Also, as an aside to all of this. I've recently embarked on a mission to thank the people who have done such great work in service to the truth during the past year and a half. With that in mind I signed up for you substack. Your writing has been informative, well-reasoned and somehow, oddly, comforting. Maybe it's just having confirmation bias that I'm not completely barking mad. I don't know.
But anyway, thank you. This has become one of my favorite places to get information on what is going on out there. Keep up the good work.
P.S. I almost applied to help you when you were hiring, but I don't know that I have the qualifications to really analyze all the papers. However, I read all of your articles anyway, so if you want someone helping proof-read or anything like that, I'd be happy to assist in any way I can on a volunteer basis.
If you are interested in joining a growing volunteer research community, email operationupliftteam@gmail.com. We are about to launch a wiki to summarize thousands of pages of sorted and filtered research.
What would I add? Not being rude, but some way to get people to actually read the damn thing. Every time I try to take a tactic of engagement with the vaccination zombies they demonstrate a complete immunity to the facts or any discussion. I have a sea of information locked in my brain but it's only of use to me and the people I'm responsible for. I have been unable to eke a concession out of anybody. I've even seemingly persuaded people they should delay getting the vaccine as long as possible since it's still in trial, only to find out they went out a few days later and got their shot.
There's a wall there that I don't know how to get around, even with my own family. I hope the concerns about ADE, sterilization and vaccine escape variants turn out to be unfounded, or rather a lucky miss, because I'm worried for what comes this winter, and for my family.
How do you unhypnotize people with the Malthusian mind virus trained in the Prussian educational model that beats them into Stockholm submission (if I may coin an alteration to the usual phrase)?
Be calm. Be patient. Be personal.
Ask questions more often than contradicting?
These are things that we can all work on. I lose my cool too often during all this, but am meditating on focused improvements.
Also, my purpose with this substack was partially to arm those like you with LINKS. This helps you send information. If you have taken the Socratic approach, calmly, often somebody will eventually ask YOU questions back. "Why do you believe there are cheap and effective medical alternatives?" Pick your favorite links and say no more.
To be honest, I find the simplest, child-conversation questions to be the most effective...
"I'm not afraid of covid, why are you afraid of covid?"
"Nobody's omniscient right, so we both know we're missing pieces of information, right?"
"When you say conspiracy, do you mean corruption?"
"Isn't corruption common and am I not crazy to assume it exists?"
"Why are you afraid of climate change? Has your town been destroyed?"
"Why are you afraid of racists? Do you know many racists?"
etc...
When you speak to people as if they're 4 years old on topics they have reached conclusions on through emotional reasoning, not rational thought, you can get them to avoid the intellectual defenses of their emotional reasoning and just speak plainly about how they feel.
It's painfully slow. But when I tell the smart people around me that I'm not afraid of covid (for instance) I know that I am conditioning them to reconsider their own fear bit by bit.
Many people get the vax not out of fear of covid but just out of wanting not to have to deal with BS or lose their job. They probably figure it's not killing most people so it won't kill me and then I don't have to worry about the inconvenience.
That's true, however mentioning fear puts the conversation where it should be. Fear is what made people accept mandates, so if there's no fear, there should be no mandate.
Thank you. I really appreciate the work you do. The Socratic method is probably the best approach, but I'm still having little success. Perhaps were I more willing to tirelessly quiz people I could get the dam to break. I don't know.
I find instead I've settled into a 'you deserve what's coming' approach, which has, shockingly, not been very effective. When I told my brother I might lose my job he basically said he was sorry while intimating he supported these mass mandates. I told him he deserved what's coming, which he was offended by apparently. He was not persuaded :)
So wise. It is very tempting to "educate" others with the knowledge one has discovered but it usually proves unsuccessful in persuading. Socratic method of asking good questions is the only way. I'm am working on it but find it challenging.
To me, the most devastating proof that the vaccines have nothing to do with health is that they are being recommended for groups that were excluded from the clinical trials: pregnant women, elders with comorbidities and recovered persons. If FDA was an evidence-based health agency, they would have excluded those groups from the distribution program.
