Dear Leaders: We don’t trust you because you’re untrustworthy
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/dear-leaders-we-dont... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZVMwfduHVA Leaders: We're too dumb to learn, too lazy to act, so keep raping us, please, we like it https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-big-pharma-and-dc-politicians-got-millions... https://www.bitchute.com/video/hMUeZ4vz6cU/ Swine Flu Snafu https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-su... https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human-experimentation-ame... Dear Leaders: We don’t trust you because you’re untrustworthy by Joe Jarvis This time, things will be different. He’s abused me in the past, but I’m sure he’s changed. At the core, he really loves me, he just has a strange way of showing it. Does this sound like a healthy relationship to you? A partner who gaslights you, acting like you’re the crazy one for being suspicious… when you’ve been lied to and manipulated so many times in the past. Someone who sows division to isolate you from your friends and family so you have no one to rely on but the abuser. Here’s a crazy idea: we shouldn’t trust consistently untrustworthy people and institutions. Literally, people act like you’re the crazy one for being skeptical of some of the least trustworthy institutions in existence. If you asked a typical extreme leftist in early 2020 if they trusted big pharma, they would laugh in your face. They might talk about pharma-bro Martin Skrelli hiking drug prices, or correctly note how the Perdue family made billions partnering with the government and doctors to get Americans hooked on legalized heroin pills. But today, utter the phrase, “I’m not so sure about these vaccines,” and prepare for the gaslighting. You’re CRAZY for not trusting big pharma’s “safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective” vaccines 100%, no questions asked. People had the same attitude back in 1976 when the government urged Americans to get a new swine flu vaccine. Hundreds died, and thousands were left with neurological disorders. The news show 60 minutes, back then, was trustworthy, and reported on this. Today they run factually inaccurate, deceptively edited hit-pieces on politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, for not becoming public health dictators. Another example of the crumbling trustworthiness of essentially every centralized powerful institution. But back then, 60 Minutes investigated the government’s deception when it came to the vaccine it was pushing. YouTube– another untrustworthy institution– deleted the video, but it’s still up on Bitchute. This is probably a good time to remind you that I post all my videos on alternative video sights, and you should follow me on at least one other platform– unless you totally trust YouTube to allow me to keep spreading the truth. Anyway, the old 60 Minutes shows that even back in the 70s, the CDC director used a familiar line: 9:57- “I think the consensus of the scientific community was that the evidence relating neurologic disorders to influenza immunization was such that they did not feel that this association was a real one.” Ah yes, the scientific consensus. There was also a scientific consensus in 1967 when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study which found sugar was not as unhealthy as it seemed, and in fact excess fat in the diet was the main culprit for poor health. The study didn’t mention that it was paid for by the Sugar Research Foundation– an industry group dedicated to selling more sugar. It also didn’t mention that a researcher for the study sat on the Sugar Research Foundation’s board. But that study was used as a foundation of scientific consensus for decades to downplay the negative health affects of sugar, and blame fat– which turns out to not be so bad after all. Only anti-science conspiracy theorists at the time believed that honorable scientists could be so easily manipulated into doing the bidding of the sugar industry. Then there are the doctors– surely you can trust doctors. That’s what hundreds of black men believed when the US government offered them free healthcare in 1932 to treat “bad blood”. In fact, the government knew, these men were infected with syphilous. But they were not told of the diagnosis. They were used as lab rats to observe the untreated progression of ultimately fatal syphilous. This went on until the 1970s– the Tuskegee Syphilous experiments. Today, understandably so, black people are some of the most skeptical of the government/ scientific partnership pushing vaccines. It’s like Schrödinger’s systemic racism: black people are supposed to simultaneously believe that every institution is hopelessly infused with racism, but they can totally trust the doctors and scientists today. Some of these things happened a long time ago. They say hindsight is 20/20– only from some distance can we see the lies and manipulations of the government, scientists, and doctors. But today, people seem to think we are immune from this. Do they seriously believe that things have changed for the better? Are we so naive that we can believe institutions which were corrupt and incompetent in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s suddenly became paragons of truth in the 00s forward? It is absolute insanity to think that governments today are different from the way governments have always been. Over the past year, Facebook fact-checkers banned mention of the possibility that Covid-19 came from a lab leak at the Wuhan Virology lab within spitting distance of where the outbreak first occurred. They based that decision on a letter orchestrated and signed by a man named Peter Daszak who said it was xenophobic anti-Asian hate to suggest, or investigate, the lab leak theory. Turns out, Daszak repackages federal grant money, and had funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Shockingly, when he was sent to investigate with a World Health Organization task force, he found no evidence of any wrongdoing. He didn’t bother to look at the viruses sequenced by the lab, or inquire about the three gain of function researchers– genetically modifying viruses to be more contagious and deadly– who went to the hospital in November 2019 with Covid-like symptoms. Frankly, the burden of proof is not on us skeptics to show why any particular government or big pharma or big tech campaign does not deserve our trust. These are untrustworthy institutions. They have shown us over and over again that they cannot be trusted. They could bend over backwards to regain the public’s trust, but that’s not what they have done. They have attempted to shame and ridicule anyone who dares challenge the narrative. Like an abusive, gas-lighting boyfriend trying to convince you YOU’RE the crazy one, for being fed up with his bullshit.
