As Covid vaccine injuries started mounting up, and the topic became somewhat less taboo in the media - albeit always accompanied by boilerplate text about how the benefits outweigh the risks - some of us expressed hope that injured people would ‘wake up’
I have treated hundreds of jab-injured patients in my musculoskeletal medical practice.
I have found several axes for trying to comprehend whether the patient will accept or deny the cause.
I feel this boils down to whether the person has either an internal locus of self, or an external one.
The former group tends to be sceptical, curious (as you mention), and innately distrustful of big government/business/ bureaucracy.
They are often farmers or self-employed.
The latter tend to see themselves as part of a group, and completely dependent on that group for their self-worth. They are often public servants or work for big business.
At my Substack, a reader made a valid point about my recent list of "Covid Contrarians" and my thesis that a "contrarian" was simply someone who challenges or questions the "authorized narratives."
This reader made a point I've also made many times - namely that people's main goal is not to get sideways with the "herd," which provides safety. Being a part of the herd also provides ego gratification, etc.
The reader pointed out the example of the tens of millions of people who challenged "conventional wisdom" when they all protested the Vietnam War. In this example, it was okay to be a "contrarian" because so many other people were in the same group. In other words, There was zero risk in being a contrarian.
So, the herd, sometimes, can include large numbers of contrarians. Who knows? One day the vaccine contrarians might be as big as the Vietnam War contrarians.
FWIW I experienced many adverse events as a result of the fizzer jabs. I'm ex-military, ex-public servant and currently work in private industry. Have known since the get-go what caused it and now well & truly 'awake'. However I still have no issue with 'big government' per se, as long as it isn't co-opted by (mostly corporate) vested interests. We only need look to the US to see that trickle down economics is a myth (just look at their obscene wealth inequality and inadequate public services...health being the prime example). Who else but the government else is going to provide the essential services to all citizens?
This question needs to better define "essential services." Roads? Laws to deter dangerous activities?
The latter sounds good, something most people would agree with, but this subjective definition leads to one of endless "slippery slopes." As in, the government told us it was a "dangerous activity" to NOT get a shot ... and these people should be punished or sanctioned just like other dangerous law-breakers.
I'm more libertarian. Adults - who posses basic intelligence - can provide for their own essential needs. Or decide what they need to do or don't need to do.
It's mass decisions/mandates by the do-gooder bureaucrats that produce mass misery and carnage.
100% agree that anyone involved with the plandemic, both COVID gain of function sh*tfukkery & government response including jabs should be held to account. But feel the whole sad situation has more to do with too much corporate influence over government. So it comes back to better legislation (i.e limiting donations to politicians & political parties) as well as sensible rules around advertising in the media. The US being the only country in the world where pharma is allowed to advertise their products on MSM...not to sell them, but to control the agenda. Finally a fair and equitable taxation system to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times or struggle for one reason or another is vital for the fabric of society. It's obscene that one of the first things Trump is going to do is give tax cuts to the wealthiest when they already don't pay their fair share.
As far as essential services In talking about healthcare, education (including tertiary), defence, major infrastructure (including roads, power, water...hello Flint Michigan). Neoliberal influence over the last 50 years has alot to answer for with their privatisations of public owned infrastructure...again I would argue too much corporate influence over governments everywhere.
The great scholar of extreme risk Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan), originated the term IYI - Intellectual Yet Idiot. The enthusiasm for getting the shots, and groupthink around everything to do with the Convid response (and much else), at my (Go8) university, had to be seen to be believed. The supine response of some of the people at the top of their academic field disgusted me.
I have to admit to being IYI in the past and also a lefty. The loss of our rights during covid has changed all that. (One dubious benefit of the whole debacle!)
Yes, it changed me too. In 2020 my estimable compatriot Max Igan said 'Everything we've been told about history is a lie.' I thought, hold on, maybe some things or even many things, but everything? Now I realise he was right.
Quite scary how all the evidence and injury points towards a deductive conclusion, yet Brendan still clings to a different conclusion.
one metric I found compelling is the occupation of someone. If they are hands on, like farmers, tradies, dancers etc, I found many to be skeptics or at least unwillingly compliant to the mandates.
While "professinals" were gun ho pro jab, safe and effective and likely to say terrible things about "anti-vaxxers".
This is a great story that makes fascinating original points. I love the way Rebekah presented the rationale of both of these case studies.
However, I still stick by my contention that the decision to get these shots does, indeed, qualify as an intelligence “litmus test" ... an IQ exam which billons of earth inhabitants ... failed.
