Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

COVID-19 Mass Vaccination is a Military Operation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

“As part of the Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics (ADEPT) program in 2011, DARPA began investing in nucleic acid vaccines.  The hypothesis was that rather than delivering antigens to the immune system, we could deliver genes that encode the antigen and allow the human body to produce the antigen from its own cells, triggering a protective immune response.  In December 2020, former ADEPT performer Moderna’s RNA vaccine received FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approval for the prevention of COVID-19.”

Alexandria Latypova on the Manufacture and Distribution of the Spike Vax

Why it is more poisonous at one time than at another, and how it was designed, manufactured, and distributed under military control.

Edited by Dupin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

The link just links back here. (This bug has hit before.)

Thanks.  Here it is again (it's too late to edit the original post):

Alexandria Latypova on the Manufacture and Distribution of the Spike Vax

Why it is more poisonous at one time than at another, and how it was designed, manufactured, and distributed under military control.

 

Edited by Dupin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There are legitimate reasons for the military to be involved in preventing and treating disease.

 

Fair enough,but what did you think about the particular aspects of the manufacture and distribution of these specific products as laid out in her observations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 10:27 AM, tadmjones said:

what did you think about the particular aspects of the manufacture and distribution of these specific products as laid out in her observations?

I don't like to spend a lot of time watching videos, but I watched a little over 19 minutes.

This doesn't fit very well with the actual experience using the vaccines, which saved a lot of lives, so I'm skeptical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I don't like to spend a lot of time watching videos, but I watched a little over 19 minutes.

This doesn't fit very well with the actual experience using the vaccines, which saved a lot of lives, so I'm skeptical.

 

I thought the more salient points were to do with the procurement of the components of the jabs and the logistics of distribution , it seems the DoD had more to do with that than either Pfizer or Moderna, I was left with the impression that the public facing tradenames were less 'true' and that Operation Warp Speed was way more a military operation than a private corporate response.

Why do you say the shots saved lives ? or even a lot of lives ? Is there data to back that up? I'm under the impression there were more 'covid' deaths after the roll out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I thought the more salient points were to do with the procurement of the components of the jabs and the logistics of distribution , it seems the DoD had more to do with that than either Pfizer or Moderna, I was left with the impression that the public facing tradenames were less 'true' and that Operation Warp Speed was way more a military operation than a private corporate response.

So what?

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Why do you say the shots saved lives ? or even a lot of lives ? Is there data to back that up? I'm under the impression there were more 'covid' deaths after the roll out.

Death rates among the vaccinated were a lot less than among the unvaccinated.  This applies both to the earlier rates when nobody had been vaccinated and to the later rates among the people who remained unvaccinated.

Total covid deaths after the roll out is not a very meaningful statistic because a lot of people remained unvaccinated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Neither the Lancet nor the Imperial college should qualify as 'good' sources especially re all things Covid

Assuming the article you posted is correct, how is this relevant to the articles Boydstun posted from other sources than Imperial College, or to the quality or reliability of Lancet?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Assuming the article you posted is correct, how is this relevant to the articles Boydstun posted from other sources than Imperial College, or to the quality or reliability of Lancet?

 

The article Boydstun linked to from CIDRAP is based on a study by researchers at Imperial College of London , their conclusions are based on their data. Their modeling has been shown multiple times to be grossly inaccurate. So what weight should been given to that study or any other ? Might it be the ‘places’ their studies are published ?  

Lancet published the study and their ‘track record’ since the Covid pandemic shows them to publish politically motivated pseudo science and then retracting , might they retract this too ? 

I was basically questioning why Stephen places so much weight in the study .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 6:59 PM, tadmjones said:

researchers at Imperial College of London

Authors of the study in the CIDRAP article:  Lead author Oliver Watson, PhD, Co-first author Gregory Barnsley, MSc.

The study AIER criticized was led by Neil Ferguson.

Why assume that what applies to one would apply to the other?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 2:51 PM, Boydstun said:

I wonder how a proper Objectivist would report on the data, but I propose the following:

It would be 100% fact based, no shred of anything for a. personal financial gain b. political gain c. institutional or political reputation or d. with the intent to cajole or persuade people to any so called desired behavior i.e. no social engineering of sentiment or action of any kind.

