I resonate very deeply with what you wrote. Unfortunately so many are still in denial and will not admit it. I don't know if it's because they are not seeing this info on msm or the admission would spiral a cascade of shame and guilt that would absolutely crush their ego structure and the fear of them having to face their self afflicted possible harm to their health would just be too much. I just don't know. As Mark Twain said "It's easier to fool a man than persuade him he's been fooled". Keep up the good work C-H!
Yes, you understood what I meant by "strong stance". I hear you acknowledging the severe consequences (e.g. increased death, morbidity, job loss, etc.) that arose from those who supported forcing others to undergo a medical experiment against their will. And, therefore, wanting to be direct about these severe consequences. I think I was more speaking to a little more nuanced approach getting to that point. I don't disagree with your sentiment. I also want people to hear it. And maybe with various approaches, people with various dispositions will hear this crucial information.
In regards to the scientific backing of your statements, when you do bring in this other research it starts to really paint a picture. I've read your other posts and for some who might have not read them, they might be out of the loop and reading this one journal article might not be enough to validate your conclusions. In some ways, I wish you added these citations to your article. And I know that you want to make the information not be too much or overwhelming, so people are willing and have the time to read it.
I definitely wouldn't label your article as being abusive. And, yes, the media campaign to get people to vaccinate and ridicule the unvaccinated was appalling, at the least. I could go on and on about this, but we're on the same page and your video does a lot to elucidate how intense the media was around this. With that said, I felt like there was a polarization that happened "the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated". And, I think I try my best to avoid this dynamic by trying to have a more relational way of having conversations about this. Which is definitely hard on the internet. Again, I can see the reason for being outraged and understand how you want to express yourself. I'm just explaining my position. And the truth is, we probably need both of our stances to bridge the divisiveness around this issue and to re-prioritize the socio-cultural ethics and obviously a re-education with pragmatic scientific research that have been imprinted on a big chunk of the population. Also, looking at how fear was used time and time again during the pandemic, which led to where we are right now is crucial. When we are under significant fear, parts of brain become less accessible (e.g. frontal cortex, which is responsible for conscious decision making) and this played and continues to play a huge role in how people maneuver through these times.
That's all very well said. Thanks for taking the time and effort to say it.
"And, I think I try my best to avoid this (polarizing) dynamic by trying to have a more relational way of having conversations about this. "
Once again, I'd say that that's quite laudable of you.
And I do believe your voice is one that should be broadcast to the ethers more. And I do encourage you to put yourself out there more. I believe you have a unique relational way to engage others that could undoubtedly reach way more people than my way does.
It's just not my way. It's not my voice. My voice is more: "Wow, you all just tried your hardest to throw a lot of us off the island, and for all the wrong reasons. Can we get some clarity here? Can we have some accountability here?"
Well said, C-H. My only minor edit would be to change “You knew this since the Nazis” to “We all knew this since the Nazis.” Your discernment about what made the mandates wrong vs tragic is very important.
However, after this sentence in the middle of my post,
" I apologize somewhat for writing much of this to "you". "You" may apply to you. "You" may not apply to you. Take it how you may. "
-- the next three sections were all written to "you".
One of my many mixed feelings I had about this post was that I was slightly turned off by my own use of "you" as well. Truly.
I am convinced that "Guilt, Sin & Blame" are the "Trinity of the Chain" - the chains that hold us in captivity within the Empire of the Mind (as the late John Trudell often said).
And I worried that my use of "you" veered way too far over the edge into blame.
However, I am equally convinced that we need to take Responsibility for our actions. ("response-ability" as Trudell would say)
Telling ourselves the truth is the only way to walk the path of Responsibility without falling over the edge into the lies of Guilt, Sin & Blame.
This post was my attempt to walk that path right on the edge of a large cultural crevasse.
I may have failed. But, for now, I choose to keep the post as written, mixed feelings and all.
I do appreciate you bringing it more to light. It's worthwhile for everyone to reflect upon.
I personally resonate with a lot of what you wrote, but I feel concerned about that the way this is written may make it hard for people who got the "vaccine" to take this in, especially if they held a pretty strong stance.
