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 van de presentatie op ICS. De definitie van 'vaccins' wordt behandeld als een communicatieprobleem. Medische, juridische, ethische, technische of überhaupt wetenschappelijke overwegingen komen niet ter sprake. Het probleem is "Hoe moeten we het voor het publiek formuleren om deze prikken erdoor te kunnen drukken."
You'd almost think they don't even have a strict definition internally!
Ik meldde dus in FB-coronagroep op Facebook 'De Corona Middenweg' dat dit werd besproken in het Europees Parlement, op initiatief van een aantal 'wakkere' Europarlementariërs. Mijn account werd vervolgens voor 15 dagen beperkt. Dat was de derde keer, en het was steeds nadat ik iets in die groep had geplaatst. Toeval?
Nu lopen er in die groep enkele deugboa's rond die er kennelijk behagen in scheppen om voortdurend door andere groepsleden te worden afgezeken. Iedereen vraagt zich af wat zij er eigenlijk doen. Het zijn bepaald niet de scherpste messen uit de la, ze laten argumentatietheoretisch in elk geval nogal wat steken vallen. Terwijl ze toch in het hol van de leeuw voldoende aanknopingspunten zouden moeten vinden om de kracht van hun overtuiging te laten spreken. Dat gebeurt echter niet. Zij hanteren voornamelijk deze strategieën:
- 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
Deze tactieken bevinden zich in de sfeer van 'ad hominem' en 'ad autoritatem' argumenten, die in de communicatiewetenschap als ondeugdelijk worden beschouwd: drogredenen.
'Ad hominem' betekent niet dat je beargumenteert waarom iemand incompetent zou zijn. Het betekent ook niet dat je je argumentatie specifiek op de uitlatingen een specifiek persoon richt. Het betekent alleen dat je iets als niet waar beoordeelt omdat een bepaalde persoon het zegt, zonder te bewezen te hebben -of het erover eens te zijn- dat alles wat diegene zegt onwaar is. Een 'roast' is dus niet 'ad hominem', dat zou het pas zijn als het opgebouwd zou worden rond bijvoorbeeld 'je vader zit zonder werk en je moeder... etc.'
'Ad autoritatem' is makkelijker: Informatie wordt voor correct gehouden omdat die van een bron komt die je hoogacht. Maar dan zou je moeten bewijzen dat alles wat ooit nog van die bron zal komen, waarheid is. Maar niemand kan in de toekomst kijken en uit de (wetenschaps)geschiedenis blijkt hoe onwaarschijnlijk het is dat dat ooit zal gebeuren.
'Red Herring' (rode haring): iets dat misleidt of afleidt van een relevante of belangrijke vraag
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 pagina's). 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?
Het is geen nieuws dat de 'vaccin'-definitie een fundamentele kwestie is. Het is geen woordspelletje. De coronaprikken zijn gemarket als 'vaccin' en niet als nieuwe therapie. Daarom konden stringente regels en belangrijke onderzoeken worden omzeild of uitgesteld.
Traditionele vaccins veranderen zelden van samenstelling en als er al een aanpassing is, zoals de jaarlijkse modificering van het griepvaccin, is het niet nodig om het hele testcircus weer van voren af aan te doorlopen. De mRNA-injecties hebben als 'vaccin' mooi van die regeling geprofiteerd terwijl de techniek hagelnieuw was in vaccinatieland.
Hetzelfde geldt voor de herdefiniëringen van 'pandemie' en 'immuniteit'. Door deze wijzigingen werd Corona een A-ziekte, ontstond een noodsituatie waarmee veiligheidsprotocollen terzijde konden worden geschoven en kon een nieuwe therapie worden uitgerold als vaccin.
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.
Ik vind geen substantiële inhoudelijke tegenwerpingen. Wat ik kon vinden gaat over wat hij nog meer doet of hoe succesvol hij al dan niet zou zijn geweest, dat soort zaken. Niet op de referenties die hij als onderbouwing aandraagt. Op factcheck.org gaan ze zelfs zover om te beweren: "iets dat illegaal is om te gebruiken, zoals een chemisch of biologisch wapen, is niet illegaal om te patenteren." Dus het feit dat overheden patenten aanvragen op potentiële biowapens zegt helemaal niks. Daaruit zou moeten blijken dat Martin onzin vertelt. Opnieuw: een schijnbeweging om de aandacht af te leiden van het feit dat die patenten zijn aangevraagd.
I think it's an intriguing story. See for yourself, this is The full Rumble link.
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'.
Thank you Anton. I took it that way too. And that shocked me. Now I was mainly asking myself if the. RT- PCR test was now a means to scare people or whether it was in itself a means to actually cause harm. Because the latter is what shocked me so much, but at the same time I also wonder if that was really meant in that video (because I can hardly believe it). How do you interpret that Anton?
Bvd & mvg,
Arnoud
So I think he meant what I wrote in my previous answer.
Bright. Thanks. Frightening.
If you make that gentleman a little less recognizable, I'll put it in the middle ground.
> The c-policy-critical voice in Dutch politics comes almost exclusively from the right, insofar as the left/right dichotomy still has any meaning at all in these globalitarian times.
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> I'm concerned with party positions. PvdD is about animal respect.
If you think this, I don't think you've ever opened their homepage, let alone party program 😉 In the NL spectrum they are categorized as absolutely left/progressive (although they prefer to avoid labels themselves). Anyway, the point was that it is not about labels or even parties per se, but people/character seem to play a major role. What are the moral compasses, to what extent do people dare to look further with which they may have to go against the grain.
Daniël, as a classically 'right-wing' oriented person, I can agree with their party program. The fact that they are classified as 'left' is indicative of the confusion. The old paradigms no longer work. For example, you write 'left/progressive'. I don't think the left is progressive at all, the right is often more progressive, they want to move forward, on their own. The left seeks shelter, clings to the government, thinks conventionally. At least that's what I think.
Well, tastes differ. It just shows that I don't really find that left/right division functional anymore. For me, the axis of the classic left/right lies in wealth distribution: is there allowed to be a difference and if so: what are fair differences?
In the context of public health policy, that should not matter. Care is a basic right for everyone, regardless of your abilities or your choices. Anyone who does not subscribe to this is not necessarily right-wing. Self-proclaimed leftists also shouted that there was no place in the hospital for unvaccinated people. That runs right through everything.
But it is a discussion on the sidelines of the choice for globalitarianism. (Communism was once also 'left-wing'. You can now also question that: an elite that manages a propertyless class.)
Well, I've been around a bit longer and have always experienced the left as justice for the less fortunate, right justice for the more fortunate. For the right of the strongest left, the right is social to the point of sometimes absurdity. Neither is good or bad. In my opinion, the extent to which something happens determines what is good or bad. At the moment, what was once left-wing is rotten through and through and above all so unimaginably stupid. And previously the right is doing well. They have never been as united as in the last 10 years where all the good that has been built up over decades is destroyed. And then you can't think of a conspiracy or a third party that stimulates this.