A recent exchange on FB with an old friend exemplifies just how deep the divide is. Author Dick Russell offers some insights into why Kennedy is the most vilified person in America.
I am a retired physician pediatrician and allergist. During the last half of my career I began to see indications of big pharmaceutical companies manipulating the public.
During the “pandemic” my eyes were opened wide and I became a subscriber of Dr. Malone and The Midwestern Doctor. I have been appalled at the incredible corruption of medical and pharmaceutical industry. We have all been lied to for many decades. Many good treatments were not available because of lack of profit. Life saving medicines blocked because again lack of profit.
Hmm. Your friend's account starts out measured and plausible but quickly seems to devolve into a work of fiction and trite cliched fiction at that. Having watched the videos of the same thing, no I would not describe Kennedy as mumbling, or white as a ghost, or any of these things. There was certainly confusion and perplexity at times, but not shock and fear. Would he be nervous? of course? Is it uncomfortable to be vilified and screamed at and barraged with hostile accusations when you are not able to adequately explain the context of your position? of course. But also he is a lawyer, politically saavy, under constant oppositon, and and has explained all these things many times for the most part. I think he did a good job of remaining calm and composed and unemotional compared to the displays of fury and illogical thinking by some Senators. Ypur friend didn't mention the almost tearful tremor in Warren's voice during her part.
How would you honestly answer do you support these onesies? It takes some thinking because what does that really mean? Do you support bananas? Do you support people who don't like bananas? Are bananas the only protection against starvation? I would answer, having no reason to be polite and ingratiating: Babies cant actually express their opinions on this matter, senator, but I support informed consent and freedom of medical choice and I think insisting one should be afraid of being unvaccinated is ridiculous. Humans lived for 99.999 percent of their history so far without vaccinations. And yet, here you are, a product of their genetic fitness and Godly design. Should they have been terribly afraid? Get outta here with your germaphobic cult mindset. The only reason products like this exist is because of the fear driven bias of people like you, the politicization of vaccination, the surpression of information and of the freedom of choice.
As for conspiracies and unorthdox thinking, plenty of things are so obviously true that it certainly brings everything into question and discredits those who brush it all off. Covid Lab leak theory. hghly likely true. Lyme disease bioweapon, likely true and not some kinda gotcha even if unproven, just a plausible unproven theory. Autism caused by vaccination. It obviously triggers regression in tens of thousands of reports of immediate regression, not coincidental around age 2 , but immediate same day illness followed by regression. Deaths and terrible side effects from covid vaccine. Obviously true even in trial participants. Local and non-local energy medicine is real. Obviously true to anyone who has recieved it. Herbal and supplemental medicine works for many illness and diseases and does so with less side effects than phrama which views it as competition and unprofitable, obviously true. You don't need to think pharma wants people dead and suffering to see the perverse incentives of their business model which at best doesn't care about other solutions and at worse seeks to destroy them. It's not a health solutions business. It's a tiny sliver of possibility that has accumulated vast wealth and power and institutional backing through legitimate and shady means.
If even half of what RFK jr says is true, that's still a lot. That's still good enough for me. Enough to change the world for the better.
Dear Dr. Madhava, you have far more patience for such archly deluded people than I do, but I recognize what you're pointing out in this post. Every word your friend said could have been said by any of my many (mainly ex-) friends, and many of my relatives besides. (But they haven't said anything to me because I'm deliberately avoiding them— waiting for the storm to pass.)
When all this madness began in 2020 I never imagined so many people would end up like this— jabbed multiple times, many of them very sick now, and insisting it's all good and that the people who are genuinely trying to help them are bad actors. For such a long time now I feel as if I've stepped into Ionescu's Rhinoceros meets Groundhog Day. Thanks for reminding me that there are some sane people out there.
In answer to your question, can we ever heal the divide? I think that eventually time will take care of it. I really do not think all the people who took so many jabs will still be with us in another 5 years. And then we who are left, as humans do, will divide in other ways. But each person, each relationship, may have a unique experience. I try to stay open-minded. But at the same time, self-protective. I can only take so much of the madness.
Anyone that is knowledgeable about Lyme Disease and is of aware of its history knows that the scientists from World War II that were supposed to be our enemies were installed in Plum Island across from Lyme, Connecticut. Long Island got 'Montauk Knee.' No more needs to be said. Our government has lied about so much. RFK Jr knows this.