Another piece I want to bring up is making conclusions based on scientific research. Skimming the study, I think that this piece of research isn't 100% conclusive, however the conclusions you make are, well, pretty conclusive. In order to make conclusive statements, you need more research to support the claims. And with that said, this is something that is clear: That the cultural conversation wasn't allowed to go here and now that we have some evidence to suggest what was being feared, there is more research that needs to be done AND just based on this fact alone, I resonate with your sentiment for a reevaluation to look at the cultural consciousness that allowed (or pushed us?) to the position we are in now. Personally, I think what you are writing has a lot of legitimacy, but how assured you express where we are can easily turn off those with scientific backgrounds, as this isn't conclusive in the scientific world. With that said, neither was the research that promoted these injections as "vaccines".
OK, I'm done rambling for now, but wanted to let you know that I read this and appreciate you in bringing light to these topics. It's super important and I appreciate your deep dedication and care and the amount of time that you pour into this to share with your loved ones. Love you.
Overall, I very much appreciate your commitment to holding and articulating a balanced approach.
“The way this is written may make it hard for people who got the ‘vaccine’ to take this in, especially if they held a pretty strong stance.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “strong stance.” If that means people who supported forcing others to undergo a medical experiment against their will, well then, yes, I agree with you. I also imagine that my writings are hard for them to “take in”.
Perhaps you meant something else by “strong stance”. Let me know if so.
To be clear, I have zero interest in saying, “Excuse me, could you please consider not forcing others to undergo a medical experiment again? I did not feel totally comfortable with that.”
I am, on the other hand, very interested in clearly pointing out that the mandates for novel drugs were an obvious crime against humanity.
I am also very interested in pointing out that there is no longer any scientifically credible excuse to pretend that jab harms did not happen and are not happening – that we now know of at least one biological mechanism potentially behind those harms. And that we clearly should never have ignored, denied, or gas-lit people who were injured by the jabs.
“Another piece I want to bring up is making conclusions based on scientific research.”
I get your point to some degree in that there were two spots in my post where I could have qualified my statements with the words “can” or “may”. And I have gone back and now added one of each of those words to the post.
But my sense is that you to some degree mentally transposed how “assured” I was in my post about the jab mandates being wrong, to how assured I was in communicating the conclusions of the IgG4 article.
But I do feel I need to zoom out and remind us what we’re talking about here. If we lived in a sane world, a novel drug using a completely novel platform (mRNA) would be tested for 10 years before marketing.
Just 2 ½ years into that 10 year period, a peer-reviewed article is published saying there is evidence that this drug creates a never-seen-before immune system imbalance that can lead to autoimmune diseases, myocarditis and cancer. And that this same immune system dysfunction can make the patient more susceptible to the very illness the drug was intended to cure!
It is worth quoting here an entire paragraph from the article’s introduction:
“It is worth noting that there are conflicting pieces of information about the level of protection offered by these vaccines. Although the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States has stated that throughout the pandemic, mortality rates have been higher in the unvaccinated than in the vaccinated [7], the data in the United Kingdom contradict the CDC’s findings. Specifically, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the United Kingdom has reported that from April to mid-November 2021, deaths in unvaccinated people were higher in comparison with vaccinated people who had received a second vaccine dose. However, from the end of November 2021 to December 2022, this situation reverted: deaths were higher in vaccinated people who received a third vaccine dose compared with the unvaccinated [8]. Moreover, a recent work investigated a probable relationship between COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe in 2021 and monthly excess all-cause mortality in 2022; that is, mortality was higher than before the pandemic. All-cause mortality during the first 9 months of 2022 increased more in countries with higher 2021 vaccination uptake, according to analyses of 31 countries estimated by population size; a one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 of 0.105% (95% CI, 0.075–0.134). The relationship remained strong after adjusting for alternative factors [9].” (italics added)
I’m beating my head against a wall trying to clarify how these drugs should never have been mandated.
When, to be honest, there’s an incredible argument that these novel drugs should never have been marketed at all.
I know there is a cultural voice out there that says that:
“Look. These jabs were wildly profitable. One of the most highly capitalized pharmaceutical companies last decade (that somehow had never marketed a product before Covid) was not only saved from bankruptcy but sponsored the US Open and they are now billionaires. So clearly we need a decade of 100% scientifically clear conclusions before we’re aloud to say anything bad about them in public. That the novel drug seemed to offer a tiny bit of short-term protection in a time when people were panicking is all that matters. The fact that in the medium-term, their drug can cause more harm from the illness than it was purporting to cure is not relevant. The fact that their drug can cause cause other illnesses that can ruin people’s lives or kill them is also not relevant. We don’t want to be hasty and jump to conclusions here. Let’s keep following the ‘Science’.”
