Tweet
That's actually the 'trick.' They have been playing the causation/correlation game. They're claiming that the so-called 'vaccine' was responsible for people NOT getting or, at least, not dying from COVID.
The problem? If you go back through the threads, you'll find a preponderance weren't dying from COVID to begin with. You'll also find threads dealing with the idea that it didn't prevent people from catching COVID; which is why I refer to it as a "so-called 'vaccine'" in that the literally changed the definitions of vaccine and vaccination, removing 'provides immunity' and replacing it with 'immune response,' to 'cover' what was going on. The former used to indicate one was not susceptible. The latter is descriptive of a process which leads to a potential capability. You'll find threads on that too.
They repeatedly declare that our 'objections' aren't valid in that correlation is not synonymous with causation. While that's true enough, they also refuse to look in the mirror. It's never been established that the so-called 'vaccines' caused a 'decline' in hospitalizations and death. It's simply a 'correlation,' something which we've also talked about in relation to how a virus naturally mutates and a disease naturally progresses.
By the same token, those who object to the so-called 'vaccines' or, at least, the mandating of them, can show a correlation with negative consequences, but not necessarily a causation.
Again, the problem? All of this is why a true vaccine took years to achieve 'deployable' status. It didn't all come down to 'paperwork' and a lot of it was tied to 'proper' testing, something which was never done or truly achieved with these so-called 'vaccines.' What we're now hearing about 'consequences' is something which used to be part of the process prior to authorization. Such is why so many claim that the entire World's population became the guinea pigs or test subjects.
That last actually forms the basis of Creeping Incrementalism's argument; i.e., that the process undertaken forced far too many to make a choice they shouldn't have had to make. My reaction has been that while that is true enough, he can't, justifiably or reasonably, blame the entirety of the population for the process being implemented or hold the entirety of the population responsible for its implementation. In point of fact, you can't even hold the entirety of those who supported the machinations 'responsible' for how they were implemented. Not only due to their actual convictions that they were doing the 'right thing,' but because the vast majority weren't consulted.
As you say, there were a great deal of 'debatable' things which occurred, we even had some of those debates on this site, and, objectively speaking, many of those debates have yet to actually reach a properly Scientific resolution.
It's why it shouldn't have been 'mandated' and why many were justified in saying, in essence... "Pays your money, makes your choice, live with the consequences."
The problem? If you go back through the threads, you'll find a preponderance weren't dying from COVID to begin with. You'll also find threads dealing with the idea that it didn't prevent people from catching COVID; which is why I refer to it as a "so-called 'vaccine'" in that the literally changed the definitions of vaccine and vaccination, removing 'provides immunity' and replacing it with 'immune response,' to 'cover' what was going on. The former used to indicate one was not susceptible. The latter is descriptive of a process which leads to a potential capability. You'll find threads on that too.
They repeatedly declare that our 'objections' aren't valid in that correlation is not synonymous with causation. While that's true enough, they also refuse to look in the mirror. It's never been established that the so-called 'vaccines' caused a 'decline' in hospitalizations and death. It's simply a 'correlation,' something which we've also talked about in relation to how a virus naturally mutates and a disease naturally progresses.
By the same token, those who object to the so-called 'vaccines' or, at least, the mandating of them, can show a correlation with negative consequences, but not necessarily a causation.
Again, the problem? All of this is why a true vaccine took years to achieve 'deployable' status. It didn't all come down to 'paperwork' and a lot of it was tied to 'proper' testing, something which was never done or truly achieved with these so-called 'vaccines.' What we're now hearing about 'consequences' is something which used to be part of the process prior to authorization. Such is why so many claim that the entire World's population became the guinea pigs or test subjects.
That last actually forms the basis of Creeping Incrementalism's argument; i.e., that the process undertaken forced far too many to make a choice they shouldn't have had to make. My reaction has been that while that is true enough, he can't, justifiably or reasonably, blame the entirety of the population for the process being implemented or hold the entirety of the population responsible for its implementation. In point of fact, you can't even hold the entirety of those who supported the machinations 'responsible' for how they were implemented. Not only due to their actual convictions that they were doing the 'right thing,' but because the vast majority weren't consulted.
As you say, there were a great deal of 'debatable' things which occurred, we even had some of those debates on this site, and, objectively speaking, many of those debates have yet to actually reach a properly Scientific resolution.
It's why it shouldn't have been 'mandated' and why many were justified in saying, in essence... "Pays your money, makes your choice, live with the consequences."
Comment