It’s true that people have varied and complex reasons for getting the shots. But these reasons were not compelling enough to risk death or life-altering medical conditions. Put differently, by the time one becomes an adult, this person should have acquired enough intelligence to doubt the “infallible” claims of known liars like the government, Big Pharma and the mainstream press.
Common sense should have told everyone there was no way to check for “safety” in trials that lasted a few weeks or months.
I would add the circumstances cited by this story’s second vaccine victim, no doubt, explain why many people felt they HAD to get the shot. Namely, they would be fired from a vocation they loved if they didn’t get the shots.
So it would take some principles and courage to forfeit your livelihood by not complying with the experts/authorities. Still, many other people were smart enough and principled enough to pass on the shots even though they knew this would cause them professional harm.
An honest and intelligent person might admit, “I got the shot under duress and coercion and just rolled the dice that I wouldn’t be in the group that ended up injured.” A person in this group would have known that the shots were far less safe than advertised and, at least, could say they knew the claims of the Establishment were farfetched and shouldn't be trusted.
Still, exploring in more detail why some people acted in different ways and think so differently is a great topic for real journalists like Rebekah.
Actually Gurwinder's conclusion in his article on motivated reasoning is that the two best counters are 1. curiosity and 2. humility. I didn't explore the humility angle in this post but that is essentially what you are describing, where someone is able to admit 'ok I took a risk and it didn't work out well for me,' or, 'I was tricked by propaganda, and I regret that.'
Thinking about my latter scenario - the person who knew getting the vaccine was probably "stupid" but did it anyway because they felt they had to do this to pursue their passion and make a living .... I'd argue this group should be at the top of the plaintiff lawsuit list.
It's one thing for the State or your employer to tell you, "I strongly recommend you get this shot." It's an entirely different thing to tell these people, "You get these shots or we are going to fire your ass and make sure you never work in this town again."
In this scenario, the jury damages should be trebled ... to set an example to future would-be tyrants.
The decision wasn't just about the individual vs the risk of govt/pharma/health fraud.
A lot of people did more learning prior to taking the shot, watching their friends/family/work colleagues survive (at least in the short term), speaking directly for two members of my family. They went forward with the idea that it wasn't TOO BAD, in the situation where it was far more convenient for them to get it, than not.
And while we're still waiting to see if the vaxs shorten the lives of everyone who took them, most people in my circle are still standing on their surfboards in the wash of the wave.
Thanks for explaining what you mean by ‘wake up’ (although it’s clear from your article’s context that you aren’t coming from an ethical/ intellectual superiority position- but some have of late.
Great read, thanksRebecca; it helps me to both empathise and recognise the position of people like Brendon.
God knows compassion and empathy are needed with this whole COCID saga!
I agree that shaming or trying to denigrate people is counter-productive. It's better to empathize with these people and welcome them to "our team." The other side does the shaming thing much better and actually seems to get a sick joy out of doing this.
Fascinating. Poor Brendan. His friends need to give him space to acknowledge, space to grieve over his personal outcomes. It sounds like his brain is split into a lot of pieces. That's very sad.
Enormous kudos to you RB, for posing this question publicly - it may provide that bridge to alleviate the impass the cognitive dissonance creates. If only we could inspire a 'pandemic of curiosity' hence forth, such that by crossing over . . all experiences encountered might reveal a positive insight and healing possibilities. This article is a valuable step towards that outcome. /\
Many people don't wish to make decisions so allow others to do that for them by accepting any information forwarded to them without checking essential details which could make another aspect to the subject Easier than thinking for self
I was interested to read the two anecdotes you presented but am more interested, still, to peruse the results of a well compiled survey (if such a thing exists:)) administered to a representative sample (if such a thing exists:)) of the population. And yes, the psychology is interesting. In response to their life-changing incidents, do people change their beliefs (or the degree of conviction with which they hold them) - it is typical that they do - or do they double down and rationalise away the incident.
Brendan's espoused position (which, by the way, not accurately reflect his thinking) is hard to challenge - both the idea that it is hard to separate long covid damage from vaccine damage AND the idea that, even if vax damage is a thing, the benefits of the jab outweighed the harms, taken across the population, as a whole, but especially amongst vulnerable types like himself - of whom a great many exist in western society. It is unchallengeable. I mean, what data exists that could torpedo it?
