I hope Brian will forgive me if I can't devote the amount of time that it would take to thoroughly digest this entire post. But I did see one point that was very well-made, and that I've been completely unaware of up to now. Is this a known Thing, Brian, or original to you?
"Western humans are better protected against the deadliest threats that Earth likes to throw at humans, such as infectious bacteria, diabetes, and cancer. But thanks to this exogenous protection (we have plenty of bacteria, diabetes and cancer, but medicine ameliorates it), Western humans are less protected against weaker threats, such as power-outages, heat waves, or a hypothetical novel coronavirus developed in a lab (and updated afterward). Weak threats cannot find victims in competition with strong threats. By protecting themselves against strong threats, the West accumulates hoards of victims for weak threats...[like] artificially inflated numbers of grandmas."
This was a great Aha! moment, at least for me. I would quibble about a detail of it: the diabetes and cancer are almost completely inflicted by Western lifestyle and environment, and I wouldn't say medicine ameliorates it; rather that it keeps people alive who would've died a lot sooner from these self-inflicted conditions.
Your ultimate point is the same, "the West functions as a more sensitive tool for measuring the appearance of a weak threat" because we've been culturing and accumulating artificially inflated numbers of grandmas.
Mar 17, 2023·edited Mar 17, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
We need to keep in mind what the true question which needs asking is, and what the stakes involved are.
The important question is not: was there or was there not some unavoidable excess death?
It’s: what would have happened had we just carried on responding to whatever “it” was as we always have.
We’ve been sold a lethal deadly pandemic caused by a single agent spreading from a point source, which justifies all sorts of expensive and intrusive institutional infrastructure to “prevent” again in the future.
Did that happen? Or, at worst, did we have a middling bad out of season flu-like outbreak, made dramatically worse through misadventure which took many forms.
If put that way, no dispute of the core claim in Jones' argument remains. Virus has caused excess deaths. So, framing aside, if there is a dispute against "the virus theory" then there is a claim that the virus did not cause excess deaths.
But can we really say x caused excess deaths? An excess death in itself is a mathematical construct. You can only say that more deaths would have happened overall in scenario A than B. The “response” scenario includes lockdowns and all manner of changes to the way people with respiratory infections were treated which we can call “medical misadventure”. How do we know the extent of these?
As a little example of how dystopian everything was (which is also germane to comparisons to 1918) some elderly ill have been heard saying “the doctor gave me antibiotics for my terrible chest because I tested negative for covid”.
Right, and as I acknowledge in this post that argument is convincing at first look. But then we can continue digging, gather all the evidence together, and see if it supports one thing or another. Since nothing about "an agent of some type went around killing people" forbids reactionary exacerbation, reaction-caused deaths do not tell us that nothing was going around killing people.
If 1918 is the comparison, then the exact same thing applies. Finding examples of exacerbated death (the evidence for which is not really convincing, anyway) doesn't mean much when on multiple remote islands (where there was less pre-existing immunity) adults were reported to be virtually wiped out; when India reported millions of deaths; when care records contradicting Pet Mistreatment Theory X still report deaths.
Likewise you could look at the New York City polio disasters of 1908/16. These were almost certainly cases where lumbar puncture killed kids by turning a case of GI symptoms and neck stiffness into full-blown paralysis. The terror summers after 1944 were probably exacerbated by penicillin injections. But you still have evidence of a viral disease causing paralysis before and after those events (wherever diphtheria anti-toxin was used). It is a common theme, that humans seem to come up with cures "worse" than diseases. That doesn't intrinsically describe the disease's share of deaths.
Seems to me the excess deaths were from a mix of factors. Some people did seem to die from a respiratory disease that had additional symptoms not commonly seen before; loss of smell and taste, and the quote sudden dive In blood oxygen levels.
No virus killed anyone three years ago. Natural or synthetic or semi-natural or semi-synthetic.
People were murdered with poisoning, mental abuse and medical malpratice, including lack of attention and administration of killer drugs. The madness of the doctors and nurses was caused by mental illness induced by mass psychosis, designed in high places.
No accidents.
Errors were not made.
This is the greatest crime in history.
