Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny

[necrovore]

Apparently the zombie apocalypse campaign was older than I thought... it's possible that it was brought to my attention years after it started but before it retired.

(Not editing my original post because of possibility of messing up the link.)

Edited February 25 by necrovore

[tadmjones]

20 hours ago, EC said:

@necrovore That would mean those people would have to had advanced knowledge years prior to the pandemic of the existence of the covid virus which is a big leap implying a planned conspiracy when it is much more likely that it was simply a coincidence involving passive attacks from the Left on the religious Right. While there likely are occasional side effects of childhood vaccines (like watching a commercial for any medicine or vaccine shows in detail) we've essentially all had them and they have been scientifically proven to be extremely rare with the benefits outweighing the slight risk. Obviously, that doesn't imply forced vaccinations are moral or should be legal outside of maybe an extremely lethal and highly contagious novel disease, covid doesn't qualify, although I personally got the vaccine the week it was allowed.  (J&J which to prove the above point of risk was soon taken off the market due to the blood clot risk). The main principle involves the fact that the government should not be involved in education as it should be private or funded via charity as like most things current governments are improperly involved in when their only valid jobs are the protection of individual rights. 

How is risk mitigation exemplified by the J&J injection being pulled from the market? It was allowed on the market by the FDC because it was deemed safe and effective , but they pulled it because it wasn't safe and effective?

Edited February 25 by tadmjones
removed text

[whYNOT]

Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles

https://brownstone.org/

the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point

Edited February 25 by whYNOT

[EC]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

How is risk mitigation exemplified by the J&J injection being pulled from the market? It was allowed on the market by the FDC because it was deemed safe and effective , but they pulled it because it wasn't safe and effective?

I didn't make that exact claim. I was using that as an example that risks do exist that aren't always known although that was a situation where they didn't do the length clinical trials normally done and I knew that, accepted the additional risk in favor of the benefits outweighing the risk.  And yes I was nervous and also believe that I had an initial (possibly slight allergic reaction) to that injection. 

[tadmjones]

I went the crazy route of using an actual safe protease inhibitor as a prophylactic, instead of the rational choice of using an untested gene therapy.

[tadmjones]

14 hours ago, EC said:

I didn't make that exact claim. I was using that as an example that risks do exist that aren't always known although that was a situation where they didn't do the length clinical trials normally done and I knew that, accepted the additional risk in favor of the benefits outweighing the risk.  And yes I was nervous and also believe that I had an initial (possibly slight allergic reaction) to that injection. 

If the risks were unknown how were you  able to determine the benefits outweighed them? And what were the benefits? I would assume by previous arguments that at least one of the benefits would be slowing the transmission of the virus thereby lessen the danger to those in high risk categories, but that goes against the idea heretofore held by the 'science' that non sterilizing vaccines administered against a novel infection carries an added risk of forced immune escape and mutation.

[EC]

24 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

If the risks were unknown how were you  able to determine the benefits outweighed them? And what were the benefits? I would assume by previous arguments that at least one of the benefits would be slowing the transmission of the virus thereby lessen the danger to those in high risk categories, but that goes against the idea heretofore held by the 'science' that non sterilizing vaccines administered against a novel infection carries an added risk of forced immune escape and mutation.

No, that would be secondhanded, I did it to prevent myself from getting Covid and studied mRNA vaccines before taking the vaccines. This is ridiculous and I'm not taking part in this strange discussion anymore and will read to moderate it against arbitrary conspiracy theories and from those seeking to ignore reason,  evidence, and proper epistemology. 

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, EC said:

No, that would be secondhanded, I did it to prevent myself from getting Covid and studied mRNA vaccines before taking the vaccines. This is ridiculous and I'm not taking part in this strange discussion anymore and will read to moderate it against arbitrary conspiracy theories and from those seeking to ignore reason,  evidence, and proper epistemology. 

How did you determine the relative level of risk if the therapy was not tested or not tested by the same strictures that determined a given risk level previous to mRNA covid jabs ?

[EC]

41 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

How did you determine the relative level of risk if the therapy was not tested or not tested by the same strictures that determined a given risk level previous to mRNA covid jabs ?