Interesting, too, are the responses of people who get covid after being vaxxed. In the main, it seems to be something more like: "Well, I'd have had it much worse if it were not for the jab" than "Well, it's obvious the vax is BS. I've been duped. Bastards!".
I can't imagine anyone funding that survey but it would be great if someone did! In an allopathic medicine setting, exploring psychosomatic causes of illness makes sense to me where no other causal mechanism exists and all other physiological avenues have been exhausted. What is concerning about Michelle's experience, and so many others like her, is that no one bothered to explore the possible physiological causes before writing her off as a head case.
Re "the idea the [..] the benefits of the jab outweighed the harms" as being unchallengeable.
Did you mean this?
I had strong predictive experience in genetic inventions that said that the vaccines would be a net negative. No genetically engineered plant is better than its GM free parent - nature is already operating at max efficiency that the crudeness of human invention cannot hope to equal.
Re "what data exists that could torpedo it?"
Do you mean that now? That there is no data that exists that show the vaccines to be a net negative?
Tis to your credit that you have asked these questions and not merely rested on a premature conclusion.
By 'unchallengeable' I did not mean that I believe it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the jab was net positive. I meant that nobody is (presently) capable of showing (chiefly with reliable, quality data) that it wasn't, and that it is highly likely that nobody ever will. I mean, how can we rewind back to the end of 2020 and do a rerun without vaccines. And it really was an 'all in' situation. It is not as if we had every second nation opting out of the jab, for instance.
Wrt to Michelle, meanwhile, I hope you will appreciate that the major part of what I typed had to do with wit.
I feel for her. I imagine she was the antithesis of Brendan, in terms of maintaining her body and, one way or another, the jab has undermined all of this.
I am on board with Rebekah, though, in that the state of one's mind is (in my view) an integral part of one's 'physical' health.
I have treated hundreds of jab-injured patients in my musculoskeletal medical practice.
I have found several axes for trying to comprehend whether the patient will accept or deny the cause.
I feel this boils down to whether the person has either an internal locus of self, or an external one.
The former group tends to be sceptical, curious (as you mention), and innately distrustful of big government/business/ bureaucracy.
They are often farmers or self-employed.
The latter tend to see themselves as part of a group, and completely dependent on that group for their self-worth. They are often public servants or work for big business.
Interesting observations Gareth. It must be sad treating people who aren't ready to admit what caused the problem (and may be going back for more...).
Very sad and very difficult to provide any help.
At my Substack, a reader made a valid point about my recent list of "Covid Contrarians" and my thesis that a "contrarian" was simply someone who challenges or questions the "authorized narratives."
This reader made a point I've also made many times - namely that people's main goal is not to get sideways with the "herd," which provides safety. Being a part of the herd also provides ego gratification, etc.
The reader pointed out the example of the tens of millions of people who challenged "conventional wisdom" when they all protested the Vietnam War. In this example, it was okay to be a "contrarian" because so many other people were in the same group. In other words, There was zero risk in being a contrarian.
So, the herd, sometimes, can include large numbers of contrarians. Who knows? One day the vaccine contrarians might be as big as the Vietnam War contrarians.
FWIW I experienced many adverse events as a result of the fizzer jabs. I'm ex-military, ex-public servant and currently work in private industry. Have known since the get-go what caused it and now well & truly 'awake'. However I still have no issue with 'big government' per se, as long as it isn't co-opted by (mostly corporate) vested interests. We only need look to the US to see that trickle down economics is a myth (just look at their obscene wealth inequality and inadequate public services...health being the prime example). Who else but the government else is going to provide the essential services to all citizens?
This question needs to better define "essential services." Roads? Laws to deter dangerous activities?
The latter sounds good, something most people would agree with, but this subjective definition leads to one of endless "slippery slopes." As in, the government told us it was a "dangerous activity" to NOT get a shot ... and these people should be punished or sanctioned just like other dangerous law-breakers.
I'm more libertarian. Adults - who posses basic intelligence - can provide for their own essential needs. Or decide what they need to do or don't need to do.
It's mass decisions/mandates by the do-gooder bureaucrats that produce mass misery and carnage.
100% agree that anyone involved with the plandemic, both COVID gain of function sh*tfukkery & government response including jabs should be held to account. But feel the whole sad situation has more to do with too much corporate influence over government. So it comes back to better legislation (i.e limiting donations to politicians & political parties) as well as sensible rules around advertising in the media. The US being the only country in the world where pharma is allowed to advertise their products on MSM...not to sell them, but to control the agenda. Finally a fair and equitable taxation system to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times or struggle for one reason or another is vital for the fabric of society. It's obscene that one of the first things Trump is going to do is give tax cuts to the wealthiest when they already don't pay their fair share.