It is incredible, but true.
The courts and the police are not doing anything because they have been bought or blackmailed.
We are very much screwed by an alliance of eco-fascio-communists who hate human liberty.
I don't think there is any crime they have not performed already.
It is very bad.
I understand that biologists cannot drop this virus. But they should embrace reality, as bad as it is. Ditto for doctors who still bellieve in covid and sars-virus.
By the way, why we call it covid and not sars? Sars was already a name for a disease. Why did they invent a new acronym?
I resent the c-name as well, and whether intentional or not the name was a big part of what "sold" the pandemic. Hence why I use it sparingly and never in stupid caps, except when referring to the injections in which case both "covid" and "vaccine" are intended to have negative connotations.
People weren't give the killer drugs until they showed up to the hospital the second time, with low blood oxygen. What made that happen.
I have to find a reasonable explanation for that low blood oxygen.
But I remember the comment three years ago (perhaps false?) that some people who were already in the hospital were being intubated and ventilated as a prevention, which require sedation, which affects breathing (but I don't know if it affects O2 concentration.)
Who in his right mind uses aggressive techniques as prevention in a person who is fine or very old or already very ill with other thing? What state of mind causes such a blunder?
Was that "prevention" another exaggeration to make everyone crazy?
FYI this one was also turned down by DS, which we thought was rather odd as all it does is implore people to be open-minded about causes of excess deaths other than “da virus” directly.
Tangentially relevant. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2023/03/17/broken-science-initiative/
I hope Brian will forgive me if I can't devote the amount of time that it would take to thoroughly digest this entire post. But I did see one point that was very well-made, and that I've been completely unaware of up to now. Is this a known Thing, Brian, or original to you?
"Western humans are better protected against the deadliest threats that Earth likes to throw at humans, such as infectious bacteria, diabetes, and cancer. But thanks to this exogenous protection (we have plenty of bacteria, diabetes and cancer, but medicine ameliorates it), Western humans are less protected against weaker threats, such as power-outages, heat waves, or a hypothetical novel coronavirus developed in a lab (and updated afterward). Weak threats cannot find victims in competition with strong threats. By protecting themselves against strong threats, the West accumulates hoards of victims for weak threats...[like] artificially inflated numbers of grandmas."
This was a great Aha! moment, at least for me. I would quibble about a detail of it: the diabetes and cancer are almost completely inflicted by Western lifestyle and environment, and I wouldn't say medicine ameliorates it; rather that it keeps people alive who would've died a lot sooner from these self-inflicted conditions.
Your ultimate point is the same, "the West functions as a more sensitive tool for measuring the appearance of a weak threat" because we've been culturing and accumulating artificially inflated numbers of grandmas.
I like the fact that you pointed out that deaths from disease have been going down for a century or more in the West.
Maybe we should declare the next emergency they are planning on declaring to only be an emergency if it leads to death rates seen historically.
Infectious disease? Because isn't chronic disease going up?
That claim has been made, including in "Turtles all the way down: Vaccine Science and Myth"
It seems there is another thing we can thank the virus for:
Legalized stealing of IP if you are doing it pursuant to a contract with FEDGOV.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/legalizing-stealing
We need to keep in mind what the true question which needs asking is, and what the stakes involved are.
The important question is not: was there or was there not some unavoidable excess death?
It’s: what would have happened had we just carried on responding to whatever “it” was as we always have.
We’ve been sold a lethal deadly pandemic caused by a single agent spreading from a point source, which justifies all sorts of expensive and intrusive institutional infrastructure to “prevent” again in the future.
Did that happen? Or, at worst, did we have a middling bad out of season flu-like outbreak, made dramatically worse through misadventure which took many forms.
Summed up nicely in the conclusion to this:
https://www.hartgroup.org/a-autopsy-on-covid-deaths/
If put that way, no dispute of the core claim in Jones' argument remains. Virus has caused excess deaths. So, framing aside, if there is a dispute against "the virus theory" then there is a claim that the virus did not cause excess deaths.