Reason and investigation of the facts. Also, the context that my grandfather had just died of it a couple months before and to protect my mom who I was staying with at the time who has COPD. Just because there is a standard time for testing doesn't mean in context of a disease that nobody has natural immunity to that individuals such as myself can't take vaccines or medical drugs that have not went through the full process of testing outside of that context as it would be a potential sacrifice of one's life to do otherwise. It would be similar to someone with cancer taking an experimental treatment. Also,  why is any of this important as it's a personal choice. I don't even fully understand the full purpose of this entire thread about denying the existence of a disease where essentially every fact of evidence and perception proves the existence of while no evidence exists that shows that it doesn't.  It's just arbitrary although I have some ideas why someone would claim this against the overwhelming facts of reality. This is just a very strange discussion. 

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, EC said:

Reason and investigation of the facts. Also, the context that my grandfather had just died of it a couple months before and to protect my mom who I was staying with at the time who has COPD. Just because there is a standard time for testing doesn't mean in context of a disease that nobody has natural immunity to that individuals such as myself can't take vaccines or medical drugs that have not went through the full process of testing outside of that context as it would be a potential sacrifice of one's life to do otherwise. It would be similar to someone with cancer taking an experimental treatment. Also,  why is any of this important as it's a personal choice. I don't even fully understand the full purpose of this entire thread about denying the existence of a disease where essentially every fact of evidence and perception proves the existence of while no evidence exists that shows that it doesn't.  It's just arbitrary although I have some ideas why someone would claim this against the overwhelming facts of reality. This is just a very strange discussion. 

If there didn't exist facts relative to deeming the therapy 'safe'( this term has specific meaning when applied to medical interventions and coming from medical experts) there was nothing to investigate. So what facts did you investigate relative to safety?

It seems you just accepted an argument from authority and then reasoned your way to a rationalization, people do that all the time.

Two times in this thread you have asserted that you will not be participating in the discussion and then continue. Is this a good look for a moderator of an O'ist forum? (It feels like lying)

 

[Doug Morris]

23 hours ago, necrovore said:

https://www.cdc.gov/orr/campaigns/index.htm

Your example says:

CDC published “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse” to the Public Health Matters blog in 2011. The post was an example of educational entertainment. It used a popular cultural reference to zombies to promote preparedness for different emergencies and disasters. 

This looks to me more like using a popular cultural reference to encourage preparedness for different emergencies and disasters than like an effort to get anyone to take zombies seriously.

It's like Murphy's Law, a humorous way to encourage people to be prepared for bad things to happen.  Murphy's Law is not meant to be taken literally - obviously it is possible for something that can go wrong to turn out not to go wrong.  It is just a reminder to be prepared in case something does go wrong.

"CDC published “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse” to the Public Health Matters blog in 2011."

The zombie apocalypse cultural reference predates this.  The zombie novel World War Z was published in 2006.  The original "Night of the Living Dead" movie came out in 1968.

Even older is the idea of a vampire apocalypse, as in Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend, which inspired "Night of the Living Dead".

 

[Doug Morris]

In addition to Murphy's Law, there is a humorous law that says "Murphy was an optimist".  Again, this is not meant to be taken literally.  It is a humorous reminder that things can go wrong that we did not think of ahead of time, so we should prepare as best we can for the unexpected, psychologically at least, and probably with some budgetary, scheduling, and/or physical allowance for unexpected contingencies.  It may also be a good idea to do some brainstorming to improve our prospects of thinking of things ahead of time.

 

Edited February 26 by Doug Morris
Addition

[EC]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

If there didn't exist facts relative to deeming the therapy 'safe'( this term has specific meaning when applied to medical interventions and coming from medical experts) there was nothing to investigate. So what facts did you investigate relative to safety?

It seems you just accepted an argument from authority and then reasoned your way to a rationalization, people do that all the time.

Two times in this thread you have asserted that you will not be participating in the discussion and then continue. Is this a good look for a moderator of an O'ist forum? (It feels like lying)

 

Not true,  again I studied the science of mRNA vaccines. It's not lying I just keep getting dragged into it while trying to moderate a thread that is arbitrary. 

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, EC said:

Not true,  again I studied the science of mRNA vaccines. 

Is the ‘science’ of mRNA , mRNA vaccines and mRNA Covid vaccines the same science ? Because the experiment on the Covid one is ongoing.

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

In addition to Murphy's Law, there is a humorous law that says "Murphy was an optimist".  Again, this is not meant to be taken literally.  It is a humorous reminder that things can go wrong that we did not think of ahead of time, so we should prepare as best we can for the unexpected, psychologically at least, and probably with some budgetary, scheduling, and/or physical allowance for unexpected contingencies.  It may also be a good idea to do some brainstorming to improve our prospects of thinking of things ahead of time.

