT- PCR test nu een middel was om mensen bang te maken en houden of dat het op zichzelf een middel was om daadwerkelijk schade aan te richten. Want dat laatste is waar ik zo van schrok, maar tegelijkertijd vraag ik me daarbij wel dus ook af of dat ook echt wel zo bedoeld werd in die video (omdat ik dat nauwelijks kan geloven). Hoe interpreteer jij dat Anton?
Bvd & mvg,
Arnoud
Ik denk dus dat hij bedoelde wat ik in mijn vorige antwoord schreef.
Helder. Dank. Beangstigend.
If you make that gentleman a little less recognizable, I'll put it in the middle ground.
> Het c-beleidskritische geluid komt in de Nederlandse politiek vrijwel uitsluitend van rechts, voor zover de dichotomie links/rechts überhaupt nog wat te betekenen heeft in deze globalitaire tijden.
By starting about left and right, you contribute to the compartmentalization of this, while I think it has little to do with this. There is resistance from all sides. For example, one of the stronger arguments regarding WPG came in the 1st chamber of "left" (PvdD) where the "right" managed to shoot itself reasonably in the feet. But that was actually more a product of the individual than right or left.
I don't believe in left/right at the moment, but politics is traditionally structured that way.
I am concerned with party positions. PvdD is about animal respect. A better theme than wealth distribution among people, where left/right thinking comes from and in that sense (in my opinion at least) not typically left.
By the way, I know many disappointed leftists who think that the good old left no longer exists but wants to identify themselves as left-wing. See also the Fourth Wave.
Anton> Het gaat me om partijstandpunten. PvdD gaat over dierenrespect.
Als je dit denkt heb je volgens mij nog nooit hun homepage geopend, laat staan partijprogramma 😉 In het NL spectrum worden ze absoluut links/progressief ingedeeld (al willen zelf liever labels vermijden). Maar goed het punt was dat het dus juist niet om labels of zelfs partijen sec gaat, maar personen/karakter een grote rol lijken te spelen. Wat zijn de morele kompassen, in hoeverre durven mensen verder te kijken waarmee ze mogelijk tegen de stroom in zullen moeten gaan.
Daniël, ik kan mij als klassiek ‘rechts’ georiënteerde prima vinden in hun partijprogramma. Dat ze bij ‘links’ ingedeeld worden tekent de verwarring. De oude paradigma’s werken niet meer. Je schrijft bijvoorbeeld ‘links/progressief’. Ik vind links helemaal niet progressief, rechts is vaak progressiever, die willen vooruit, op eigen kracht. Links zoekt beschutting, klampt zich vast aan de overheid, denkt conventioneel. Althans dat vind ik.
Nou ja smaken verschillen. Het geeft maar aan dat ik die indeling links/rechts niet echt functioneel meer vind. Voor mij ligt de as van het klassieke links/rechts in welvaartsverdeling: mag er verschil zijn en zo ja: wat zijn dan rechtvaardige verschillen?
In het kader van volksgezondheidsbeleid zou dat er niet toe moeten doen. Zorg is een basisrecht voor iedereen, ongeacht je mogelijkheden of je keuzes. Wie die dat niet onderschrijft is niet per se rechts. Ook zelfverklaarde linksen riepen dat er voor ongevaccineerden geen plek was in het ziekenhuis. Dat loopt dwars overal doorheen.
Maar het is een discussie in de zijlijn van de keuze voor globalitarisme. (Communisme was ooit ook ‘links’. Daar kun je nu ook vraagtekens bij zetten: een elite die een bezitloze klasse managet.)
Tja ik loop wat langer mee en heb links altijd ervaren als rechtvaardigheid voor de minderbedeelden rechts rechtvaardigheid voor de meer bedeelden. Rechts is voor het recht van de sterkste links sociaal tot soms het absurde. Geen van beide is goed of slecht. De mate waarin iets gebeurt bepaald volgens mij wat goed of slecht is. Op dit moment is wat ooit links was door en door rot en vooral zo onvoorstelbaar stom. En voorheen rechts doet lekker mee. Ze waren nog nooit zo eensgezind als de laatste 10 jaar waar al het goede wat in decennia is opgebouwd kapot wordt gemaakt. En dan mag je niet denken aan een complot of een derde partij die dit stimuleert.