I take issue with your description of "most devastating proof" because there are over 17,000 stories that qualify. It's best not to get carried away with...HOLY MOTHER OF GOD THIS IS ALL INSANE!
I was attempting to identify fact patterns for which there is **no** benign interpretation.
I wrote "most devastating proof" because there is no way to dispute that FDA is prescribing vaccines for groups for which is has no evidence. FDA itself disputes that the deaths are caused by the vaccines.
What's also indisputable is that FDA has not published any investigation of those deaths. All it's done is issue a conclusory "it's not the vaccines." An agency that isn't investigating serious adverse events can't possibly have public health as its priority.
I fully agree. To me, the most devastating proof that the vaccines have nothing to do with health is that the mainstream media censors all discussion of effective, proven early treatment as well as acceptance of natural immunity. And oh yes, anything posted about vaccine adverse events! This censorship is why IMO our former friends are so brainwashed.
That was a red flag. Another in Canada, early on, was the deviating from the manufacturers' protocols re: time between doses, and then telling people they could mix and match brands. Thank goodness for Dr. Bridle's lecture back in early February, re: ADE and other concerns (the excluded 3000 plus Pfizer subjects that set me searching). As it is, the delay of the 2nd dose might have contributed to fewer AEs in Canada (although, it could also be the reporting system for AEs, requiring doc's reports be vettedthrough medical officers of health).
Understanding this to be your basis: "What is it that we need to understand that would settle a debate between two groups of good faith actors, one of which is under the spell of a propaganda machine while each believes that describes the other?"
So, just a few questions I've thought about:
1. Who are you trying to reach, educate and persuade and how will that settle the debate?
a. Is it us, your readers, who may not necessarily be good faith actors? You can reach us, we don't need to be persuaded, you can educate us with more information and encourage us to be strong and fight the good fight. (This outline will help achieve that.) What difference will it make (probably not much, only to us, in an insular way. We're your echo chamber.)
b. Is it the medical professionals that are not considering both sides of a good faith argument, but acting in their own self interest? Will this outline reach them (we can help disseminate it far and wide), will it educate and persuade them? (Yes, I think so, if they give it fair consideration.) If it is successful, what difference will it make? (They may begin to push back against the mandates and bureaucratic interference.)
c. Is it the governmental and bureaucratic officials that are not necessarily good faith actors but believe they are acting righteously? Will this outline reach them (probably not)? Will it educate or persuade them (probably not?) What difference will it make (probably not much)
d. Is it the general populace? Will this outline reach them (probably not, they don't care, it's too hard)? Will it educate or persuade them (only if they read it or if they are personally impacted)? What difference will it make? (probably not much, but we can only hope)?
I can only suggest considering a mild change in your approach. Since the decision has already been made in most countries about the vaccination program, there really is no debate. You are forced to prove the opposite of their decision. Maybe you should change the focus to demonstrate why that decision is fundamentally flawed (if you conclude that it is) and to document that, based on that irrefutable proof, the future will not be kind to those that continue on in this bad choice. That may go further to persuade medical professionals and bureaucrats, if there is some threat to them. Also, an emphasis on the dangerous and unknown effects on children may be the most effective way to educate and persuade the general populace, especially mothers and parents.
You are taking on a serious task. I admire your courage.
One thing I've found continually perplexing is the absolute failure by folks on the critical side of the narrative to engage the opposition from an orientation toward questions of ethics and world building. The smartest guys in the room, as it were, want to argue data data data. But this, it seems to me, really misses the point of the fight (and anyway, it's clear the propagandists have taken that field with a massive deception campaign). We're on the cusp of a paradigm shift, and there is a clear battle of opposing ideologies at play. One, from my perspective, is very human and the other is hyper-material, collectivist, and machine-like. I long for some superstar level discourse in a very public forum that dives deep into the philosophy that heretofore has underpinned western values and decision making versus whatever you might call the collectivist machine mind (the shadow side of systems thinking and transhumanism?) that is so persistently attempting to supplant the spirit of the west.