 

I think they call that brainstorming gain of function research. They found and isolated at least one bat corona virus in Chinese caves in the oughts I think. Little crispr tech here , serial passage through humanized mouse tissue there and bam novel contagion. Or the pangolin thing , I guess. They should put up prize money for proof of the intermediary hosts!

[monart]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:34 PM, Doug Morris said:

It has always been true that there is a potential for a new pandemic of some sort or other, partly because of germs mutating and partly because of human expansion into more places.  It is probably wise to be prepared.  It is surely wise to at least be aware of the potential.

 

Yes, being aware of potential pandemics may be as important as being aware of potential asteroid impacts on Earth. But, at least for pandemics, we could reduce the risk the same way we have done over the past 125 years: by continually improving hygiene, sanitation, air-water and other environmental conditions, as well as improving our health through nutrition, sunshine, and exercise.

Edited February 27 by monart

[monart]

On 2/24/2024 at 10:34 AM, EC said:

How were mRNA vaccines against the covid virus created and developed if the DNA sequence of the virus was never "purified and isolated" (concepts that do not apply to DNA sequencing btw), or are they also non-existent conspiracies?

Good question. But the only answer is not then: SC2/covid must have been isolated and purified. Another answer is that the "covid vaccines" were developed for something else than the alleged SC2/covid. Again, no "conspiracies" are needed to see the facts as they are, not as they appear to be.

Edited February 27 by monart

[monart]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:24 PM, necrovore said:

I wrote that in jest; it's an exaggeration. However, it's a known propaganda technique to discredit the truth by associating it with various crank theories, so that when people encounter the truth, they will think that it's just another crank theory.

This is similar to the way that if a group wants to peacefully protest something, you could plant some violent people in amongst the protesters, so that the whole group can then be blamed for the violence.

I am aware of strategic counter/intelligence operations employed to discredit the opposition and to confuse, intimidate, and demoralize the masses (the "social ballast", as Ayn Rand has called them), whose support and compliance are needed for their votes of political legitimacy.

[monart]

On 2/21/2024 at 3:38 PM, AlexL said:

This is not the first conspiracist you are approvingly citing on this Objectivism forum: it was also Christine Massey (from YogaEsoteric and FluorideFreePeel), then the book Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense.☹️☹️

The labelling of (ill-defined) "conspiracist" is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. "Conspiracy Theories", as a pejorative label, was first propagated to marginalize those who pointed out counterfacts to the official "lone-gunman" explanation of the JFK assassination. And again employed against the 9/11 "Truthers". So, it's not unexpected, that it's being used against the "covid deniers". But being used here in a forum of independently thinking Objectivists should be just an aberration.

Edited February 27 by monart

[monart]

On 2/24/2024 at 5:18 PM, EC said:

@necrovore That would mean those people would have to had advanced knowledge years prior to the pandemic of the existence of the covid virus which is a big leap implying a planned conspiracy when it is much more likely that it was simply a coincidence involving passive attacks from the Left on the religious Right. While there likely are occasional side effects of childhood vaccines (like watching a commercial for any medicine or vaccine shows in detail) we've essentially all had them and they have been scientifically proven to be extremely rare with the benefits outweighing the slight risk. Obviously, that doesn't imply forced vaccinations are moral or should be legal outside of maybe an extremely lethal and highly contagious novel disease, covid doesn't qualify, although I personally got the vaccine the week it was allowed.  (J&J which to prove the above point of risk was soon taken off the market due to the blood clot risk). The main principle involves the fact that the government should not be involved in education as it should be private or funded via charity as like most things current governments are improperly involved in when their only valid jobs are the protection of individual rights. 

Again, the belief in the claim that vaccines are "valid, safe, and effective" is challenged by facts to the contrary. For example, see Dissolving Illusions: : Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History

Edited February 27 by monart

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, monart said:

The labelling of (ill-defined) "conspiracist" is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. "Conspiracy Theories", as a pejorative label

A. The implication of your wording above is that "official, authorized(??), mainstream narrative" is mostly wrong, which in itself is a conspiracist claim😁

B. Yes, the labeling "conspiracist can be used to intimidate etc., but the fact that it is used does not necessarily imply intimidation: it can be a true factual statement. In our case:

1. You approvingly cite Christine Massey, a quack and a conspiracist: consider her YogaEsoteric [sic!] and FluorideFreePee [sic!] sites, her unscientific, ridiculous "No Records Found" research and her general denial of the existence of viruses;

2. You (and C. Massey) approvingly and with no caveats refer to the book Virus Mania as an authoritative source, although the title itself is very telling:

Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio - How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense

The respective viruses allegedly do not exist, the bad and greedy medical industry invented them, and epidemics, for enormous profits at our expense. It is obviously a conspiracy; it had to start at lest 120 years ago (Poliovirus, 1909) and had to involve, since, dozen or hundreds of millions of medical professionals spreading this alleged fiction.

