Aug 29, 2022·edited Aug 29, 2022Liked by Jessica Rose
There's even a discriminatory bias in the term "unvaccinated", as if humans somehow default to a "vaccinated" state.
We were born this way. It's like the presumption that "conventional" food is grown in the ordinary manner, whereas "organic" is something unusual and vaguely suspect.
Every value virtue signaled by the system screams the exact opposite of what they're about.
The recent trend in unsigned statements matches what has gone on in the military (DMED). This alone should make people more skeptical of those pieces of the system. There are times when being anonymous is reasonable if not necessary. When you're part of a massive power structure, it just looks like cowardice hiding behind tyranny.
The subversive objective of the article is obvious. We have to stop playing their game and just refuse to engage. Their “game” is to capture once-respected institutions through which they disseminate socially destructive information and concepts. Some new “ sociological concepts” are simply assinine and do not merit a serious response no matter how loudly or often they are bleated out by the media and academia. Responding in a scholarly and respectful manner lends credence to the respectability of their assinine ideas, and slowly moves the goalpost in their direction. It’s a suckers game, in my opinion. I simply refuse to engage with such radicals in a serious manner. Color me neaderthal if you wish.
When (most members of) a population have been propagandized into a set of beliefs about a given subject or subjects - not by science but by political expediency or worse - science then would often be in a position to offend a great many people, simply by pursuing honesty and integrity in researching those subjects.
The "preventable harms" are sourced in the original political chicanery, not the ensuing necessary analytics by honest science. In any case, it used to be that "Sticks and stones can break my bones..." and why is the world apparently full of 10-year-olds who never learned the meaning of the next line of that poem? They need to be offended MORE, not less.
"What's the use of being a writer if you can't annoy a great many people?" - Norman Mailer
and
"Convictions [beliefs] are more dantgerous enemies of truth than lies" - Nietzsche
The gall, the cahones of some humans, and yet they prefer to remain nameless. I'd posit that the truly necessary new guidance is no guidance at all- don't lie, cheat, or steal. Instead of spending so much energy trying to tell us we need to accept, on special, undefined occasions not fully informing the public and ramming something down their throats fir their own good.. these fine bipeds should perhaps... yeah, you're right doc! It IS hard to maintain a steel man argument frame of mind 🤣🤣🤣 gods help us everyone, enlighten these poor misguided souls. Amen.
So, does this point toward the inability in the future to study obesity, as there are psychological harms to that? Or studying humans based on race or socioeconomic status? And, are researchers going to be forced to include trans individuals in their studies of, say, ovarian or testicular cancer? Or is this merely semantics (“use the word gender, not sex”)?
Nice analysis Jessica. The focus on avoiding discrimination with respect to LGBTQ+, etc., but not mentioning other forms of discrimination presently causing great harm is revealing. It reminds me of historical arguments surrounding who should get the vote. For centuries after the Reformation the question of which religious groups should be enfranchised was hotly contested. But the issue of whether women should be enfranchised was largely avoided until the twentieth century. Sure, science should respect the rights of all human beings, just as democracies should have universal suffrage. But it’s odd, isn’t it, that one of the most egregious kinds of discrimination currently taking place, namely that against the uninjected, is simply ignored?
Jessica all of the crazy "woke" folk out in the world that know nothing of what normal people think just make this crap up as they go along. The only people that by into this sex and gender myth that it is ever evolving need to see a shrink in my opinion because they have serious problems. The ones that are literally changing the genders of the young need to be in prison and put on death row for killing the next generation of people. They want everyone so badly to believe that bigotry is only defined however they might decide to define it today. It is bazaroworld that I just don't understand. I truly pray I am never that person who says, "oh, I get it!" They want certain groups of people to be discriminated against because they say it's okay. Also, how are scientists supposed to right a paper about 2 groups of people if they can't identify them? How is a scientists doing a study on...off the top of my head mothers inability to have children after a covid jab if you can't specify a woman. Or what about what does the covid jab do to mens sperm and womens egg production if you can't separate them by gender. This is just dumb. You can't possibly do proper studies if you can't specify what groups are being studied. I would think that gendernis important in many things that are studied. However, it's not just gender it's also color. Are they going to come out next and say you can't talk about a persons color in a study? This is not only stupid but I would think it could be dangerous to not understand the societal impact of something if it can't be represented in a coherent manner.
There's even a discriminatory bias in the term "unvaccinated", as if humans somehow default to a "vaccinated" state.
We were born this way. It's like the presumption that "conventional" food is grown in the ordinary manner, whereas "organic" is something unusual and vaguely suspect.
Glad you screenshotted the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "gender" before it gets cancelled.
The woke code of scientific ethics; how delightful.
The old Slashdot website used to show the name of any anonymous commenter as "Anonymous Coward". I think they were on to something 😂
I’m amazed that you were able to make it through the whole piece.