With any medication or medical procedure, these three essential requirements must be objectively and properly satisfied:
1. Safety
2. Effectiveness
3. Necessity
Of course, in practice another requirement is cost!
It seems to be me that we have been battling their lies by focusing on safety and effectiveness, to the exclusion of necessity. However, necessity is easy to prove/disprove without resorting to "data and science, and "studies". The following are my questions that I sent to authorities and "experts" regarding the necessity element. None could rebut.
1. Why would govts need to force people, directly and via proxy, to take something if they can
prove it is safe and effective?
2. If the vax is so important and urgent, how do you explain universities like Brown, Cornell, and
Rutgers allowing religious exemptions? But, in contrast, UNC, Iowa, and Arizona do not
even have the vaccination mandate? [That reminds me of the masking exemptions for
blacks in certain States in USA; and for the public sector employees in DC.]
3. Are you aware that some countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Romania, etc) and some States
in USA don't have compulsory vaccination policies? Are those said jurisdictions care less about
their residents than others who do?
Since no one could answer these three questions, it evidently follows that the vaccines are NOT necessary.
This would indeed be very valuable, but I think we're somewhat naive to think that actual arguments will always be fruitful. This conflict is not chiefly a rational one.
The positions, mainly those affirming the official narrative, have not primarily been assumed for rational reasons. We have a massive propaganda operation which has pushed and pushed on people's sub-rational drives with an incredible intensity.
Many, if not most people, will not actually be able to entertain arguments negating the narrative which has been inculcated, and this is for a number of reasons. Examples:
1. The official narrative has been effectively entrenched as part of most people's worldview. To reject it would entail a costly rearrangement of said worldview and possibly one's own identity. An extreme option which is often the last thing you'll do.
2. The "epistemic cost" of rejecting what is perceived as an almost universal consensus, questioned only by irrational conspiracists or other undesirables, is too steep for most. Authority is the main anchoring of truth in this situation, and almost nobody has any other options than the edifice of spectacular Science and its Experts and the narratives which are attributed thereto in the media. And almost nobody has the basic confidence in their own reason and ability to ascertain truth so as to question what is perceived as a unanimous consensus.
3. This relates to both 1 and 2, but the questioning of a major war-time narrative such as this means you to some extent have to rebel against the system and society you have identified with all of your life. You have to abandon this newly created sense of common purpose and goals, and in a sense betray the normal consensus reality around you. This is extremely difficult.
My biggest issue (other than corrupted data) is why aren't we thinking about this globally?Once you do, you have to acknowledge that mass vaccine was never a reality and that one size can't fit all. The whole "narrative" and agenda then falls apart as lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc weren't and can never be achieved globally.
I have family and friends in other parts of the world and have travelled extensively and so our myopic and insular thinking in the US (and some other western countries) at times seems laughable. They're doing hydroxy shots in Mexico, complete lockdowns for 1 case in parts of AUS & NZ, and eliminating Covid in 3rd world countries with early treatments.
Why do we have multiple times the death rate compared of other countries with our "top notch" healthcare system? Is it just data or incentive/profit driven? Why do we have to live in fear over a virus that is treatable? Why don't our mandates/laws apply to our elected officials (ok, so that's rhetorical, they never do)?
I'll stop, because it's a bit of a rabbit hole and there is more to life.
Completely off topic, but I watched that video clip you posted of Zuckerberg doing take after take of the "Sweet Baby Rays" line (proudly permabanned on Twitter) and I strangely enough did not feel the expected laughter. Instead, surprising myself, I felt a sudden surge of sadness? A pang of sympathy that appeared unbidden and unwelcome. How exhausting must it be to struggle with such normality, to fail to even convey the slightest sense of authenticity after so many tries. He has parents, was raised as a child, has someone he loves? All the money anyone could ever want/need and he lacks something distinctly human. Not the meme android joke, but instead it issomething manufactured and sad, like looking at a mass produced knicknack alone and forgotten in a pile of refuse.