It would look at medical interactions in society from the individual's perspective, and individual rights, the individual's freedom, health, and very lives.  This is in many senses opposite to the so-called "public good" of public health approaches.  I.e. the data would be looked at in the sense of treating individuals, how individual people fared, their health, their freedoms, their mental well being etc. not merely the so-called health of a collective... using who knows what as statistical standards.  A herd which is "treated" and "managed" be said to be more healthy, even when enslaved, or if part of the heard are disadvantaged or sacrificed (culled) for the sake of the collective whole.  Herd mentality is not how an Objectivist would think of it or deal with it.  Sacrifice of the innocent for NO MATTER HOW MANY other individuals IS EVIL.

 

Lives saved?

I wonder if anyone has done the analysis thusly:

How many people under the age of 50, how many CHILDREN would have died or suffered irreparably educationally, physically, mentally, had nothing been done, no vaccines, no imprisonment, no mandates, no muzzling.

Then how many were affected because of the measures taken.

Then doing the same for people over the age of 50, no measures... versus measures taken.

 

I wonder whether in the end, in the pursuit of sheer numbers of "survivors", many of the young with their whole lives ahead of them have been brought low and in some cases died for no good reason.  That whole lives were sacrificed on the altar of public good in return for survivability of the very old, good numbers, and political and institutional reputation.

 

I have said it before, if you ask your doctor whether any proposed action is better for yourself (or your child) PERSONALLY, given all possible benefit and risks, and he/she hesitates or looks confused... THAT is no doctor, that is an agent of the State who has forsaken the sacred duty to treat you PERSONALLY for your benefit, for your life and health... and you should find yourself a new doctor as fast as possible.

 

You see, no matter how mundane and saccharine and academically philosophical the trolley problem seems, its purported utilitarian or arithmetical solution we now see in full.  For the herd, all that really matters are the numbers, whether one arrived at it by sacrificing innocents is beside the fact... the so-called public good has nothing to do with individuals... the greatest "number" of survivors.

  

I believe Rand solved the "trolley problem" with the idea of every person being an end in himself, which already requires no purposeful act to cause the sacrifice of anyone, much less children, who knew no better, some of whom (those so called "rare" few) died because of it.

 

Public health is inimical to individual rights and is an evil, as evil as any of the other proposed Globalist, centrally planned erosions of our freedoms, or what is left of them.

 

I am ashamed most prominent Objectivists are going along for the ride with not so much as a peep.

 

The only brave and outspoken Objectivist pushing back on the madness I can think of currently, is Alex Epstein.

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I should point out Alex Epstein is not active in the health fields, he is pushing back on the tide of ecoterrorism (in the guise of science and government "taking care of us") attempting to hold the people of the world hostage.

Jason Crawford, The Roots of Progress
https://rootsofprogress.org/

Team, Human Progress
https://www.humanprogress.org/

Two other efforts that tend to be pushing in the right general direction. Jason Crawford has familiarity with Objectivism, while Human Progress holds a more benevolent sense of life approach per my esteem. 

Neither are heath centric, though both might deal with it if it fell under their proposed umbrellas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Wouldn't it be better to get some evidence about the particular study or authors, rather than just making an assumption?

If I see that Lancet editorial staff has resigned , I’ll read the next Covid centric study by the Imperial College of London they publish.

But until then, there are multiple other sources of information and dismissing out of hand information from provably inaccurate sources is a time saver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 7:05 PM, tadmjones said:

. . .

But until then, there are multiple other sources of information and dismissing out of hand information from provably inaccurate sources is a time saver.

You should share some of these other sources; their bottom line numbers and how they got them would be nice. I had been simply curious how many lives were estimated to have been saved by preventative measures that were taken against this contagious disease. And the links I shared here were simply what came up in the google.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I should mention that information provided for our own community here in Lynchburg—tracking the number of new cases, new deaths, and available ICU at our hospital—were useful to us in the decisions we made to protect ourselves during the pandemic. We are old and retired. We stopped going to the gym for many months. Many members did not renew their membership during that time. My husband did not leave home, as he has severe COPD. The Governor came around to closing gyms for several months. We have returned now, and we follow the routine of wiping down the contact points, even though we all know it was found that spread of that virus was mainly airborne, not contact. We continue that simply because it's a good habit, for other disease transmission, protective of self and others.