I totally get that that is not your personal voice. I do wonder, however, whether or not you are somehow trying to balance that voice, so as to make those folks sympathetic to it feel more comfortable in the evolving conversation.
If so, that’s quite laudable of you. However, that is far from my highest priority here.
I am fully aware that my writing on this subject can be rather emotionally discomforting. I do get that. Undoubtedly.
However, I believe there is no way around that. Nor should there be, considering the cultural landscape.
What I am trying my best to avoid is being emotionally abusive.
What would being emotionally abusive look like, one may ask?
Thanks for your thoughts, Honky. I occupied a space where a lot of my friends in the "alternative" world were against it and my blood family that were begging me to take it. Ultimately, out of their concern for me, I reluctantly got vaccinated. It was odd to see how antagonized anyone who didn't want to take the vaccine was and labeled an "anti-vaxxer" and somehow became synonymous with fanaticism, trumpism, fideism, etc. I appreciate your call for more nuance in the future.
Thanks Imran. I honor your respect for and commitment to both your family and your tradition.
There was indeed massive amounts of nuance beneath lots of exaggerations and lies on all sides of the cultural conversation around Covid.
It is good to note how most of that nuance ultimately got steamrolled by mainstream corporate media propaganda and censorship.
When the conversation went from strongly recommending to actually mandating the novel jab, it crossed a line from being a complex conversation overly curated by those with a huge conflict of interest - to being an outright criminal conversation that violated the Nuremberg Code.
Thanks for reading and commenting. And take care Imran.
I resonate very deeply with what you wrote. Unfortunately so many are still in denial and will not admit it. I don't know if it's because they are not seeing this info on msm or the admission would spiral a cascade of shame and guilt that would absolutely crush their ego structure and the fear of them having to face their self afflicted possible harm to their health would just be too much. I just don't know. As Mark Twain said "It's easier to fool a man than persuade him he's been fooled". Keep up the good work C-H!
Yes, you understood what I meant by "strong stance". I hear you acknowledging the severe consequences (e.g. increased death, morbidity, job loss, etc.) that arose from those who supported forcing others to undergo a medical experiment against their will. And, therefore, wanting to be direct about these severe consequences. I think I was more speaking to a little more nuanced approach getting to that point. I don't disagree with your sentiment. I also want people to hear it. And maybe with various approaches, people with various dispositions will hear this crucial information.
In regards to the scientific backing of your statements, when you do bring in this other research it starts to really paint a picture. I've read your other posts and for some who might have not read them, they might be out of the loop and reading this one journal article might not be enough to validate your conclusions. In some ways, I wish you added these citations to your article. And I know that you want to make the information not be too much or overwhelming, so people are willing and have the time to read it.
I definitely wouldn't label your article as being abusive. And, yes, the media campaign to get people to vaccinate and ridicule the unvaccinated was appalling, at the least. I could go on and on about this, but we're on the same page and your video does a lot to elucidate how intense the media was around this. With that said, I felt like there was a polarization that happened "the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated". And, I think I try my best to avoid this dynamic by trying to have a more relational way of having conversations about this. Which is definitely hard on the internet. Again, I can see the reason for being outraged and understand how you want to express yourself. I'm just explaining my position. And the truth is, we probably need both of our stances to bridge the divisiveness around this issue and to re-prioritize the socio-cultural ethics and obviously a re-education with pragmatic scientific research that have been imprinted on a big chunk of the population. Also, looking at how fear was used time and time again during the pandemic, which led to where we are right now is crucial. When we are under significant fear, parts of brain become less accessible (e.g. frontal cortex, which is responsible for conscious decision making) and this played and continues to play a huge role in how people maneuver through these times.
That's all very well said. Thanks for taking the time and effort to say it.
"And, I think I try my best to avoid this (polarizing) dynamic by trying to have a more relational way of having conversations about this. "
Once again, I'd say that that's quite laudable of you.