For this man, an immiently powerful, multi-billionaire, (probable sociopath) with whom I share less in common than with 99% of the rest of the worlds population, all I felt was pity.
"The measured benefits to individuals must outweigh the measured risks."
If I understand you correctly, the people I talk to who are vaccine advocates do not recognize this as a first principle. They would have no problem mandating a jab on someone if would benefit their immuno-compromised second cousin in some oblique, but potentially non-zero, way.
Defining a "healthy" person as someone who would not die from covid and "they" as the people you are trying to persuade:
Would they accept killing a healthy person in order to save 100 unhealthy persons? save 10? save 1? save 0.1?
This is very comprehensive. I don’t see much missing. I’m assuming a section on Trust, Policy, and Leadership could include some explorations of the potentials for regulatory capture and implications of financial incentives. I’d also hope the introduction could clearly outline the intended audience. A RBA for the Mass Vaccination Campaign by default speaks more to policy makers, leaders in health care, and a small percentage of individuals with significant agency. These groups can have the most impact, but it’s unlikely an RBA such as this would be accessible to the average person and allow for the personal factoring or awareness of individualized aspects.
Regardless, it’s difficult to understate how valuable and urgent assessments like these are. I find the absence of comparisons enormously frustrating and have been working on building something similar, but in a different context. I get the impression much of this information already exists, it’s simply a matter of parsing and presenting it in a concise, transparent, and effective way. Personally, I want something which addresses how one should determine if they should get vaccinated, versus a policy-focused approach. For the sake of a broad comparison, the outline for my current assessment looks similar to yours. I see the most relevant factors as:
1. Odds of exposure and infection
2. Odds of negative outcomes
3. Vaccine efficacy
4. Vaccine risks
5. Natural immunity
6. Moral obligation
7. Alternate forms of prophylaxis
8. Barriers to understanding
And the most relevant unknowns as:
• Risks of Long-COVID
• Odds of reinfection
• Risks of emerging variants
• Risks of an endemic
• Long-term risks of vaccines
• Incentives and potentials for regulatory capture
I think this exact analysis is on the right track, but needs to go all the way. Specifically, as you said in your other piece the 750k deaths is not right. It may be at best a noble lie to try to encourage caution amongst the population, but it's an inappropriate input to a risk/benefit calculation because it isn't real. I'm not so sure about 6% mind you either, but if vaers reactions are 5x underreported you can see how the cost/benefit of the vax quickly evaporates. Most people ignore this and resort to an authoritarian or 'everyone is doing it' or 'it's not a global conspiracy!' sort of argument. To which I respond the difference between group think and conspiracy is nuanced and at each level of the narrative there are specific interests at play that protect the malformed propositions -750k deaths - 0 deaths from covid vaccines etc. Does anyone really believe there were zero deaths caused from vaccines at this point? With the blood clots and all? I've seen recent media articles or 'Science Based Medicine' (perhaps it should be called 'The Science' based medicine) posts with it recently. Unfortunately I think the thing to do right now is just hold tight and wait for the truth to come out.
Mathew: I really like the three Criteria, as they seem to capture the key high-level questions succinctly. Would it be possible to restructure the first 4 sections in the Table of Contents so that their contents are allocated instead to the 3 criteria (in other words, make the TOC the 3 criteria (re-expressed as questions) plus the existing section 4?
Should there be a section describing the risks of covid-19 in populations with various levels of immunity as the potential "unvaxxed" or "do nothing" condition?
Also, as an aside to all of this. I've recently embarked on a mission to thank the people who have done such great work in service to the truth during the past year and a half. With that in mind I signed up for you substack. Your writing has been informative, well-reasoned and somehow, oddly, comforting. Maybe it's just having confirmation bias that I'm not completely barking mad. I don't know.