As far as essential services In talking about healthcare, education (including tertiary), defence, major infrastructure (including roads, power, water...hello Flint Michigan). Neoliberal influence over the last 50 years has alot to answer for with their privatisations of public owned infrastructure...again I would argue too much corporate influence over governments everywhere.
If that be the case, Brendan's group needs to bl**dy pick up their rallying response.
The great scholar of extreme risk Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan), originated the term IYI - Intellectual Yet Idiot. The enthusiasm for getting the shots, and groupthink around everything to do with the Convid response (and much else), at my (Go8) university, had to be seen to be believed. The supine response of some of the people at the top of their academic field disgusted me.
Oh yes, I've used that one a lot! And I admit I have been prone to IYI beliefs in the past ;)
I have to admit to being IYI in the past and also a lefty. The loss of our rights during covid has changed all that. (One dubious benefit of the whole debacle!)
Yes, it changed me too. In 2020 my estimable compatriot Max Igan said 'Everything we've been told about history is a lie.' I thought, hold on, maybe some things or even many things, but everything? Now I realise he was right.
Quite scary how all the evidence and injury points towards a deductive conclusion, yet Brendan still clings to a different conclusion.
one metric I found compelling is the occupation of someone. If they are hands on, like farmers, tradies, dancers etc, I found many to be skeptics or at least unwillingly compliant to the mandates.
While "professinals" were gun ho pro jab, safe and effective and likely to say terrible things about "anti-vaxxers".
Your 2 examples fit that idea.
This is a great story that makes fascinating original points. I love the way Rebekah presented the rationale of both of these case studies.
However, I still stick by my contention that the decision to get these shots does, indeed, qualify as an intelligence “litmus test" ... an IQ exam which billons of earth inhabitants ... failed.
It’s true that people have varied and complex reasons for getting the shots. But these reasons were not compelling enough to risk death or life-altering medical conditions. Put differently, by the time one becomes an adult, this person should have acquired enough intelligence to doubt the “infallible” claims of known liars like the government, Big Pharma and the mainstream press.
Common sense should have told everyone there was no way to check for “safety” in trials that lasted a few weeks or months.
I would add the circumstances cited by this story’s second vaccine victim, no doubt, explain why many people felt they HAD to get the shot. Namely, they would be fired from a vocation they loved if they didn’t get the shots.
So it would take some principles and courage to forfeit your livelihood by not complying with the experts/authorities. Still, many other people were smart enough and principled enough to pass on the shots even though they knew this would cause them professional harm.
An honest and intelligent person might admit, “I got the shot under duress and coercion and just rolled the dice that I wouldn’t be in the group that ended up injured.” A person in this group would have known that the shots were far less safe than advertised and, at least, could say they knew the claims of the Establishment were farfetched and shouldn't be trusted.
Still, exploring in more detail why some people acted in different ways and think so differently is a great topic for real journalists like Rebekah.
Actually Gurwinder's conclusion in his article on motivated reasoning is that the two best counters are 1. curiosity and 2. humility. I didn't explore the humility angle in this post but that is essentially what you are describing, where someone is able to admit 'ok I took a risk and it didn't work out well for me,' or, 'I was tricked by propaganda, and I regret that.'
Thinking about my latter scenario - the person who knew getting the vaccine was probably "stupid" but did it anyway because they felt they had to do this to pursue their passion and make a living .... I'd argue this group should be at the top of the plaintiff lawsuit list.
It's one thing for the State or your employer to tell you, "I strongly recommend you get this shot." It's an entirely different thing to tell these people, "You get these shots or we are going to fire your ass and make sure you never work in this town again."
In this scenario, the jury damages should be trebled ... to set an example to future would-be tyrants.
Not just 'fire your ass' but the rest of you, too.:):):) You have evidently been viewing too much US product, Bill.:):):)
The decision wasn't just about the individual vs the risk of govt/pharma/health fraud.
A lot of people did more learning prior to taking the shot, watching their friends/family/work colleagues survive (at least in the short term), speaking directly for two members of my family. They went forward with the idea that it wasn't TOO BAD, in the situation where it was far more convenient for them to get it, than not.
And while we're still waiting to see if the vaxs shorten the lives of everyone who took them, most people in my circle are still standing on their surfboards in the wash of the wave.