What’s extraordinary to me is that these people now seem to be taught to project their own psychological condition onto others. If you support the MAHA movement, you’re a member of a cult. Never mind that they were the ones who kept the shrouds over their faces like religious brides of the Church of The Science. Never mind that they were the ones who were driven by a kind of delirious belief to take the sacraments—the shots and boosters—from Fauci and other high priests.
Now, when I confront friends with their undeniably false beliefs—the ones they used as a cudgel to beat me with for more than three years—I’m met with a kind of sociopathic gaslighting. It’s as if they’ve been trained not to acknowledge they were fooled, to slide away from any substantive conversation about it.
For example, when I bring up their own words, texts, and emails from the height of COVID, I say:
"Remember in December 2020 when I told you there was no way I was going to get those shots because they hadn’t been tested long enough to know they were safe? You balked and said, emphatically, they were SAFE and EFFECTIVE. And remember when I told you in late May or June 2021 that the shots didn’t stop infection or spread? You called that a conspiracy theory and said I was misinformed, selfish, and 'dangerous.' Remember when I asked if you thought I should be forced to take an experimental shot, and you looked me in the eye and said, "For the greater good—yes?"
When I confront people now with their own words, they usually don’t respond except to say, “That’s what the science said at the time.” And I say, “But I was sending you data that told you otherwise!”
Invariably, they all turn into Gilda Radner and, in so many words, resort to: “NEVER MIND.”
At least you are able to discuss your diverging opinions civilly. That's a step up from most facebook conversations.
Yes, we can and will heal the divide. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
Senator Warren asked “So you’ll be suing the same companies you’re supposed to regulate?”
I'd seen the clip, but didn't grasp the miscommunication going on until I read it here. Warren is trying to point out that he may personally profit from those lawsuits. That may be an issue with that particular entanglement, but I think he was responding as appropriate for the position. There is no conflict of interest about suing the companies you are tasked with regulation. That's one avenue for enforcement.
I would never expect a secretary of the president's cabinet to state that no agency under them could sue the companies they are regulating. The appropriate regulatory agency needs to be able to file lawsuits when companies are not following regulations or have not been honest about their products with regard to safety and effectiveness.
Warren was talking about the lawsuit against Merck and the Gardisal vaccine that used to be the worst vaccine on the market and replaced by the Rona vaccines. I think Kennedy’s CDF is the one who is trying it.
Your friend is wildly full of himself. His account is bizarre. It’s the old people still parroting the 1990s narrative that sound ridiculous. People still say “conspiracy theorist?” Haven’t they proven us right? I wish Kennedy had pushed back more. He’s actually too gentle with their fragile psyches.
I've followed your heroic efforts to heal the divide by speaking to the followers of an epidemiologist influencer who spews evidence-free propaganda. You deserve some serious bows for doing what few have the neutrality and patience to do - please know your efforts are seen and honored!
I'm grateful for your work, and for that of so many who are finally being heard. I was aware of the vaccine issues back in the late 90s when my kids were little, and it's like a miracle to see the truth finally breaking through the barrier of suppression and narrative control. With so many dedicated truth-tellers, we are destined to overturn this travesty of lies.
I've curated more than 500 references so that researchers and truth-tellers can access organized resources:
Yes, there is far more behind “his education is indoctrination”. Education is not wisdom. It is information. Wisdom is intuition. Intuition that intakes a perspective far beyond learned knowledge. His perspectives are petty, surface level, naive and tribal. His savvy in verbally communicating an argument is not descriptive of his ability to comprehend.
" ... if Kennedy ... releases the massive amounts of information the CDC has compiled ... so that it can be mined for trends that implicate vaccines ... as the cause of a chronic disease epidemic in this country, half the country won’t believe the results."
That's indeed the conundrum. Christopher Shaw, in his 2021 book, "Dispatches from the Vaccine Wars," wrote on p. 114::
"An outcome [of a Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed study] that implicated vaccines ... would face enormous push back from the mainstream medical community [& Big Pharma & mainstream media]... those who are skeptical of vaccines ... would not likely accept a result that said that vaccines don't produce harms ... For these reasons, the choice of who would do such a study and how would be crucial, and both sides would have to agree, in advance, that they would accept the outcome ... is this likely? ... My guess is that the groups would not accept anything but a zero-sum outcome in the vaccine wars ... not ready to see either side concede defeat or even compromise."