Way too nudge-y for my taste.
Every value virtue signaled by the system screams the exact opposite of what they're about.
The recent trend in unsigned statements matches what has gone on in the military (DMED). This alone should make people more skeptical of those pieces of the system. There are times when being anonymous is reasonable if not necessary. When you're part of a massive power structure, it just looks like cowardice hiding behind tyranny.
The subversive objective of the article is obvious. We have to stop playing their game and just refuse to engage. Their “game” is to capture once-respected institutions through which they disseminate socially destructive information and concepts. Some new “ sociological concepts” are simply assinine and do not merit a serious response no matter how loudly or often they are bleated out by the media and academia. Responding in a scholarly and respectful manner lends credence to the respectability of their assinine ideas, and slowly moves the goalpost in their direction. It’s a suckers game, in my opinion. I simply refuse to engage with such radicals in a serious manner. Color me neaderthal if you wish.
Excellent and up to par!
When (most members of) a population have been propagandized into a set of beliefs about a given subject or subjects - not by science but by political expediency or worse - science then would often be in a position to offend a great many people, simply by pursuing honesty and integrity in researching those subjects.
The "preventable harms" are sourced in the original political chicanery, not the ensuing necessary analytics by honest science. In any case, it used to be that "Sticks and stones can break my bones..." and why is the world apparently full of 10-year-olds who never learned the meaning of the next line of that poem? They need to be offended MORE, not less.
"What's the use of being a writer if you can't annoy a great many people?" - Norman Mailer
and
"Convictions [beliefs] are more dantgerous enemies of truth than lies" - Nietzsche
The gall, the cahones of some humans, and yet they prefer to remain nameless. I'd posit that the truly necessary new guidance is no guidance at all- don't lie, cheat, or steal. Instead of spending so much energy trying to tell us we need to accept, on special, undefined occasions not fully informing the public and ramming something down their throats fir their own good.. these fine bipeds should perhaps... yeah, you're right doc! It IS hard to maintain a steel man argument frame of mind 🤣🤣🤣 gods help us everyone, enlighten these poor misguided souls. Amen.
So, does this point toward the inability in the future to study obesity, as there are psychological harms to that? Or studying humans based on race or socioeconomic status? And, are researchers going to be forced to include trans individuals in their studies of, say, ovarian or testicular cancer? Or is this merely semantics (“use the word gender, not sex”)?
Two statements I LOVE after just a quick scan;
"Yes, science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans, and may I add, all living creatures. Even bacteria."
"I identify as uninjected."
I turned up some interesting computer science-ish "jab" historical data. Pretty scary stuff:
https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2022/08/moderna-ai-helped-create-injectable-mrna.html
Nice analysis Jessica. The focus on avoiding discrimination with respect to LGBTQ+, etc., but not mentioning other forms of discrimination presently causing great harm is revealing. It reminds me of historical arguments surrounding who should get the vote. For centuries after the Reformation the question of which religious groups should be enfranchised was hotly contested. But the issue of whether women should be enfranchised was largely avoided until the twentieth century. Sure, science should respect the rights of all human beings, just as democracies should have universal suffrage. But it’s odd, isn’t it, that one of the most egregious kinds of discrimination currently taking place, namely that against the uninjected, is simply ignored?
Have you seen the new changes in this official report by the UK govt?
PREGNANCY or LACTATING MOTHERS is now an officially recognized CONTRAINDICATION.
Oops what about all those who we given this? Do all the doctors and pharmacists know this? Or are they just going to be thrown under the bus?
See the summary of the updated toxicology report at the end of section 3.4.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
Thank you, Dr. Rose.
Jessica all of the crazy "woke" folk out in the world that know nothing of what normal people think just make this crap up as they go along. The only people that by into this sex and gender myth that it is ever evolving need to see a shrink in my opinion because they have serious problems. The ones that are literally changing the genders of the young need to be in prison and put on death row for killing the next generation of people. They want everyone so badly to believe that bigotry is only defined however they might decide to define it today. It is bazaroworld that I just don't understand. I truly pray I am never that person who says, "oh, I get it!" They want certain groups of people to be discriminated against because they say it's okay. Also, how are scientists supposed to right a paper about 2 groups of people if they can't identify them? How is a scientists doing a study on...off the top of my head mothers inability to have children after a covid jab if you can't specify a woman. Or what about what does the covid jab do to mens sperm and womens egg production if you can't separate them by gender. This is just dumb. You can't possibly do proper studies if you can't specify what groups are being studied. I would think that gendernis important in many things that are studied. However, it's not just gender it's also color. Are they going to come out next and say you can't talk about a persons color in a study? This is not only stupid but I would think it could be dangerous to not understand the societal impact of something if it can't be represented in a coherent manner.