But anyway, thank you. This has become one of my favorite places to get information on what is going on out there. Keep up the good work.
P.S. I almost applied to help you when you were hiring, but I don't know that I have the qualifications to really analyze all the papers. However, I read all of your articles anyway, so if you want someone helping proof-read or anything like that, I'd be happy to assist in any way I can on a volunteer basis.
Much appreciated.
If you are interested in joining a growing volunteer research community, email operationupliftteam@gmail.com. We are about to launch a wiki to summarize thousands of pages of sorted and filtered research.
I did too. This is one of the best.
What would I add? Not being rude, but some way to get people to actually read the damn thing. Every time I try to take a tactic of engagement with the vaccination zombies they demonstrate a complete immunity to the facts or any discussion. I have a sea of information locked in my brain but it's only of use to me and the people I'm responsible for. I have been unable to eke a concession out of anybody. I've even seemingly persuaded people they should delay getting the vaccine as long as possible since it's still in trial, only to find out they went out a few days later and got their shot.
There's a wall there that I don't know how to get around, even with my own family. I hope the concerns about ADE, sterilization and vaccine escape variants turn out to be unfounded, or rather a lucky miss, because I'm worried for what comes this winter, and for my family.
How do you unhypnotize people with the Malthusian mind virus trained in the Prussian educational model that beats them into Stockholm submission (if I may coin an alteration to the usual phrase)?
Be calm. Be patient. Be personal.
Ask questions more often than contradicting?
These are things that we can all work on. I lose my cool too often during all this, but am meditating on focused improvements.
Also, my purpose with this substack was partially to arm those like you with LINKS. This helps you send information. If you have taken the Socratic approach, calmly, often somebody will eventually ask YOU questions back. "Why do you believe there are cheap and effective medical alternatives?" Pick your favorite links and say no more.
You. Are. Welcome.
To be honest, I find the simplest, child-conversation questions to be the most effective...
"I'm not afraid of covid, why are you afraid of covid?"
"Nobody's omniscient right, so we both know we're missing pieces of information, right?"
"When you say conspiracy, do you mean corruption?"
"Isn't corruption common and am I not crazy to assume it exists?"
"Why are you afraid of climate change? Has your town been destroyed?"
"Why are you afraid of racists? Do you know many racists?"
etc...
When you speak to people as if they're 4 years old on topics they have reached conclusions on through emotional reasoning, not rational thought, you can get them to avoid the intellectual defenses of their emotional reasoning and just speak plainly about how they feel.
It's painfully slow. But when I tell the smart people around me that I'm not afraid of covid (for instance) I know that I am conditioning them to reconsider their own fear bit by bit.
Many people get the vax not out of fear of covid but just out of wanting not to have to deal with BS or lose their job. They probably figure it's not killing most people so it won't kill me and then I don't have to worry about the inconvenience.
That's true, however mentioning fear puts the conversation where it should be. Fear is what made people accept mandates, so if there's no fear, there should be no mandate.
Thank you. I really appreciate the work you do. The Socratic method is probably the best approach, but I'm still having little success. Perhaps were I more willing to tirelessly quiz people I could get the dam to break. I don't know.
I find instead I've settled into a 'you deserve what's coming' approach, which has, shockingly, not been very effective. When I told my brother I might lose my job he basically said he was sorry while intimating he supported these mass mandates. I told him he deserved what's coming, which he was offended by apparently. He was not persuaded :)
So wise. It is very tempting to "educate" others with the knowledge one has discovered but it usually proves unsuccessful in persuading. Socratic method of asking good questions is the only way. I'm am working on it but find it challenging.
To me, the most devastating proof that the vaccines have nothing to do with health is that they are being recommended for groups that were excluded from the clinical trials: pregnant women, elders with comorbidities and recovered persons. If FDA was an evidence-based health agency, they would have excluded those groups from the distribution program.
I take issue with your description of "most devastating proof" because there are over 17,000 stories that qualify. It's best not to get carried away with...HOLY MOTHER OF GOD THIS IS ALL INSANE!