For example, during the closing of the 1/30/25 Senate HELP hearing, Senator Cassidy said he " looked at the [Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed] article from Dr. Mawson and it seems to be—have some issues"
Senator Cassidy also said, "I have approached it [vaccine safety issue] using the preponderance of evidence [e.g Taylor meta-analysis] discussed on p. 84] to reassure; and you have approached using selected evidence to cast doubt."
But, Shaw wrote (p. 113) ".. the question of whether one should trust the cumulative weight of publications ... on the official medical side versus the fewer articles that are critical. ... you need "to look at the quality of the individual studies, not just their respective numbers."
Shaw did just that with his review of the AAP & CDC list of vaccine studies (including Taylor) on pp. 82 -105. and noted "that most of the cited studies ... have rather serious errors of bias or study design and ... are under powered to detect a signal." In the final analysis, quality, not quantity counts.
I think that the degree of brainwashing that has occurred, from mainstream media, over decades is so profound that many people will be unable accept the idea that they have been completely and utterly misled.
“Why would that be necessary when questioning a man that has committed no crime except for speaking the truth to power? ... allowing him to respond to difficult questions with more than a yes or no?” That’s exactly what I thought. This was not a court hearing where he was a witness, and where a yes or no answer would help elucidate the truth. They weren’t interested in the truth or in public health; their only concern was the protection of corporate interests.
As for your friend’s response, I noted a rather underhanded albeit cleverly sly way of hurling insults and put-downs. What I’ve noted about many like him, including those less credentialed, is that they are severely biased but also very attached to their biases – so much so that letting them go would be like a fragmentation of their identity. If they’re smart, like your friend, they will use their words to counter you. If they’re less articulate, they will either get emotional or not bother to respond.
“ you, like other conspiracy theorists cherry-pick data to support your beliefs.”
The other side to this is that people like your friend will see something that goes against what they believe and refuse to even consider if it has merit. Or they will be told something that has been proven true and still refuse to believe it.
“ Trumps nominees are almost uniformly unqualified toadies…”
Tulsi Gabbard is a highly decorated Lt. Colonel and an ex congresswoman who tried to get the government to stop sh*tting on the constitution and lying the country into war.
Seems like your friend is just regurgitating the things someone from his side told him. So much for trying to find the truth like he says he does.
Funny you should say that as it was exactly what I thought, i.e. his words had a PR-speak tone about them. I wondered if he had access to prepared responses issued by the PR machinery of certain corporations.
Clearly your "follow the money" logic is sound. But your friend can't quite accept it or follow it to its logical conclusion.
Interestingly, he tries to have his cake and eat it too: "Our medical industrial complex has conspired to make too many Americans obese and unhealthy. But the vaccine cynicism has gone wildly too far." He wants credit for being wise to the rackets, while refusing to acknowledge that the rackets could possibly extend to one particular category of medical products.
I think there are a few things at stake with a lot of pro-Establishment types like this:
One, there's a sort of class consciousness, a desire to consider one's self "elite." "I may not be as rich as the Clintons or their donors, but I have all the same "correct" ideas they do."
And even more importantly, "My house in expensive New Jersey may not be any nicer than a Trump voter's house in Tennessee, but I am better than those middle class rubes. Money isn't the only thing that matters. I belive the right things, the things fancy people believe. I belong among the powerful."
Two, there's a narcissism, an insistence that they MATTER. If they fancy themselves "elite" or at least "educated," they can't accept that they are actually disrespected "marks" and tax donkeys for the real elite. They can't accept that the New York Times lies to them, that politicians effectively steal from them, and that Big Pharma plays them for suckers, profiting massively off their naive trust in corporate science.
They can't conceive of themselves as "propagandized" because it threatens their egos. They prefer to imagine that news organizations are devoted to accurately informing them so they can exercise their wise judgment at the voting booth. They fail to recognize that they aren't relevant revenue generators for news organizations, Pharmaceutical companies are. And they fail to consider this because of narcissism. They believe themselves to be important enough for an entire news industry to serve them, for free. (When in fact for-profit news organizations serve their billionaire owners, their corporate advertisers, and their government sources.)