‘Wake up.’
Thanks for explaining what you mean by ‘wake up’ (although it’s clear from your article’s context that you aren’t coming from an ethical/ intellectual superiority position- but some have of late.
Great read, thanksRebecca; it helps me to both empathise and recognise the position of people like Brendon.
God knows compassion and empathy are needed with this whole COCID saga!
Absolutely. Non-judgemental listening can work miracles in people's hearts and minds, I believe.
I agree that shaming or trying to denigrate people is counter-productive. It's better to empathize with these people and welcome them to "our team." The other side does the shaming thing much better and actually seems to get a sick joy out of doing this.
Haha, nah, it’s a lack of proofreading. But heck, it could be…
Conspiracy Organises Catastrophic Incidents of Death
COCID? Is this a satirical acronym I am not aware of?
Fascinating. Poor Brendan. His friends need to give him space to acknowledge, space to grieve over his personal outcomes. It sounds like his brain is split into a lot of pieces. That's very sad.
Yes, very sad.
To quote that well know intellectual, Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."
That's my bottom-line too. I'm pretty sure I wrote a column making the same point and citing the wisdom of Forrest (my state's most famous resident!)
Enormous kudos to you RB, for posing this question publicly - it may provide that bridge to alleviate the impass the cognitive dissonance creates. If only we could inspire a 'pandemic of curiosity' hence forth, such that by crossing over . . all experiences encountered might reveal a positive insight and healing possibilities. This article is a valuable step towards that outcome. /\
Many people don't wish to make decisions so allow others to do that for them by accepting any information forwarded to them without checking essential details which could make another aspect to the subject Easier than thinking for self
I was interested to read the two anecdotes you presented but am more interested, still, to peruse the results of a well compiled survey (if such a thing exists:)) administered to a representative sample (if such a thing exists:)) of the population. And yes, the psychology is interesting. In response to their life-changing incidents, do people change their beliefs (or the degree of conviction with which they hold them) - it is typical that they do - or do they double down and rationalise away the incident.
Brendan's espoused position (which, by the way, not accurately reflect his thinking) is hard to challenge - both the idea that it is hard to separate long covid damage from vaccine damage AND the idea that, even if vax damage is a thing, the benefits of the jab outweighed the harms, taken across the population, as a whole, but especially amongst vulnerable types like himself - of whom a great many exist in western society. It is unchallengeable. I mean, what data exists that could torpedo it?
Regarding Michelle, we must surely put her heart palpitations down to anxiety fomented (see psychosomatics -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic_medicine) by Brett Weinstein videos. Bloody Brett!
Interesting, too, are the responses of people who get covid after being vaxxed. In the main, it seems to be something more like: "Well, I'd have had it much worse if it were not for the jab" than "Well, it's obvious the vax is BS. I've been duped. Bastards!".
I can't imagine anyone funding that survey but it would be great if someone did! In an allopathic medicine setting, exploring psychosomatic causes of illness makes sense to me where no other causal mechanism exists and all other physiological avenues have been exhausted. What is concerning about Michelle's experience, and so many others like her, is that no one bothered to explore the possible physiological causes before writing her off as a head case.
Re "the idea the [..] the benefits of the jab outweighed the harms" as being unchallengeable.
Did you mean this?
I had strong predictive experience in genetic inventions that said that the vaccines would be a net negative. No genetically engineered plant is better than its GM free parent - nature is already operating at max efficiency that the crudeness of human invention cannot hope to equal.
Re "what data exists that could torpedo it?"
Do you mean that now? That there is no data that exists that show the vaccines to be a net negative?
Tis to your credit that you have asked these questions and not merely rested on a premature conclusion.
By 'unchallengeable' I did not mean that I believe it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the jab was net positive. I meant that nobody is (presently) capable of showing (chiefly with reliable, quality data) that it wasn't, and that it is highly likely that nobody ever will. I mean, how can we rewind back to the end of 2020 and do a rerun without vaccines. And it really was an 'all in' situation. It is not as if we had every second nation opting out of the jab, for instance.
Wrt to Michelle, meanwhile, I hope you will appreciate that the major part of what I typed had to do with wit.
I feel for her. I imagine she was the antithesis of Brendan, in terms of maintaining her body and, one way or another, the jab has undermined all of this.
I am on board with Rebekah, though, in that the state of one's mind is (in my view) an integral part of one's 'physical' health.
LINS.