I was attempting to identify fact patterns for which there is **no** benign interpretation.
I wrote "most devastating proof" because there is no way to dispute that FDA is prescribing vaccines for groups for which is has no evidence. FDA itself disputes that the deaths are caused by the vaccines.
What's also indisputable is that FDA has not published any investigation of those deaths. All it's done is issue a conclusory "it's not the vaccines." An agency that isn't investigating serious adverse events can't possibly have public health as its priority.
:-) Except that, HOLY MOTHER OF GOD THIS IS ALL INSANE! :-)
I fully agree. To me, the most devastating proof that the vaccines have nothing to do with health is that the mainstream media censors all discussion of effective, proven early treatment as well as acceptance of natural immunity. And oh yes, anything posted about vaccine adverse events! This censorship is why IMO our former friends are so brainwashed.
That was a red flag. Another in Canada, early on, was the deviating from the manufacturers' protocols re: time between doses, and then telling people they could mix and match brands. Thank goodness for Dr. Bridle's lecture back in early February, re: ADE and other concerns (the excluded 3000 plus Pfizer subjects that set me searching). As it is, the delay of the 2nd dose might have contributed to fewer AEs in Canada (although, it could also be the reporting system for AEs, requiring doc's reports be vettedthrough medical officers of health).
Understanding this to be your basis: "What is it that we need to understand that would settle a debate between two groups of good faith actors, one of which is under the spell of a propaganda machine while each believes that describes the other?"
So, just a few questions I've thought about:
1. Who are you trying to reach, educate and persuade and how will that settle the debate?
a. Is it us, your readers, who may not necessarily be good faith actors? You can reach us, we don't need to be persuaded, you can educate us with more information and encourage us to be strong and fight the good fight. (This outline will help achieve that.) What difference will it make (probably not much, only to us, in an insular way. We're your echo chamber.)
b. Is it the medical professionals that are not considering both sides of a good faith argument, but acting in their own self interest? Will this outline reach them (we can help disseminate it far and wide), will it educate and persuade them? (Yes, I think so, if they give it fair consideration.) If it is successful, what difference will it make? (They may begin to push back against the mandates and bureaucratic interference.)
c. Is it the governmental and bureaucratic officials that are not necessarily good faith actors but believe they are acting righteously? Will this outline reach them (probably not)? Will it educate or persuade them (probably not?) What difference will it make (probably not much)
d. Is it the general populace? Will this outline reach them (probably not, they don't care, it's too hard)? Will it educate or persuade them (only if they read it or if they are personally impacted)? What difference will it make? (probably not much, but we can only hope)?
I can only suggest considering a mild change in your approach. Since the decision has already been made in most countries about the vaccination program, there really is no debate. You are forced to prove the opposite of their decision. Maybe you should change the focus to demonstrate why that decision is fundamentally flawed (if you conclude that it is) and to document that, based on that irrefutable proof, the future will not be kind to those that continue on in this bad choice. That may go further to persuade medical professionals and bureaucrats, if there is some threat to them. Also, an emphasis on the dangerous and unknown effects on children may be the most effective way to educate and persuade the general populace, especially mothers and parents.
You are taking on a serious task. I admire your courage.
One thing I've found continually perplexing is the absolute failure by folks on the critical side of the narrative to engage the opposition from an orientation toward questions of ethics and world building. The smartest guys in the room, as it were, want to argue data data data. But this, it seems to me, really misses the point of the fight (and anyway, it's clear the propagandists have taken that field with a massive deception campaign). We're on the cusp of a paradigm shift, and there is a clear battle of opposing ideologies at play. One, from my perspective, is very human and the other is hyper-material, collectivist, and machine-like. I long for some superstar level discourse in a very public forum that dives deep into the philosophy that heretofore has underpinned western values and decision making versus whatever you might call the collectivist machine mind (the shadow side of systems thinking and transhumanism?) that is so persistently attempting to supplant the spirit of the west.