And I do believe your voice is one that should be broadcast to the ethers more. And I do encourage you to put yourself out there more. I believe you have a unique relational way to engage others that could undoubtedly reach way more people than my way does.
It's just not my way. It's not my voice. My voice is more: "Wow, you all just tried your hardest to throw a lot of us off the island, and for all the wrong reasons. Can we get some clarity here? Can we have some accountability here?"
Thanks for engaging.
You couldn’t work legally in NYC unless you got jabbed. Anywhere. At all.
Thanks for posting info on this study.
Well said, C-H. My only minor edit would be to change “You knew this since the Nazis” to “We all knew this since the Nazis.” Your discernment about what made the mandates wrong vs tragic is very important.
I get your point about your suggested edit.
However, after this sentence in the middle of my post,
" I apologize somewhat for writing much of this to "you". "You" may apply to you. "You" may not apply to you. Take it how you may. "
-- the next three sections were all written to "you".
One of my many mixed feelings I had about this post was that I was slightly turned off by my own use of "you" as well. Truly.
I am convinced that "Guilt, Sin & Blame" are the "Trinity of the Chain" - the chains that hold us in captivity within the Empire of the Mind (as the late John Trudell often said).
And I worried that my use of "you" veered way too far over the edge into blame.
However, I am equally convinced that we need to take Responsibility for our actions. ("response-ability" as Trudell would say)
Telling ourselves the truth is the only way to walk the path of Responsibility without falling over the edge into the lies of Guilt, Sin & Blame.
This post was my attempt to walk that path right on the edge of a large cultural crevasse.
I may have failed. But, for now, I choose to keep the post as written, mixed feelings and all.
I do appreciate you bringing it more to light. It's worthwhile for everyone to reflect upon.
I personally resonate with a lot of what you wrote, but I feel concerned about that the way this is written may make it hard for people who got the "vaccine" to take this in, especially if they held a pretty strong stance.
Another piece I want to bring up is making conclusions based on scientific research. Skimming the study, I think that this piece of research isn't 100% conclusive, however the conclusions you make are, well, pretty conclusive. In order to make conclusive statements, you need more research to support the claims. And with that said, this is something that is clear: That the cultural conversation wasn't allowed to go here and now that we have some evidence to suggest what was being feared, there is more research that needs to be done AND just based on this fact alone, I resonate with your sentiment for a reevaluation to look at the cultural consciousness that allowed (or pushed us?) to the position we are in now. Personally, I think what you are writing has a lot of legitimacy, but how assured you express where we are can easily turn off those with scientific backgrounds, as this isn't conclusive in the scientific world. With that said, neither was the research that promoted these injections as "vaccines".
OK, I'm done rambling for now, but wanted to let you know that I read this and appreciate you in bringing light to these topics. It's super important and I appreciate your deep dedication and care and the amount of time that you pour into this to share with your loved ones. Love you.
Dimitri,
Overall, I very much appreciate your commitment to holding and articulating a balanced approach.
“The way this is written may make it hard for people who got the ‘vaccine’ to take this in, especially if they held a pretty strong stance.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “strong stance.” If that means people who supported forcing others to undergo a medical experiment against their will, well then, yes, I agree with you. I also imagine that my writings are hard for them to “take in”.
Perhaps you meant something else by “strong stance”. Let me know if so.
To be clear, I have zero interest in saying, “Excuse me, could you please consider not forcing others to undergo a medical experiment again? I did not feel totally comfortable with that.”
I am, on the other hand, very interested in clearly pointing out that the mandates for novel drugs were an obvious crime against humanity.
I am also very interested in pointing out that there is no longer any scientifically credible excuse to pretend that jab harms did not happen and are not happening – that we now know of at least one biological mechanism potentially behind those harms. And that we clearly should never have ignored, denied, or gas-lit people who were injured by the jabs.
“Another piece I want to bring up is making conclusions based on scientific research.”
I get your point to some degree in that there were two spots in my post where I could have qualified my statements with the words “can” or “may”. And I have gone back and now added one of each of those words to the post.
But my sense is that you to some degree mentally transposed how “assured” I was in my post about the jab mandates being wrong, to how assured I was in communicating the conclusions of the IgG4 article.