It is a shame to refer to that person and to the book approvingly and with no caveats - on this Objectivism forum.

[necrovore]

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

A. The implication of your wording above is that "official, authorized(??), mainstream narrative" is mostly wrong, which in itself is a conspiracist claim😁

The "mainstream narrative" is subject to the same standards as any other "narrative" -- and sometimes fails them, especially lately.

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

B. Yes, the labeling "conspiracist can be used to intimidate etc., but the fact that it is used does not necessarily imply intimidation: it can be a true factual statement.

I still think it's psychologizing.

On the other hand there are cranks, quacks, and crackpots out there, and the only way to identify them is that their claims clash with reality.

If you have a proper hierarchy of knowledge then you can use abstractions you have already proved to identify false claims. However, this only works to the extent that your abstractions are solid all the way down. Lots of people reason as if their beliefs have been "proved" when those beliefs are not true at all.

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

The respective viruses allegedly do not exist, the bad and greedy medical industry invented them, and epidemics, for enormous profits at our expense. It is obviously a conspiracy; it had to start at lest 120 years ago (Poliovirus, 1909) and had to involve, since, dozen or hundreds of millions of medical professionals spreading this alleged fiction.

In a mixed economy, it's easy to imagine that corrupt people could work their way up to the top. These days I'm not so sure it's even necessary to imagine, because you can look at the people at the top and see that they are corrupt.

However, it is possible to have a medical industry without corruption, and I think such an industry would accept the existence of viruses on the basis of the scientific evidence.

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

It is a shame to refer to that person and to the book approvingly and with no caveats - on this Objectivism forum.

Well it's a good thing we have people like you here to point this stuff out

But really, it does not seem that @monart is claiming to speak on behalf of Ayn Rand or Objectivism on these matters, and also, as long as it is an open forum, we don't have to worry too much about falsehoods going uncontested.

Besides, people shouldn't believe everything they read, anyway.

Edited February 27 by necrovore

[EC]

3 hours ago, monart said:

I am aware of strategic counter/intelligence operations employed to discredit the opposition and to confuse, intimidate, and demoralize the masses (the "social ballast", as Ayn Rand has called them), whose support and compliance are needed for their votes of political legitimacy.

So am I,  and this is what I was trying to get out of you. Two years ago because I was secretly recruited to an Army ghost psy-op unit because of my involvement in Skinwalker Ranch until they discovered that I was 44 at the time with no military experience,  since then my life has been made into a living hell that keeps getting worse. This is what I have never explicitly stated. They are a "secret" spy hacking unit. I wanted to get involved to protect the United States against our foreign adversaries like China,  Russia,  Iran,  and N. Korea instead I found out that they also target American citizens like myself and destroy their lives in every possible manner. Saying this "publicly" will likely make things worse but already essentially every value (spiritual and material) has been taken or destroyed, my ability to work, live, you name it, and now a 32 year old non-cancerous tumor has returned to my ear that I had to removed at 14, I'm now essentially homeless (this new phone is hacked too and they do things like put smilies as I'm writing these horrible things or they will use an upside down emoji alot because of the altruistic inverted immorality type stuff subtly implying that rational egoism and all of Objectivism is actually the "inverted" ideas and ideals). The list goes on in every form of harassment, destruction etc on an unimaginable scale.  And the whole time everyone tries to pretend that I'm "crazy". To destroy a moral American's life just for this reason is what is actually crazy, immoral, and extremely anti-American of them.

[tadmjones]

Pretty sure the first rule of the secretly recruited club is to not talk about the secretly recruited club.

[EC]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Pretty sure the first rule of the secretly recruited club is to not talk about the secretly recruited club.

I wasn't sure it was real because I had never been involved in anything like that then all the odd stuff and worse started happening and I didn't know how else to protect myself except tell family and friends. Not details of what I knew just all the odd things that kept getting worse (and there's the upside down face emoji) of course.  Also how is someone supposed to know that somehow there is some strange vast underground network in virtually every area that harasses people to essentially death in the United States of America in the 21st Century until it happens to them?