patrick.net

This morning I stumbled over a perfect example for yesterday’s Substack about meeting Covidians halfway. I found yet another goofy Covidian (a healthcare professional) oddly fretting that we anti-vaxxers will somehow blame Covidians for all the excess deaths and injuries not for the vaccines but because of their masking and isolating and trying not to catch covid (granted, the logic is pretty fuzzy):




And then in the replies, I noticed a persuasive comment that could help Covidians connect that final dot to the jabs:




Thanks to Matt for illustrating an effective style of argumentation, and hence persuasion. It worked well because Matt first showed sympathy for the Covidian theory that the virus never goes away and is deadly by conceding that “both are a problem.” Matt’s concession created rapport, which allowed him to gently introduce the possibility that the jabs could also be involved, harmonizing the two positions so they aren’t mutually exclusive.

I said Matt introduced the jabs as a possible cause “gently” because he avoided confrontational language like “it’s obvious, dummy,” or “wake up, the shots kill,” but instead made the minimal truthful argument they are the riskiest approved shots. And then — again, not in a confrontational way — he informatively offered a supporting fact in neutral language (Europe banned shots for healthy young people).

I call this method of argumentation “agree and extend.” It is a good tactic even outside the pandemic context. It’s especially useful for moving people toward your position by degrees. It works when nothing significant is lost by conceding the other person’s initial, erroneous position. That initial concession can then be used as a springboard to the desired point. Because the other person is psychologically primed to agree with whatever you say next — since they just gained an ally and want to keep you on their side — they are more likely to seriously consider your very next argument and are incentivized to make concessions of their own.

Surprisingly, an initial concession may still be available even when the other person’s beliefs seem impossibly wrong, by using tools like limited scope agreement. For example, what if the other person claims the jabs are saving lives? You could still concede a subset of their argument: many lives have been saved, and then add and many people have also been injured or killed by the shots. The trick is avoiding the temptation to directly challenge the error (the jabs haven’t saved anybody!). Also, this technique is obviously unsatisfying if you would have to lie even to make a limited concession.

There are other problems with the defective jabs like they make nonsense proteins, are contaminated with E. coli, and including SV40 promoter genes — but we don’t need those to increase the anti-vaccine coalition. Covidians already believe the virus is causing excess death and disability. If they could be persuaded that the spike protein part of the virus is the culprit, then it’s just one tiny step to the vaccines, which after all is where most of the spike protein comes from.

In other words, if the spike protein is harmful in a reservoir, then it’s also harmful when it comes from a shot, right?

... Covidians are closing in on the truth. They aren’t yet ready to question the jabs, not after arguing so hard for coercing vaccinations, imposing passports, punishing anti-vaxxers, and so forth, but the Covidians are starting to ask around wondering why they are so sick all the time:




This thread included several more recent examples, all of which were fascinating, but for economy I’ll include just a little bit more, to show how very close they are getting to figuring out the truth:




Hmm, a sore right forearm. What else could have happened in that right arm? Anything else that causes soreness? Think about the shoulder area.

This time last year, suggesting there was anything wrong with the jabs would make the Covidians laugh like stoned high schoolers at a Cheech and Chong concert. It’s a game of inches and we are inching closer.

Majority of Americans Worried about COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

PETER MCCULLOUGH, MD
DEC 30, 2023

You are assuming the pro-vaxxers actually took it themselves. Congress and Pfizer employees are exempt, along with many other "important" groups. Also, how many doctors faked their own shots, like that mass scandal in Italy.

@govt_corrupt
People after their first mRNA vaccine - I am a good person. I did it to keep you safe.

People after their second - I don't need to worry about getting sick, spreading it to others or ending up in the hospital like those dirty anti-vaxxers.

People after their 3rd - I tested positive for Covid-19. I will isolate and follow proper public health guidelines. Thankfully I am vaccinated because It could have been so much worse.