The "individualist" refusal to wear masks in our local grocery store during the pandemic reminded me of back when the AIDS pandemic was going on. Within the libertarian political press there was promotion of Dr. Duesberg's conjecture that AIDS was not caused by HIV (but by other factors such as poor diet, partying all night, running oneself down by taking "recreational" drugs, and assault of AZT [the only anti-HIV med at the time] on the body; stop doing those things and the whole problem will go away). This press was plainly not motivated by providing me with good advice on what I should do. It was motivated by politics, especially government-research expense. It was implausible to the educated on its face and morally obscene. People who could have had an eventual chance of being rescued died on regular schedule from taking such advice. I did not take that advice. I spat on it. I followed the information in my Scientific American and the advice of my doctor (a scientific guy) and Dr. Fauci and his agency. Those researches and drug developments saved my life and preserve it to the present. (By the way, a vaccine has never been found for that virus; nature is a giant.)

I doubt there is any government program whatever that cannot be twisted into part of a design to control the lives of the citizens and curtail their freedom—from providing for the common defense to building interstate highways. I have property rights in my acreage. That is a bundle of specific rights. I have a right to fell any timber on our place that I please. I have a right against others felling them without my consent. I do not have a right to burn leaves under all wind conditions. That last is not an attempt by law to become master of my life. That thought is ridiculous, and if one believes that sort of thing, one needs to get a grip. Neither is it plausible that some despot in the future is going to come along and use the leaf-burning constraints to snuff my free life.

"Man—every man—is an end in himself . . . ." That is not, logically, in Rand's ethical system only the pylon for the moral rightness of self-interested action, but for respecting ends-in-themselves that are other people. Jackassery "individualism" is not helpful to the cause of constraining government in the big ways it infringes the rights of individuals. Providing for the common defense has passed, starting at least with FDR, on to protecting people from hurricanes and epidemics. And there is a regularization of the extensions as time goes by: Goldwater denounced Medicare and Social Security as socialism; Trump said no, only the Obama-Care addition was socialism. I suggest that what is horribly wrong are the massive outlays without adequate revenues and the ways in which government can take over particular lives seriously such as was done by the military draft or, less drastically, by wage and price controls or by denying people the right to go to work or keep the firm open during the pandemic—rather than letting our citizens volunteer to save their country or save others against totalitarianism in the war or letting them make their own decision on whether to stop going to work or school during the pandemic (thereby putting the blames for untoward consequences on nature, rather than on government).

The idea put about these days that every ill impact of government action on one's cherished freedoms is the main and evil objective of people behind the policy action is egocentric, subjectivist, and false. All over our acreage every year all the plants and all the animals are behaving as if their species was trying to take over the world, but there is no such intention; they have no such broad intentions or any intentions at all. Personifying cumulative bad results from our organized collective action that is the US government and writing a fiction of that evil personage is intellectually lazy and does not help in tuning to reality.

 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

I do not have a right to burn leaves under all wind conditions. That last is not an attempt by law to become master of my life. That thought is ridiculous, and if one believes that sort of thing, one needs to get a grip. Neither is it plausible that some despot in the future is going to come along and use the leaf-burning constraints to snuff my free life.

If you obey the laws of nature, are these laws the master of your rights? (that was metaphorical but helps in making my point)

The law should protect your rights and everyone else's rights. No one is being subjugated when a neighbor objects to you burning leaves when the situation is incendiary. The neighbor has a right to their property too. Protection of their rights is not the same as a government supporting your subjugation or slavery. And the idea that a supporter of individual rights wants to burn leaves whenever they want is simply a smear. A person who is not aware of anyone else's rights can't be aware of their own, it's a description of a sociopath. Such a person is anti social and incapable of trade. That does not describe what an individualist is.

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Personifying cumulative bad results from our organized collective action that is the US government and writing a fiction of that evil personage is intellectually lazy and does not help in tuning to reality.

True enough. But the current way of governing is out of control as you would agree. The exact source or solution is nuanced and confusing. But at it's core, treating innocents like they are guilty is a key indicator of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...