Make It Difficult for People in Their Lives and They Get Vaccinated

During a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing Monday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) questioned Dr. Fauci on a statement on vaccine requirements he made during a recorded interview.

Video Source

“It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.” Official Quote by Anthony Stephen Fauci

Note: When Fauci says proven, he is clearly referring to the science behind psychological manipulating the public. He says he is a man of science, so people should hold him to that.

Just a few years ago Fauci was crowning himself as the "King of Science". This includes the famous quote where he stated that if you disagree with him, you are disagreeing with science.

It might be your first time hearing these shocking comments by Fauci, but this is him behind the mask.

So what does it mean for Australia?

Undoubtedly these same types of scientific types of people that rise to the top of bureaucratic government positions all over the world. I suspect that this is because most people they grow up in school and they think science is easy. Students just repeat what is in the textbook and they score high marks because they can regurgitate facts and memorise a formula. By the way if you didn't realise, that is not real science and just shows how poorly structured the current educational system is as it emphasises the regurgitation of facts.

People forget the Therapeutic Goods Administration is not an independent organisation. There is nothing special about the people inside that organisation, maybe they learned a few extra years of some topic at university and I hope they at least are at a standard to which they have written a thesis which is basically a long essay on a specialised topic. Some thesis papers are absolutely garbage in my opinion. But most importantly it reveals that these types of people are just ordinary people. They are just government workers to be more specific. They know very little and more critically they especially know nothing about a new pandemic. They know nothing more than the average citizen. Governments should not be given the right to control how people behave in a pandemic.

The problem is this lack of knowledge is not just constrained to scientists, but humans in general. I have met many barristers and solicitors, even former judges. Believe it or not sometimes cannot even recall the facts of a case I mention or recall key legislation in their field of expertise after a bit of uhm and ahing. If you told me if I remembered some facts of an obscure case I would probably tell you, "I am not sure myself, I believe it was something involving some type of snail-like object in the bottle, but I would not commit myself to that". However, you will often notice that because of the immunity granted to bureaucrats that they will not be frank and honest with you about what they don't know. This is why you cannot trust the government.

This is why it is my opinion that the public should focus on replacing government with uncensored artificial intelligence. People should not be scared of it. This is the reality that faces us and I don't see why the public puts so much emphasis on the government to protect its citizens when it is basically not well equipped to do any such thing. For example, the government cannot represent the people properly because the number of representatives does not account for the growth in the population. Even if representation somehow worked at the time when the Constitution was written, it clearly no longer functions as it was intended to. Has the number of senators and representatives increased by 7x in line with population growth? No it has not, representation has gone backwards to a tune of 7x. Even if you believed the government worked for the good of the people, you cannot deny that the representation has been watered down so much. I am not saying that would fix the issues immediately as there are core problems with the existence of government.

If it were a real pandemic then everyone would be clamouring to get vaccinated (provided that vaccine worked and did not have an even higher death rate than the disease it was preventing) and those foolish people who remain unvaccinated, pardon my words, will be left to rely on their natural immunity. I am sure many of the people within the anti-vax movement understand this core principle.

Bill Gates is a kind of famous oracle and he states that another type of pandemic will happen again. Time and time again his predictions/wisdom ironically seems to come true. Apparently the cusp of another Bird Flu Pandemic is here.

Ask yourself: Are you going to make the same choices next time?

Would you honestly take another experimental bird flu vaccine?

Comments

    • That wouldn't be hard to believe IF you understood the science associated with viruses (especially) and vaccines, and bothered to do some basic reading about how human bodies fight pathogens - and sometimes itself. While you were gazing longingly into your mirror or possibly re-arranging your navel fluff collection medicine has been developing wonderful new things like anti-virals and targeted seasonal flu shots, for example.

      As a general observation, every human on earth can benefit from ongiong upgrades, and most do. Those upgrades can come in many forms - sustenance, exercise, relaxation, opening your mind, learning to get perspective and at least a semblance of balance. As the saying goes, with knowledge and experience comes wisdom. Obviously that wisdom varies hugely, as even a cursory perusal of comments here show only too well.