People after their 4th - It appears I have Long Covid. This is because the selfish unvaccinated refused to keep me safe.

The experts after the 5th - We are completely baffled. It was so sudden and unexpected.

Hypnosis

Sorry, I cannot get over this — the STATE created a gain-of-function virus that (together with murderous hospital protocols) killed over seven million people worldwide in order to create the trillion dollar market for a useless and deadly vaccine AND THE POLITICAL LEFT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS!???

Bougie Brooklyn Marxisant magazine Jacobin spent the pandemic braying for more totalitarianism.

Manufacturing Consent author Noam Chomsky wanted to starve the unvaccinated.

“Disaster Capitalism” expert Naomi Klein spent the pandemic stalking Dr. Naomi Wolf and then wrote a book about it (instead of following the money).

The entire “progressive” Berkeley crowd went all in for fascism.

I’ve never seen anything like it — the members of an entire global political faction completely repudiated all of their values in an instant, as if under hypnosis.

A bewildering mindset

I tried to put myself in the shoes of a Covidian for a moment and it was completely bewildering. As I understand their perspective:

We are being inundated with deadly viruses — Covid yes, but also flu, RSV, shingles, pneumonia, and so many more! Our immune systems are weak and defenseless! The only hope we have is to do exactly what the brilliant scientists at the CDC say which is to get five or six shots a year as adults and 90 during childhood (in addition to four in utero). Even then, we’ll still probably get many of those diseases but it would have been so much worse if we had not taken preventive action. The only problem in this world is those damn dirty racist Trump supporters who hate science and are endangering me and my kids with their disgusting germs!

In the real world, none of those things are true. But it must be completely terrifying to live one’s life from that perspective. No wonder they are cranky and lashing out all of the time.

Today, I drove to New Hampshire this morning to testify in support of SB319 for a session beginning at around 1:00 PM. The official analysis of the bill reads as follows:

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from purchasing, promoting, or distributing any vaccine or pharmaceutical product that has not been tested with voluntary, human, clinical trials.

It is always interesting to read people. Opinions of their body language, responses, tone, and other cues must be evaluated separately from the facts. Id est, the subjective opinions and feelings in response to others’ cues must be separated from the objective truths/facts of their cues. What they did and how I felt about it are in this article. ...

As I told the stories of people who died from covid “vaccines,” I tried to engage the two state senators to my left. Only one lifted her head to make eye contact twice, very quickly, then immediately looked down. She and the other one to my left typed on their laptops, spoke to each other, and were completely dismissive of my presence for my entire testimony, which lasted maybe ten minutes. I tried to engage them for most of the testimony and only near the end did I look to the right, where there were two state senators looking at me and engaged with my testimony the entire time. In fact, my last remark was that “I will look to the left because you’re engaged” and that I found it difficult to believe people could completely ignore the description of “vaccine” deaths of an 11-year-old boy and 30-year-old woman without even looking at me. ...

My opinion will follow these facts. But the facts remain that two people whose duty as officers of the court is to act in the public interest, especially for the safety and health of New Hampshire residents. They refused to acknowledge my presence, let alone listen to facts surrounding the lethal injections called covid “vaccines.” They could not look at me for a full second of time. That is a fact. ...

And hundreds of New Hampshire residents will die and be maimed because party cultists are feal to the cult and not to their oaths or their consituents. If your elected officials are loyal to a party over your interests, then I say you should kick them to the curb. And if they refuse to perform their legal duties and many die as a result, they should be criminally prosecuted for manslaughter or murder.

I don't get it. What is wrong with Walmart?

Patrick says

Friday, January 12, 2024

A majority of Americans believe COVID-19 vaccines may be to blame for many unexplained deaths, and nearly one-in-four say someone they know could be among the victims.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of American Adults believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths – up from 49% a year ago – including 30% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty-six percent (36%) now don’t say a significant number of deaths have been caused by vaccine side effects, including 16% who believe it’s Not At All Likely. Another 11% are not sure.