It takes humility to understand your own REAL place in the pecking order. And humility is in shorter supply these days. Secularism, social media, and self-esteem culture have all contributed to more people imagining themselves to be little Gods. But we aren't Gods. We aren't even participants in the way our country is run. We are tax donkeys, consumers of products, and believers of lies. Humbly accepting this makes it easier to see the system for what it is--exploitive.
Your friend sounds very smart and well-spoken, and he's probably not as anxious about his status as some of the useful idiots are. But still, he's very influenced by Establishment beliefs, and he's reluctant to challenge them.
Your friend will probably soften his views on vaccines, slowly but surely. The rabid pro-vaccine stance is a political position and a class status marker, not a scientifically-justified position. (It's not even a deeply held belief by its proponents! 94% of Americans now ignore all CDC recommendations on Covid boosters.) And now that the Democrats are out of power, they don't seem quite so "elite"after all. So aping their nonsensical status-signalling beliefs isn't quite so appealing any more. He'll never directly admit that you were right, but he'll be less adamant in the future that all vaccines are risk-free.
Very well stated. We also must consider that these folks also would have to accept that they were not only wrong, they also made an irreversible choice with their bodies.
The initial reactions from the gallery say it all:
"I am a good parent. I followed the medical advice and had my children vaccinated. Therefore, all vaccines are always good and cannot and may not be questioned ever.
Because if they were, my whole system would crash."
And the response of a politician to that will regardless of pharma bribes always be:
"These parents are the voters. I must make sure they vote for me. Vaccines are sacrosanct for them. If I allow a questioning of any vaccines, they will not vote for me. They cannot.(see Andrew Bridgen's fate in the UK)"
I am a retired physician pediatrician and allergist. During the last half of my career I began to see indications of big pharmaceutical companies manipulating the public.
During the “pandemic” my eyes were opened wide and I became a subscriber of Dr. Malone and The Midwestern Doctor. I have been appalled at the incredible corruption of medical and pharmaceutical industry. We have all been lied to for many decades. Many good treatments were not available because of lack of profit. Life saving medicines blocked because again lack of profit.
I support RFK and His agenda.
Hmm. Your friend's account starts out measured and plausible but quickly seems to devolve into a work of fiction and trite cliched fiction at that. Having watched the videos of the same thing, no I would not describe Kennedy as mumbling, or white as a ghost, or any of these things. There was certainly confusion and perplexity at times, but not shock and fear. Would he be nervous? of course? Is it uncomfortable to be vilified and screamed at and barraged with hostile accusations when you are not able to adequately explain the context of your position? of course. But also he is a lawyer, politically saavy, under constant oppositon, and and has explained all these things many times for the most part. I think he did a good job of remaining calm and composed and unemotional compared to the displays of fury and illogical thinking by some Senators. Ypur friend didn't mention the almost tearful tremor in Warren's voice during her part.
How would you honestly answer do you support these onesies? It takes some thinking because what does that really mean? Do you support bananas? Do you support people who don't like bananas? Are bananas the only protection against starvation? I would answer, having no reason to be polite and ingratiating: Babies cant actually express their opinions on this matter, senator, but I support informed consent and freedom of medical choice and I think insisting one should be afraid of being unvaccinated is ridiculous. Humans lived for 99.999 percent of their history so far without vaccinations. And yet, here you are, a product of their genetic fitness and Godly design. Should they have been terribly afraid? Get outta here with your germaphobic cult mindset. The only reason products like this exist is because of the fear driven bias of people like you, the politicization of vaccination, the surpression of information and of the freedom of choice.
As for conspiracies and unorthdox thinking, plenty of things are so obviously true that it certainly brings everything into question and discredits those who brush it all off. Covid Lab leak theory. hghly likely true. Lyme disease bioweapon, likely true and not some kinda gotcha even if unproven, just a plausible unproven theory. Autism caused by vaccination. It obviously triggers regression in tens of thousands of reports of immediate regression, not coincidental around age 2 , but immediate same day illness followed by regression. Deaths and terrible side effects from covid vaccine. Obviously true even in trial participants. Local and non-local energy medicine is real. Obviously true to anyone who has recieved it. Herbal and supplemental medicine works for many illness and diseases and does so with less side effects than phrama which views it as competition and unprofitable, obviously true. You don't need to think pharma wants people dead and suffering to see the perverse incentives of their business model which at best doesn't care about other solutions and at worse seeks to destroy them. It's not a health solutions business. It's a tiny sliver of possibility that has accumulated vast wealth and power and institutional backing through legitimate and shady means.