But I do feel I need to zoom out and remind us what we’re talking about here. If we lived in a sane world, a novel drug using a completely novel platform (mRNA) would be tested for 10 years before marketing.
Just 2 ½ years into that 10 year period, a peer-reviewed article is published saying there is evidence that this drug creates a never-seen-before immune system imbalance that can lead to autoimmune diseases, myocarditis and cancer. And that this same immune system dysfunction can make the patient more susceptible to the very illness the drug was intended to cure!
It is worth quoting here an entire paragraph from the article’s introduction:
“It is worth noting that there are conflicting pieces of information about the level of protection offered by these vaccines. Although the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States has stated that throughout the pandemic, mortality rates have been higher in the unvaccinated than in the vaccinated [7], the data in the United Kingdom contradict the CDC’s findings. Specifically, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the United Kingdom has reported that from April to mid-November 2021, deaths in unvaccinated people were higher in comparison with vaccinated people who had received a second vaccine dose. However, from the end of November 2021 to December 2022, this situation reverted: deaths were higher in vaccinated people who received a third vaccine dose compared with the unvaccinated [8]. Moreover, a recent work investigated a probable relationship between COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe in 2021 and monthly excess all-cause mortality in 2022; that is, mortality was higher than before the pandemic. All-cause mortality during the first 9 months of 2022 increased more in countries with higher 2021 vaccination uptake, according to analyses of 31 countries estimated by population size; a one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 of 0.105% (95% CI, 0.075–0.134). The relationship remained strong after adjusting for alternative factors [9].” (italics added)
I’m beating my head against a wall trying to clarify how these drugs should never have been mandated.
When, to be honest, there’s an incredible argument that these novel drugs should never have been marketed at all.
I know there is a cultural voice out there that says that:
“Look. These jabs were wildly profitable. One of the most highly capitalized pharmaceutical companies last decade (that somehow had never marketed a product before Covid) was not only saved from bankruptcy but sponsored the US Open and they are now billionaires. So clearly we need a decade of 100% scientifically clear conclusions before we’re aloud to say anything bad about them in public. That the novel drug seemed to offer a tiny bit of short-term protection in a time when people were panicking is all that matters. The fact that in the medium-term, their drug can cause more harm from the illness than it was purporting to cure is not relevant. The fact that their drug can cause cause other illnesses that can ruin people’s lives or kill them is also not relevant. We don’t want to be hasty and jump to conclusions here. Let’s keep following the ‘Science’.”
I totally get that that is not your personal voice. I do wonder, however, whether or not you are somehow trying to balance that voice, so as to make those folks sympathetic to it feel more comfortable in the evolving conversation.
If so, that’s quite laudable of you. However, that is far from my highest priority here.
I am fully aware that my writing on this subject can be rather emotionally discomforting. I do get that. Undoubtedly.
However, I believe there is no way around that. Nor should there be, considering the cultural landscape.
What I am trying my best to avoid is being emotionally abusive.
What would being emotionally abusive look like, one may ask?
This is one way it can look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3yU5Z2adI
This is certainly worth the 11 ½ minutes of time it takes to watch. And to remember deeply.
Why should anyone care about any of this anymore?
Because we have not seen the end of mandates for novel drugs. We need to get very clear on this now while we still can.
Maybe I am too assured in saying that.
And maybe I am not too assured in saying that.
Thanks for your thoughts, Honky. I occupied a space where a lot of my friends in the "alternative" world were against it and my blood family that were begging me to take it. Ultimately, out of their concern for me, I reluctantly got vaccinated. It was odd to see how antagonized anyone who didn't want to take the vaccine was and labeled an "anti-vaxxer" and somehow became synonymous with fanaticism, trumpism, fideism, etc. I appreciate your call for more nuance in the future.
Thanks Imran. I honor your respect for and commitment to both your family and your tradition.
There was indeed massive amounts of nuance beneath lots of exaggerations and lies on all sides of the cultural conversation around Covid.
It is good to note how most of that nuance ultimately got steamrolled by mainstream corporate media propaganda and censorship.
When the conversation went from strongly recommending to actually mandating the novel jab, it crossed a line from being a complex conversation overly curated by those with a huge conflict of interest - to being an outright criminal conversation that violated the Nuremberg Code.
Thanks for reading and commenting. And take care Imran.