Hey, thanks a ton for including multiple political viewpoints. I like things that mention gaslighting.
They might talk about pharma-bro Martin Skrelli hiking drug prices, or correctly note how the Perdue family made billions partnering with the government and doctors to get Americans hooked on legalized heroin pills.
But today, utter the phrase, “I’m not so sure about these vaccines,” and prepare for the gaslighting. You’re CRAZY for not trusting big pharma’s “safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective” vaccines 100%, no questions asked.
Just guesses, but they're more concise: prevalence of a choice = effectiveness * profit / harm That is, the choices the public considers good are those that have real reason to work, that are supported by mainstream industry, and that cause a pretty small amount of noticed injury when used. then due to marketing, effectiveness = success * profit That is, things that do not support mainstream industry, do not actually end up working well, because nobody discovers them, they don't get financing, their studies don't get published, tools aren't made to work around them, etc.
If I understand Karl's point, I think I agree with it: in broad strokes, science works. On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:00 AM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
They might talk about pharma-bro Martin Skrelli hiking drug prices, or
correctly note how the Perdue family made billions partnering with the government and doctors to get Americans hooked on legalized heroin pills.
But today, utter the phrase, “I’m not so sure about these vaccines,” and prepare for the gaslighting. You’re CRAZY for not trusting big pharma’s “safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective” vaccines 100%, no questions asked.
I think people tend to lose a sense of scale when talking about these big numbers. The argument that "we should be skeptical of COVID vaccines because opioids were a problem" conflates totally unrelated problems (ie, different industries) and totally different scales (opioids killed 500K Americans over the past 2 decades; COVID killed 607K *in the past year*). Don't get me wrong, Perdue got like $8B in profit from opioids over a matter of decades. But $8B in ill-gotten profits over decades is much closer to $0 than the trillions of dollars of catastrophe caused by COVID. At this point the Delta variant is ravaging everywhere in the world that is not vaccinated. I cannot fathom by what measure someone would still claim that it's better to take your chances with a fatal disease that has killed millions, than get a shot that has already been administered *billions of times*. So far there are exactly *three people* who are suspected to have died from a complication from the vaccine. ( https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-...) THREE PEOPLE. To refuse the vaccine is idiotic. But to discourage others from getting it is malfeasant. -david
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 12:21 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
If I understand Karl's point, I think I agree with it: in broad strokes, science works.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:00 AM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
They might talk about pharma-bro Martin Skrelli hiking drug prices, or
correctly note how the Perdue family made billions partnering with the government and doctors to get Americans hooked on legalized heroin pills.
But today, utter the phrase, “I’m not so sure about these vaccines,” and prepare for the gaslighting. You’re CRAZY for not trusting big pharma’s “safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective” vaccines 100%, no questions asked.
I think people tend to lose a sense of scale when talking about these big numbers. The argument that "we should be skeptical of COVID vaccines because opioids were a problem" conflates totally unrelated problems (ie, different industries) and totally different scales (opioids killed 500K Americans over the past 2 decades; COVID killed 607K *in the past year*).