But can we really say x caused excess deaths? An excess death in itself is a mathematical construct. You can only say that more deaths would have happened overall in scenario A than B. The “response” scenario includes lockdowns and all manner of changes to the way people with respiratory infections were treated which we can call “medical misadventure”. How do we know the extent of these?
As a little example of how dystopian everything was (which is also germane to comparisons to 1918) some elderly ill have been heard saying “the doctor gave me antibiotics for my terrible chest because I tested negative for covid”.
Right, and as I acknowledge in this post that argument is convincing at first look. But then we can continue digging, gather all the evidence together, and see if it supports one thing or another. Since nothing about "an agent of some type went around killing people" forbids reactionary exacerbation, reaction-caused deaths do not tell us that nothing was going around killing people.
If 1918 is the comparison, then the exact same thing applies. Finding examples of exacerbated death (the evidence for which is not really convincing, anyway) doesn't mean much when on multiple remote islands (where there was less pre-existing immunity) adults were reported to be virtually wiped out; when India reported millions of deaths; when care records contradicting Pet Mistreatment Theory X still report deaths.
Likewise you could look at the New York City polio disasters of 1908/16. These were almost certainly cases where lumbar puncture killed kids by turning a case of GI symptoms and neck stiffness into full-blown paralysis. The terror summers after 1944 were probably exacerbated by penicillin injections. But you still have evidence of a viral disease causing paralysis before and after those events (wherever diphtheria anti-toxin was used). It is a common theme, that humans seem to come up with cures "worse" than diseases. That doesn't intrinsically describe the disease's share of deaths.
If not seen, this is another piece simply asking questions, characterised by DS - which would not publish - as "covid denial".
https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-alternative-explanations
Seems to me the excess deaths were from a mix of factors. Some people did seem to die from a respiratory disease that had additional symptoms not commonly seen before; loss of smell and taste, and the quote sudden dive In blood oxygen levels.
Educate yourself. Search "virus exist" in http://bit.ly/research2000
Otherwise, what were 200 scientists working full time on, in Wuhan?:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
I'm about to post the full book on that.
LOL.
No virus killed anyone three years ago. Natural or synthetic or semi-natural or semi-synthetic.
People were murdered with poisoning, mental abuse and medical malpratice, including lack of attention and administration of killer drugs. The madness of the doctors and nurses was caused by mental illness induced by mass psychosis, designed in high places.
No accidents.
Errors were not made.
This is the greatest crime in history.
It is incredible, but true.
The courts and the police are not doing anything because they have been bought or blackmailed.
We are very much screwed by an alliance of eco-fascio-communists who hate human liberty.
I don't think there is any crime they have not performed already.
It is very bad.
I understand that biologists cannot drop this virus. But they should embrace reality, as bad as it is. Ditto for doctors who still bellieve in covid and sars-virus.
By the way, why we call it covid and not sars? Sars was already a name for a disease. Why did they invent a new acronym?
I resent the c-name as well, and whether intentional or not the name was a big part of what "sold" the pandemic. Hence why I use it sparingly and never in stupid caps, except when referring to the injections in which case both "covid" and "vaccine" are intended to have negative connotations.
People weren't give the killer drugs until they showed up to the hospital the second time, with low blood oxygen. What made that happen.
Good point.
I have to find a reasonable explanation for that low blood oxygen.
But I remember the comment three years ago (perhaps false?) that some people who were already in the hospital were being intubated and ventilated as a prevention, which require sedation, which affects breathing (but I don't know if it affects O2 concentration.)
Who in his right mind uses aggressive techniques as prevention in a person who is fine or very old or already very ill with other thing? What state of mind causes such a blunder?
Was that "prevention" another exaggeration to make everyone crazy?
"So I think in this country we'v taken a very liberal approach to mortality."
Dr. Dunce Birx
07 Apr 20
It's appalling that DS won't print Panda's rebuttal. Shame on Toby 'Mr. Free Speech!' Young, and Will.
Presumably would be good for hits to publish the (ironically) skeptical argument. I'm not familiar enough with Daily Skeptic to mindread
FYI this one was also turned down by DS, which we thought was rather odd as all it does is implore people to be open-minded about causes of excess deaths other than “da virus” directly.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/in-defence-of-alternative-explanations