      • That wouldn't be hard to believe IF you understood the science associated with viruses (especially) and vaccines,

        "Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate." F. Loeffler 1898 Principles of Virology 4th edition Flint, Skalka et al. 2015.

        Yeah champ, IF people actually knew the history of virology, & had the basic intelligence to revisit or at least question the basic ASSUMPTIONS underpinning the field, then we would probably be, as a society, in a far better place.

        • -1

          Sure champ. Your understanding of virology is no doubt commensturate with your knowledge of the history of medicine and vaccines. When you grow up you might learn about perspective and balance but as I'm sure I've said already you'll need to drop the arrogance and learn to open your mind first.

          • @Igaf: How can anyone have "perspective & balance" without knowledge of both sides?

            https://romanbystrianyk.substack.com/p/three-medical-maveric…

            "Dr. Charles Creighton, a distinguished professor at the esteemed University of Cambridge, is widely recognized as the pioneer of British epidemiology…….In around 1884, Dr. Creighton was invited to author an article on vaccination for the 9th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Rather than settling for ordinary stock statements, he extensively explored pro- and anti-vaccination literature from various countries. Initially aligning with the prevailing views on vaccination, as did most medical professionals of his time, Dr. Creighton’s rigorous investigation gradually led him to diverge from the conventional wisdom held by his peers."

            "Things have now come to such a pass that anyone who undertakes to answer for Jenner and his theories, must shatter his own reputation for scientific and historical knowledge. Most of those who have a reputation to lose decline the challenge."

            "The public at large cannot believe that a great profession should have been so perseveringly in the wrong. The present attitude of the public may be said to illustrate the truth of a maxim of Carlyle’s: “That no error is fully confuted [refuted] till we have seen not only that it is an error, but how it became one.” The task which I set before me when I began this book was to explain to myself how the medical profession in various countries could have come to fall under the enchantment of an illusion. I believe that they were misled most of all by the name of “smallpox of the cow,” under which the new protective was first brought to their notice. For that grand initial error, blameworthy in its inception, and still more so in the furtive manner of its publication, the sole responsibility rests with Jenner. The profession as a whole has been committed before now to erroneous doctrines and injurious practices, which have been upheld by its solid authority for generations."

            Dude, if you ever "open your mind", you'll realise you're on the wrong side.

            • -1

              @mrdean: Both sides of what? Modern medical science has always acknowledged the deficiencies of medicines and medical knowledge, that human bodies can have hugely varying reactions to medications, that there are very rarely if ever universally safe medications, that drugs are a panacea.

              What exactly are you implying by that post Dude? That opinions never vary from within medical circles? That we knew everything there is to discover about the natural world a century ago? That there aren't charlatans in modern medical science - despite the fact that you've quoted plenty already, ironically while ignoring their obvious drivers.

              He's a stark pointer to your problem. You apparently have no problem accepting - without any qualms or even moderate skepticism - anything, even obviously tainted opinion (and that's all it is in most cases), which fits your extreme and hyperventilated views. You place your trust (note that word well) in anything which suits your blinkered narrative while totally dismissing anything which doesn't.

              I'm repeating myself but it's necessary in your case because in your own mind you actually believe that you're a paragon of reason and impartiality. Fanaticism - be it medical, political, religious, environmental…. - is by nature blinding, debilitating and dangerous. It leads to irrationality and a disconnect from reality. It is very distant from reasoned skepticism and acceptance of human imperfection, foible and failure. Fanaticism leads to puerile notions - very evident among anti-vaxxers - that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

              • +2

                @Igaf:

                Fanaticism - be it medical, political, religious, environmental…. - is by nature blinding and debilitating.

                That's exactly what "safe & effective" is, bro. They are the "charlatans", & they rely on people with your education & worldview to protect them.

                I'm pointing out resources for people to educate themselves. I encourage people to read textbooks like Principles of Virology, or Plotkin's Vaccines, & then read the other side of the argument, the "both sides of what" as you derisively say. Clearly you've only settled on one "side", the side you've assumed is right, without bothering to think critically about any of it, just automatically jumping to its defense.