If even half of what RFK jr says is true, that's still a lot. That's still good enough for me. Enough to change the world for the better.
Well said.
Improperlh smeared!
Dear Dr. Madhava, you have far more patience for such archly deluded people than I do, but I recognize what you're pointing out in this post. Every word your friend said could have been said by any of my many (mainly ex-) friends, and many of my relatives besides. (But they haven't said anything to me because I'm deliberately avoiding them— waiting for the storm to pass.)
When all this madness began in 2020 I never imagined so many people would end up like this— jabbed multiple times, many of them very sick now, and insisting it's all good and that the people who are genuinely trying to help them are bad actors. For such a long time now I feel as if I've stepped into Ionescu's Rhinoceros meets Groundhog Day. Thanks for reminding me that there are some sane people out there.
In answer to your question, can we ever heal the divide? I think that eventually time will take care of it. I really do not think all the people who took so many jabs will still be with us in another 5 years. And then we who are left, as humans do, will divide in other ways. But each person, each relationship, may have a unique experience. I try to stay open-minded. But at the same time, self-protective. I can only take so much of the madness.
Anyone that is knowledgeable about Lyme Disease and is of aware of its history knows that the scientists from World War II that were supposed to be our enemies were installed in Plum Island across from Lyme, Connecticut. Long Island got 'Montauk Knee.' No more needs to be said. Our government has lied about so much. RFK Jr knows this.
What’s extraordinary to me is that these people now seem to be taught to project their own psychological condition onto others. If you support the MAHA movement, you’re a member of a cult. Never mind that they were the ones who kept the shrouds over their faces like religious brides of the Church of The Science. Never mind that they were the ones who were driven by a kind of delirious belief to take the sacraments—the shots and boosters—from Fauci and other high priests.
Now, when I confront friends with their undeniably false beliefs—the ones they used as a cudgel to beat me with for more than three years—I’m met with a kind of sociopathic gaslighting. It’s as if they’ve been trained not to acknowledge they were fooled, to slide away from any substantive conversation about it.
For example, when I bring up their own words, texts, and emails from the height of COVID, I say:
"Remember in December 2020 when I told you there was no way I was going to get those shots because they hadn’t been tested long enough to know they were safe? You balked and said, emphatically, they were SAFE and EFFECTIVE. And remember when I told you in late May or June 2021 that the shots didn’t stop infection or spread? You called that a conspiracy theory and said I was misinformed, selfish, and 'dangerous.' Remember when I asked if you thought I should be forced to take an experimental shot, and you looked me in the eye and said, "For the greater good—yes?"
When I confront people now with their own words, they usually don’t respond except to say, “That’s what the science said at the time.” And I say, “But I was sending you data that told you otherwise!”
Invariably, they all turn into Gilda Radner and, in so many words, resort to: “NEVER MIND.”
So true!
At least you are able to discuss your diverging opinions civilly. That's a step up from most facebook conversations.
Yes, we can and will heal the divide. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
Senator Warren asked “So you’ll be suing the same companies you’re supposed to regulate?”
I'd seen the clip, but didn't grasp the miscommunication going on until I read it here. Warren is trying to point out that he may personally profit from those lawsuits. That may be an issue with that particular entanglement, but I think he was responding as appropriate for the position. There is no conflict of interest about suing the companies you are tasked with regulation. That's one avenue for enforcement.
I would never expect a secretary of the president's cabinet to state that no agency under them could sue the companies they are regulating. The appropriate regulatory agency needs to be able to file lawsuits when companies are not following regulations or have not been honest about their products with regard to safety and effectiveness.
Warren was talking about the lawsuit against Merck and the Gardisal vaccine that used to be the worst vaccine on the market and replaced by the Rona vaccines. I think Kennedy’s CDF is the one who is trying it.
It will be going to court soon.
Your friend is wildly full of himself. His account is bizarre. It’s the old people still parroting the 1990s narrative that sound ridiculous. People still say “conspiracy theorist?” Haven’t they proven us right? I wish Kennedy had pushed back more. He’s actually too gentle with their fragile psyches.