It looks very learned. Thank you!
With any medication or medical procedure, these three essential requirements must be objectively and properly satisfied:
1. Safety
2. Effectiveness
3. Necessity
Of course, in practice another requirement is cost!
It seems to be me that we have been battling their lies by focusing on safety and effectiveness, to the exclusion of necessity. However, necessity is easy to prove/disprove without resorting to "data and science, and "studies". The following are my questions that I sent to authorities and "experts" regarding the necessity element. None could rebut.
1. Why would govts need to force people, directly and via proxy, to take something if they can
prove it is safe and effective?
2. If the vax is so important and urgent, how do you explain universities like Brown, Cornell, and
Rutgers allowing religious exemptions? But, in contrast, UNC, Iowa, and Arizona do not
even have the vaccination mandate? [That reminds me of the masking exemptions for
blacks in certain States in USA; and for the public sector employees in DC.]
3. Are you aware that some countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Romania, etc) and some States
in USA don't have compulsory vaccination policies? Are those said jurisdictions care less about
their residents than others who do?
Since no one could answer these three questions, it evidently follows that the vaccines are NOT necessary.
This would indeed be very valuable, but I think we're somewhat naive to think that actual arguments will always be fruitful. This conflict is not chiefly a rational one.
The positions, mainly those affirming the official narrative, have not primarily been assumed for rational reasons. We have a massive propaganda operation which has pushed and pushed on people's sub-rational drives with an incredible intensity.
Many, if not most people, will not actually be able to entertain arguments negating the narrative which has been inculcated, and this is for a number of reasons. Examples:
1. The official narrative has been effectively entrenched as part of most people's worldview. To reject it would entail a costly rearrangement of said worldview and possibly one's own identity. An extreme option which is often the last thing you'll do.
2. The "epistemic cost" of rejecting what is perceived as an almost universal consensus, questioned only by irrational conspiracists or other undesirables, is too steep for most. Authority is the main anchoring of truth in this situation, and almost nobody has any other options than the edifice of spectacular Science and its Experts and the narratives which are attributed thereto in the media. And almost nobody has the basic confidence in their own reason and ability to ascertain truth so as to question what is perceived as a unanimous consensus.
3. This relates to both 1 and 2, but the questioning of a major war-time narrative such as this means you to some extent have to rebel against the system and society you have identified with all of your life. You have to abandon this newly created sense of common purpose and goals, and in a sense betray the normal consensus reality around you. This is extremely difficult.
My biggest issue (other than corrupted data) is why aren't we thinking about this globally?Once you do, you have to acknowledge that mass vaccine was never a reality and that one size can't fit all. The whole "narrative" and agenda then falls apart as lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc weren't and can never be achieved globally.
I have family and friends in other parts of the world and have travelled extensively and so our myopic and insular thinking in the US (and some other western countries) at times seems laughable. They're doing hydroxy shots in Mexico, complete lockdowns for 1 case in parts of AUS & NZ, and eliminating Covid in 3rd world countries with early treatments.
Why do we have multiple times the death rate compared of other countries with our "top notch" healthcare system? Is it just data or incentive/profit driven? Why do we have to live in fear over a virus that is treatable? Why don't our mandates/laws apply to our elected officials (ok, so that's rhetorical, they never do)?
I'll stop, because it's a bit of a rabbit hole and there is more to life.
Good luck.
Completely off topic, but I watched that video clip you posted of Zuckerberg doing take after take of the "Sweet Baby Rays" line (proudly permabanned on Twitter) and I strangely enough did not feel the expected laughter. Instead, surprising myself, I felt a sudden surge of sadness? A pang of sympathy that appeared unbidden and unwelcome. How exhausting must it be to struggle with such normality, to fail to even convey the slightest sense of authenticity after so many tries. He has parents, was raised as a child, has someone he loves? All the money anyone could ever want/need and he lacks something distinctly human. Not the meme android joke, but instead it issomething manufactured and sad, like looking at a mass produced knicknack alone and forgotten in a pile of refuse.