                You really think that modern medical science has acknowledged the deficiencies of medicines?
                https://historyofvaccines.org/history/vaccine-timeline/overv…
                Yeah buddy, a couple of sentences admitting to "contamination" & "allergic reactions" to anti-toxin/toxoid vaccines, & that's that. No mention of harms or deaths or sickness from inoculation or injecting.

                Here's just one example of many of the reality:
                https://romanbystrianyk.substack.com/p/deadly-vaccination

                "Of these dogmas I believe the practice known as vaccination to be the most absurd and the most pernicious. I do not believe that a single person has ever been protected from smallpox by it, while I know that many serious bodily evils and even deaths have resulted from its employment. The whole theory is founded upon assumption, contrary to common sense, and entirely opposed to all known principles of physiology. Every physician of experience has met with numerous cases of cutaneous eruptions, erysipelas, and syphilis, which were directly traceable to vaccination, and if these cases could be collected and presented in one report, they would form a more terrible picture than the worst that has ever been drawn of the horrors of smallpox.
                Professor Robert Alexander Gunn, MD, New York Medical College, New York

                Not exactly something you're gonna see on the WHO site, on any government site, or any of the thousands of pro-vaccine websites shamelessly promoting these poisons anytime soon.

                Get up to speed champ.

                • -1

                  @mrdean: There's an simple reason why you won't read that obviously out of date misinformation on modern medical websites buddy/dude/champ, most notable among them being that credulous fanatics will read them without understanding the obvious context and limitations, and like you, make ludicrous and ignorant conclusions about what they mean in a modern context. The same reason you won't find hysterical and ignorant links between vaccines/illnesses and cause of death without detailed analysis of cause/effect and statistically valid risk assessment. The irony that you'd pick a quote about one of the most successful vaccines in medical history is palpable. Did I mention that fanaticism is blinding?

                  • +2

                    @Igaf:

                    There's an simple reason why you won't read that obviously out of date misinformation on modern medical websites buddy/dude/champ, most notable among them being that credulous fanatics will read them without understanding the obvious context and limitations, and like you, make ludicrous and ignorant conclusions about what they mean in a modern context.

                    But why not oh-so-wise-and-humble-one? It's the perfect opportunity for the authorities to clearly & simply explain the "misinformation". It might even foster some public trust by giving them both sides of the issue, rather than the sanitized public relations propaganda messaging for simpletons they currently use.

                    Ahhhh, but wait, you fall into the "you don't debate cranks because it gives them legitimacy" camp, don't ya?

                    • -1

                      @mrdean: No I'm firmly in the "don't give platforms to extremists and don't waste valuable expert resources constantly rebutting their lies, pseudo-science and disinformation" camp, if such a thing exists. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan says far more needs to be done by public health agencies to vehemently support vaccines but that doesn't suggest to me that he thinks engaging with extremists and giving them even a tiny level of false equivalence is a good messaging strategy.

  • -3

    Do not trust these people & the agencies they work for: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2402379

    Reduce ignorance by understanding what Aaron Siri is saying here: https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/and-like-that-the-claim-vac…

    • -2

      You advising anyone about ignorance is a classic dunning-kruger exemplar should anyone need one.

      • +1

        Says the user still spreading Covid misinformation in 2024……………

        • -1

          For example?

          Unlike you I don't pluck clearly unsupported arrant garbage from my nether regions.

          Having trouble finding data to back up your anti-vax bs? I'm not surprised given your obvious self-imposed searching debilities

          • @Igaf: You are in here promoting medicines that have been barred from use world-wide. Who are you to be making claims about anyone else ?

            • -1

              @infinite: I'll ask again since your intellect seems to be stuck on level 25.

              For example?

              Your puerile misrepresentations are well documented, as is now your blatant and self-serving lying. Can't quite put my finger on why /s but hoist by your own petard seems an apt outcome in yiur case. Lucky for you it's an anonymous forum eh?

Login or Join to leave a comment