My response to "Stanford is injecting children right now in a trial!"

Amici,

A commentator ("coop") at Steve Kirsch's site posted the following comment:

Stanford is injecting children right now in a trial!

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2021issue2/upfront/clinical-trail-children-covid-vaccines.html

“Since May, researchers have tested whether the vaccine produces an immune response and prevents COVID-19 in children 5 through 11 years old.

The Stanford study site is also evaluating vaccine dosages for children 6 months through 4 years old.

Final results for the older age group are expected later this year.

“Children under 18 make up about a quarter of the U.S. population, so if we want to get the virus under control, we really need to include them,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, who is running the trials’ Stanford site.

Maldonado is the Taube Professor in Global Health and Infectious Diseases at Stanford."

AnP:

To which insanity, I responded:

“Children under 18 make up about a quarter of the U.S. population, so if we want to get the virus under control, we really need to include them,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, who is running the trials’ Stanford site." 

Point 1 Children have never been shown to be adversely affected in the first place, as carriers or as ill children. Focusing on them therefore is either ontologically stupid or it has nefarious purpose. There can be no escaping either conclusion. 

Point 2 According to standard virus theory, these waves of plagues come and go naturally, they have well-recognized "life-cycles" that play out, and have done for recorded history, and interfering with that natural cycle causes the viruses to be both longer-lasting and more virulent. 

Point 3 Prove the damned thing exists in the first place, you twit, before your Big Pharma masters conjure up back-magic potions to deal with it! Since "Covid" is only an "in silico" beast, solely computer modeled, you have no argument for anything, except to exhibit your ignorance. So, point four: 

Point 4 Go soak your empty head, Yvonne. 

Argument from Authority

Something quite significant needs to be understood. We lay a lot of weight on arguments from authority, but such are only as good as the authority, yet "authority" is often just old thinking that's been bypassed, or is just entrenched because it makes certain people way too much money. And therefore, to have garnered a high credential in some academic institution often means you merely know how to parrot ideas that are stale, wrong, or completely irrelevant to the current situation. Think of modern-day Marxists. Almost all of them are "idiot intellectuals" ensconced in academia, unable to change a lightbulb but more than willing to pontificate on how you, yourself, should live.

ANYONE with experience in academia knows how that works, and how petty and even feudal so much of higher education is! Usually, established systems "self-select" to reinforce what configurations (mental, spiritual, intellectual, etc.) they already have. Over any length of time, it gets near impossible to reform or reinvigorate such a system. Certain Churches obviously self-select over generations, and the current Catholic Church under Bergoglio and those who have been supporting him, the "Modernists" constitute a good example. 

Never has there been a collection of fools and knaves as we have in the dying "Vatican II Church", that "tomb seething with worms" as Archbishop Viganò so aptly refers to it. What business of any sort but the most ideologically driven would shut down the most vibrant and growing segment of itself? Yet that is what Bergoglio has done.

Historically, one sees this same phenomenon in militaries: they're always fighting the last war or resisting new ideas in general. Currently, the U.S. military is an utter fiasco. Brilliant officers are forced out, and replaced by toadies who insist men can get preggers. It's literally insane. Another military that isn't quite so "hardened of the arteries" then comes along and cleans their clock, as the U.S. military's will be. 

It also happens in the history of business and politics, and of course, medicine. 

But somehow, this pattern just keeps repeating. People seem naturally disposed to live in mental ruts, going around and around like broken records. They resist what audit systems exist. Congress is supposed to be an audit system of government, as is judicial review, but look what little good these do today! Only severe crises as what we're experiencing from the whole Covid/Covid "vaccine" mess have the chance to force change. 

And indeed, the change must be "forced"! Think of the changes the 1929 Stock Market Crash forced on the economy, or Pear Harbor forced on the U.S. military, or the early Union defeats in the Civil War. Examples from all areas could be multiplied ad infinitum.

If the absolutely mismanaged and Global Authoritarianism of this two-year Covid farce isn't enough of a crisis to force us to act, what in the world would?

       AnP

Dishonest, corrupt Academia: Abortion researcher details harassment

Amazing story -- or not so amazing if you know how Academia works.

(Beware pop-up adds).

Just another example of today's corrupt, hypocritical reality.

An P

Amazon bans books by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi

Gay Inc. (aka Gay Mafia, Gaystapo, St. Gallen Mafia, etc.) can't have its "narrative" challenged, so one gay activist worked tirelessly to get an author (Nicolosi) banned from Amazon, until he succeeded, as the article linked to below details.

"The Left" is always doing this, of course -- shutting down speech (especially noticeable in Academia and Entertainment) and limiting, prohibiting, restricting, and of course damning, any "counter-narrative" that runs against their party line. This article has an interesting take on The Left's emotional state: 

An excerpt:

Because, in the progressive version of reality, there can be no final victory. Identity politics, like its cousin self-pity, consumes all except itself. They don’t want to win. To finally cauterize their obsession would stanch the supply that courses their veins.

I think there are plenty of them who want to win, I mean the demagogues pushing all this, and they follow their beliefs with a Jihadist fervor. They've gone far in taking over Academia and the Arts. How far can they really get, though?

However it works out, it's a constant battle, really, and the Gays are just modelling their efforts on the general Left, how the Socialists do business. Although Thomas Jefferson never said or wrote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," it is a Truism.

I'm not a fan of Jefferson's, but I looked this up and had he said it, I was going to credit him with it. I found out that an Irishman came up with it, in 1790. “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” This was by John Philpot Curran, not actually a Curran but a descendant of Cromwellian soldiers in Ireland. However, this Curran was a Henry Grattan-type Irish politician, defended many of the 1798 rebels in court, and opposed the Union with Great Britain in 1800. Of course, the "Deep State" of his day won out in the end. Same thing happened in 1707: the Scottish people didn't want to lose their Parliament, and there were riots in Edinburgh. The "Deep State" won out there, too. "Consent of the governed" has never been a Deep State concern. Europe seems to be the Galactic Center of the Deep State, except for China, which is its universe center.

Perhaps the most famous U.S. use of the Eternal Vigilance line was by the American Abolitionist and liberal (classical liberal) activist Wendell Phillips on January 28, 1852. Speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, Phillips said:

    “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

Wow, isn't that apropos of today? Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. And just as then the Democrat Party fought to keep their slaves and got their 3/5s clause in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3)  to give them a larger representation in Congress (and more Electoral votes!) than they deserved, so today the Democrat Party fights to keep their Blacks down on the Asphalt Plantation, and now bring in a huge "Lumpenproletariat" underclass of illegals to do their bidding. 

So of course they have to fight to get these illegals in the Census! It's the exact same ploy as with the 3/5s clause.

Nothing ever changes. Much.

Here's the article about the Amazon book banning, and an excerpt:

In a very disturbing move, Amazon has removed the books of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the psychologist whom critics have dubbed “the father of conversion therapy.” In other words, for claiming that sexual orientation is not innate and immutable, and for claiming that change is possible, Dr. Nicolosi’s books must be banned.
This leads to the logical question: Will Amazon ban the Bible next? There is no hyperbole here.
After all, it is the Bible that condemns same-sex relationships and the Bible that speaks of those who once practiced homosexuality but do so no more (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). These people, today, would be known as “ex-gays.” And it was Dr. Nicolosi’s life work to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions.
Why, then, should Amazon ban his books but continue to sell the Bible, which provides the theological underpinnings for Dr. Nicolosi’s scientific work?