Heh….
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Kennedy told one of the yapping dogs that many conspiracy theories have come true.
I've followed your heroic efforts to heal the divide by speaking to the followers of an epidemiologist influencer who spews evidence-free propaganda. You deserve some serious bows for doing what few have the neutrality and patience to do - please know your efforts are seen and honored!
I'm grateful for your work, and for that of so many who are finally being heard. I was aware of the vaccine issues back in the late 90s when my kids were little, and it's like a miracle to see the truth finally breaking through the barrier of suppression and narrative control. With so many dedicated truth-tellers, we are destined to overturn this travesty of lies.
I've curated more than 500 references so that researchers and truth-tellers can access organized resources:
https://birdseyeview.xyz/the-corruption-of-vaccines-how-corporations-government-betray-humanity-and-the-need-to-reclaim-our-power/
Substack articles broken out by sub-category:
Vaccines Part 1: Corruption, Concealment, Fraud
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/vaccines-part-1-corruption-concealment
Vaccines Part 2: Evidence & Research
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/vaccines-part-2-evidence-and-research
Vaccines Part 3: Vax Manufacturers Not Held Liable for Products
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/vaccines-part-3-vax-manufacturers
Vaccines Part 4: Reports by Vaccine Type
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/vaccines-part-4-reports-by-vaccine
Vaccines Part 5: Counter-Narratives and The History of Smallpox Vaccination That We Haven't Been Told
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/vaccines-part-5-counter-narratives
Fantastic work!
Yes, there is far more behind “his education is indoctrination”. Education is not wisdom. It is information. Wisdom is intuition. Intuition that intakes a perspective far beyond learned knowledge. His perspectives are petty, surface level, naive and tribal. His savvy in verbally communicating an argument is not descriptive of his ability to comprehend.
" ... if Kennedy ... releases the massive amounts of information the CDC has compiled ... so that it can be mined for trends that implicate vaccines ... as the cause of a chronic disease epidemic in this country, half the country won’t believe the results."
That's indeed the conundrum. Christopher Shaw, in his 2021 book, "Dispatches from the Vaccine Wars," wrote on p. 114::
"An outcome [of a Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed study] that implicated vaccines ... would face enormous push back from the mainstream medical community [& Big Pharma & mainstream media]... those who are skeptical of vaccines ... would not likely accept a result that said that vaccines don't produce harms ... For these reasons, the choice of who would do such a study and how would be crucial, and both sides would have to agree, in advance, that they would accept the outcome ... is this likely? ... My guess is that the groups would not accept anything but a zero-sum outcome in the vaccine wars ... not ready to see either side concede defeat or even compromise."
For example, during the closing of the 1/30/25 Senate HELP hearing, Senator Cassidy said he " looked at the [Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed] article from Dr. Mawson and it seems to be—have some issues"
Senator Cassidy also said, "I have approached it [vaccine safety issue] using the preponderance of evidence [e.g Taylor meta-analysis] discussed on p. 84] to reassure; and you have approached using selected evidence to cast doubt."
But, Shaw wrote (p. 113) ".. the question of whether one should trust the cumulative weight of publications ... on the official medical side versus the fewer articles that are critical. ... you need "to look at the quality of the individual studies, not just their respective numbers."
Shaw did just that with his review of the AAP & CDC list of vaccine studies (including Taylor) on pp. 82 -105. and noted "that most of the cited studies ... have rather serious errors of bias or study design and ... are under powered to detect a signal." In the final analysis, quality, not quantity counts.
I think that the degree of brainwashing that has occurred, from mainstream media, over decades is so profound that many people will be unable accept the idea that they have been completely and utterly misled.
Agreed. I see this in my own family
“Why would that be necessary when questioning a man that has committed no crime except for speaking the truth to power? ... allowing him to respond to difficult questions with more than a yes or no?” That’s exactly what I thought. This was not a court hearing where he was a witness, and where a yes or no answer would help elucidate the truth. They weren’t interested in the truth or in public health; their only concern was the protection of corporate interests.
As for your friend’s response, I noted a rather underhanded albeit cleverly sly way of hurling insults and put-downs. What I’ve noted about many like him, including those less credentialed, is that they are severely biased but also very attached to their biases – so much so that letting them go would be like a fragmentation of their identity. If they’re smart, like your friend, they will use their words to counter you. If they’re less articulate, they will either get emotional or not bother to respond.