For this man, an immiently powerful, multi-billionaire, (probable sociopath) with whom I share less in common than with 99% of the rest of the worlds population, all I felt was pity.
Matthew,
I'm worried about this:
"The measured benefits to individuals must outweigh the measured risks."
If I understand you correctly, the people I talk to who are vaccine advocates do not recognize this as a first principle. They would have no problem mandating a jab on someone if would benefit their immuno-compromised second cousin in some oblique, but potentially non-zero, way.
Defining a "healthy" person as someone who would not die from covid and "they" as the people you are trying to persuade:
Would they accept killing a healthy person in order to save 100 unhealthy persons? save 10? save 1? save 0.1?
This is very comprehensive. I don’t see much missing. I’m assuming a section on Trust, Policy, and Leadership could include some explorations of the potentials for regulatory capture and implications of financial incentives. I’d also hope the introduction could clearly outline the intended audience. A RBA for the Mass Vaccination Campaign by default speaks more to policy makers, leaders in health care, and a small percentage of individuals with significant agency. These groups can have the most impact, but it’s unlikely an RBA such as this would be accessible to the average person and allow for the personal factoring or awareness of individualized aspects.
Regardless, it’s difficult to understate how valuable and urgent assessments like these are. I find the absence of comparisons enormously frustrating and have been working on building something similar, but in a different context. I get the impression much of this information already exists, it’s simply a matter of parsing and presenting it in a concise, transparent, and effective way. Personally, I want something which addresses how one should determine if they should get vaccinated, versus a policy-focused approach. For the sake of a broad comparison, the outline for my current assessment looks similar to yours. I see the most relevant factors as:
1. Odds of exposure and infection
2. Odds of negative outcomes
3. Vaccine efficacy
4. Vaccine risks
5. Natural immunity
6. Moral obligation
7. Alternate forms of prophylaxis
8. Barriers to understanding
And the most relevant unknowns as:
• Risks of Long-COVID
• Odds of reinfection
• Risks of emerging variants
• Risks of an endemic
• Long-term risks of vaccines
• Incentives and potentials for regulatory capture
Why current risk-benefit assessments are deficient.
I think this exact analysis is on the right track, but needs to go all the way. Specifically, as you said in your other piece the 750k deaths is not right. It may be at best a noble lie to try to encourage caution amongst the population, but it's an inappropriate input to a risk/benefit calculation because it isn't real. I'm not so sure about 6% mind you either, but if vaers reactions are 5x underreported you can see how the cost/benefit of the vax quickly evaporates. Most people ignore this and resort to an authoritarian or 'everyone is doing it' or 'it's not a global conspiracy!' sort of argument. To which I respond the difference between group think and conspiracy is nuanced and at each level of the narrative there are specific interests at play that protect the malformed propositions -750k deaths - 0 deaths from covid vaccines etc. Does anyone really believe there were zero deaths caused from vaccines at this point? With the blood clots and all? I've seen recent media articles or 'Science Based Medicine' (perhaps it should be called 'The Science' based medicine) posts with it recently. Unfortunately I think the thing to do right now is just hold tight and wait for the truth to come out.
Mathew: I really like the three Criteria, as they seem to capture the key high-level questions succinctly. Would it be possible to restructure the first 4 sections in the Table of Contents so that their contents are allocated instead to the 3 criteria (in other words, make the TOC the 3 criteria (re-expressed as questions) plus the existing section 4?
Essentially they are.
I. Overview explanation connecting criteria to other sections.
II. Criterion
III. Criterion
IV. Criterion
V. Further Discussion
I meant "plus the existing section 5"
Should there be a section describing the risks of covid-19 in populations with various levels of immunity as the potential "unvaxxed" or "do nothing" condition?
Embedded in II.
I would add the risk of a Marek effect
I think that will be in the "known unknowns" section.
Correct.
Most known unknowns and a discussion of unknown unknowns fall into IV.