Don't get me wrong, Perdue got like $8B in profit from opioids over a matter of decades. But $8B in ill-gotten profits over decades is much closer to $0 than the trillions of dollars of catastrophe caused by COVID.
Hi David, I'm still coming down from recent psychotic breaks so I haven't gone through many of the old posts. Sometimes I get through them, sometimes I don't. I briefly participated in a community biolab effort during the pandemic. They had set up for manufacturing their own testing stuff. Then I moved to another state. The vaccines you hear about are being made by the people who are already richest from selling vaccines. Obviously. At this point the Delta variant is ravaging everywhere in the world that is
not vaccinated. I cannot fathom by what measure someone would still claim that it's better to take your chances with a fatal disease that has killed millions, than get a shot that has already been administered *billions of times*.
So far there are exactly *three people* who are suspected to have died from a complication from the vaccine. ( https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-...) THREE PEOPLE.
To refuse the vaccine is idiotic. But to discourage others from getting it is malfeasant.
-david
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:38 AM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
The vaccines you hear about are being made by the people who are already richest from selling vaccines. Obviously.
We also buy cars from people who are rich selling cars, and bananas from people who are rich selling bananas. Obviously if you successfully produce a product that works and is in high global demand, you get rich. But "selling a product that works" is hardly a sin... right? -david
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 1:07 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:38 AM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
The vaccines you hear about are being made by the people who are already richest from selling vaccines. Obviously.
We also buy cars from people who are rich selling cars, and bananas from people who are rich selling bananas. Obviously if you successfully produce a product that works and is in high global demand, you get rich. But "selling a product that works" is hardly a sin... right?
You got it! But why care if it works?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 1:47 PM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 1:07 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:38 AM Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
The vaccines you hear about are being made by the people who are already richest from selling vaccines. Obviously.
We also buy cars from people who are rich selling cars, and bananas from people who are rich selling bananas. Obviously if you successfully produce a product that works and is in high global demand, you get rich. But "selling a product that works" is hardly a sin... right?
You got it!
But why care if it works?
Here. effectiveness = success * profit Let's replace profit with something else. effectiveness = success * having_lobbyists Consider the effectiveness of tobacco. Tobacco is successful in giving people relaxation, a cognitive boost, a thing to do with friends. Exercise is also successful at these things. But tobacco has more lobbyists than exercise.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 2:38 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:21:35 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
At this point the Delta variant is ravaging everywhere in the world that is not vaccinated.
I think non human turds like barrett should be banned.
Not sure why the quote leads to that.
I'll try to say something near the vaccine issue: It's very strange and new that people are fighting vaccination so largely. The result is that everybody used to vaccinating is no longer fighting other similar harms. Instead they are habitually defending vaccination.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:12:15 -0400 Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 2:38 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:21:35 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
At this point the Delta variant is ravaging everywhere in the world that is not vaccinated.
I think non human turds like barrett should be banned.
Not sure why the quote leads to that.
'barrett' is a bot that spams US govt propaganda. It's not a person. It's not different than the bots that spam viagra advertising. Well, except the spam coming from 'barrett' is way more toxic than viagra advertising.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 5:24 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:12:15 -0400 Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 2:38 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:21:35 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
At this point the Delta variant is ravaging everywhere in the world that is not vaccinated.
I think non human turds like barrett should be banned.
Not sure why the quote leads to that.
'barrett' is a bot that spams US govt propaganda. It's not a person. It's not different than the bots that spam viagra advertising. Well, except the spam coming from 'barrett' is way more toxic than viagra advertising.
Is this more true of them than us?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:06:18 -0400 Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
'barrett' is a bot that spams US govt propaganda. It's not a person. It's not different than the bots that spam viagra advertising. Well, except the spam coming from 'barrett' is way more toxic than viagra advertising.
Is this more true of them than us?
nothing of what I say is pro US or toxic. What you post is mixed. As to the barrett bot, everything it copypastes is toxic US propaganda.
participants (4)
-
David Barrett
-
grarpamp
-
Karl Semich
-
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0