There are two sides to every coin.
“ you, like other conspiracy theorists cherry-pick data to support your beliefs.”
The other side to this is that people like your friend will see something that goes against what they believe and refuse to even consider if it has merit. Or they will be told something that has been proven true and still refuse to believe it.
People shouldn’t live in glass houses.
Wow….
“ Trumps nominees are almost uniformly unqualified toadies…”
Tulsi Gabbard is a highly decorated Lt. Colonel and an ex congresswoman who tried to get the government to stop sh*tting on the constitution and lying the country into war.
Seems like your friend is just regurgitating the things someone from his side told him. So much for trying to find the truth like he says he does.
Funny you should say that as it was exactly what I thought, i.e. his words had a PR-speak tone about them. I wondered if he had access to prepared responses issued by the PR machinery of certain corporations.
Clearly your "follow the money" logic is sound. But your friend can't quite accept it or follow it to its logical conclusion.
Interestingly, he tries to have his cake and eat it too: "Our medical industrial complex has conspired to make too many Americans obese and unhealthy. But the vaccine cynicism has gone wildly too far." He wants credit for being wise to the rackets, while refusing to acknowledge that the rackets could possibly extend to one particular category of medical products.
I think there are a few things at stake with a lot of pro-Establishment types like this:
One, there's a sort of class consciousness, a desire to consider one's self "elite." "I may not be as rich as the Clintons or their donors, but I have all the same "correct" ideas they do."
And even more importantly, "My house in expensive New Jersey may not be any nicer than a Trump voter's house in Tennessee, but I am better than those middle class rubes. Money isn't the only thing that matters. I belive the right things, the things fancy people believe. I belong among the powerful."
Two, there's a narcissism, an insistence that they MATTER. If they fancy themselves "elite" or at least "educated," they can't accept that they are actually disrespected "marks" and tax donkeys for the real elite. They can't accept that the New York Times lies to them, that politicians effectively steal from them, and that Big Pharma plays them for suckers, profiting massively off their naive trust in corporate science.
They can't conceive of themselves as "propagandized" because it threatens their egos. They prefer to imagine that news organizations are devoted to accurately informing them so they can exercise their wise judgment at the voting booth. They fail to recognize that they aren't relevant revenue generators for news organizations, Pharmaceutical companies are. And they fail to consider this because of narcissism. They believe themselves to be important enough for an entire news industry to serve them, for free. (When in fact for-profit news organizations serve their billionaire owners, their corporate advertisers, and their government sources.)
It takes humility to understand your own REAL place in the pecking order. And humility is in shorter supply these days. Secularism, social media, and self-esteem culture have all contributed to more people imagining themselves to be little Gods. But we aren't Gods. We aren't even participants in the way our country is run. We are tax donkeys, consumers of products, and believers of lies. Humbly accepting this makes it easier to see the system for what it is--exploitive.
Your friend sounds very smart and well-spoken, and he's probably not as anxious about his status as some of the useful idiots are. But still, he's very influenced by Establishment beliefs, and he's reluctant to challenge them.
Your friend will probably soften his views on vaccines, slowly but surely. The rabid pro-vaccine stance is a political position and a class status marker, not a scientifically-justified position. (It's not even a deeply held belief by its proponents! 94% of Americans now ignore all CDC recommendations on Covid boosters.) And now that the Democrats are out of power, they don't seem quite so "elite"after all. So aping their nonsensical status-signalling beliefs isn't quite so appealing any more. He'll never directly admit that you were right, but he'll be less adamant in the future that all vaccines are risk-free.
Very well stated. We also must consider that these folks also would have to accept that they were not only wrong, they also made an irreversible choice with their bodies.
In a sick society look to those who are most reviled.
The initial reactions from the gallery say it all:
"I am a good parent. I followed the medical advice and had my children vaccinated. Therefore, all vaccines are always good and cannot and may not be questioned ever.
Because if they were, my whole system would crash."
And the response of a politician to that will regardless of pharma bribes always be:
"These parents are the voters. I must make sure they vote for me. Vaccines are sacrosanct for them. If I allow a questioning of any vaccines, they will not vote for me. They cannot.(see Andrew Bridgen's fate in the UK)"