🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉

[Declan]

Met some eejit I know yesterday and put out my hand to shake his and he nearly fell into the flower pot behind him. You'd swear I extended a pox-riddled 12 inch dildo to him.

He eventually recovered and attempted to give me that daft elbow thing to which I politely refused.

You should have given him the gentle elbow tap,

At full force to the nose..

 

[Wolf]

View: https://twitter.com/DowdEdward/status/1746710211929522349

Psychopaths.
A bioweapon research facility...what could possibly go wrong?

 

[tldr]

This is it. Material atheists cannot validly or convincingly argue against moral problems (population replacement) , as they have no leg to stand on ideologically. And so we see the absurdity of reductive and vague pleas based on loose genetic affiliation become the fulcrum of their arguments.

Culture and history are abandoned, because oftentimes these things have a strong moral and philosophical component that does not compute for the atheist

Anyone?z

Well, I'll have a go but remember it's only my opinion so will benefit from feedback. It will also go on for a bit so I've done my best to give a summary in the next paragraph as this is probably as far as you'll get into it.

The material atheist perspective is an evolutionary one - the survival of the fittest. Think here of the dinosaurs - they existed merely to consume and breed. From a human perspective 'everything is permitted'. That which is strong is moral and that which is weak is immoral - strength here defined as the ability to control, consume and exploit. De Sade did nothing wrong from this point of view.

Think of Selfish Gene Theory for example:

'The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.

---

What stood out was Dawkins's radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection. No other unit shows such persistence — not chromosomes, not individuals, not groups and not species. These are ephemeral vehicles for genes'

In retrospect: The Selfish Gene - Nature


We can see this in "woke" ideology - which rests on an atheist materialist foundation.

The rules of society (from this view) are impositions of power implemented by those with the whip hand. There is no immanent moral model to bring into effect other than that of the supremacy of power.

Plato had a character, Thrasymachus, whose position was that ' justice is conventionally established by the strong, in order that the weak will serve the interests of the strong. The strong themselves, on this view, are better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests directly.' (He was Plato's personification of tyranny in this dialogue)

And so we see the insistence on collective action, with the individual as merely a component unit, as the primary definition of identity. The "weak" must bind together to fight for power with the "strong". There is no moral code of conduct to follow - politics is an affair of tooth and claw. That is what gives them the justification to act lawlessly - shout down critics, engage in riot, act preferentially, desecrate, lie, thieve and assault etc.

The fact that the other guy has resources that you want is what is immoral - there are no ethics here. It's a criminal psychology.

So, how does this affect national communities? Well, first, allow me to say that we are bound to act justly and wisely towards everyone by the precepts of our own tradition while, nevertheless, acting with due prudence and practicality.

A national heritage includes codes of moral behaviour that do not immediately arise in superficial contact but take time - often long periods - to develop and inculcate.

Take for example malicious damage. Toddlers are renowned for malicious damage during temper tantrums but it is abhorred in older children and adults. One may not act out one's tempest of negative emotions on someone else's property, interests or peace of mind. It is sub-adult and inferior behaviour not to observe prudent boundaries.

Malicious damage here does not simply refer to vandalism but also to inaction. If someone was being gaslit, burgled or embezzled, and you knew it was going on but they were unaware or unsure, then there is a moral duty for you to advise them - to omit to do so is immoral. To be moral is to be a man or a woman, to be immoral is to be merely a male or a female.

There are deep prohibitions on such things as malicious damage in established communities and these rules enable a high trust society to operate. Not only does a high trust society lower costs of transactions and facilitate prosperity, it also enables a higher level of operation - a 'transcendence'. Peace produces stepped evolutionary change by disarming anxiety.

Think of something along the lines of moving from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine - flight was impossible without a petrol fueled motor. The great world religions saw enormous leaps in civilisation exactly as an output of high trust improvements. Low trust encourages enslavement, high trust encourages liberty. Personal rights become increasingly possible as a result.

With trust it is then possible to establish a society that transcends the vulgar survivalism, of say a pirate settlement or a drug infested slum, by being in an environment where one can successfully engage in productive activity without it deteriorating into a cat fight. This is why low trust types, while they may be sly, are limited in scope and high trust types, while they may be less saavy to dissimulation, are interesting - realms open to them that were previously beyond their grasp.

The concern that Mr P is articulating is that an engorged influx of individuals from low trust societies will reproduce the same conditions in our society as that from which they fled. Integration becomes overwhelmed. Sweden is a point in case here. Its current condition is precisely an outcome of the degradation of a high trust cultural superstructure - there's a blurred vision that inhibits decisive countermeasures to deviant behaviour.

This is not an objection to the individual migrants (these may be good or bad people each in and of themselves) but in the overloading of capacity and the creation of pockets of people who view their hosts as targets of cynical exploitation - as weak and stupid fools who want to be told lies in return for their stuff and daughters. The concept of moral dignity in high trust societies (something which has a very strong influence on normal action) is a nonsense to them.

Furthermore, high trust exists in pockets outside which the base mechanisms of biology rule - see chimps as an illustration here. This is a fact of biological existence - the universalism of God is a relevation of a higher condition of existance (analogous to the difference of condition between a sponge and a rocket scientist).

Now, I have to include here that I would choose to be in the company of a good Christian African over that of a wicked criminal Irishman every time. That criminal Irishman might appeal to some racial intersection but the deciding factor in the choice would be the difference in integrity between the two. Thus, I would have no problem as describing the criminal as verminous human filth while I would consider it a disgrace to describe the Christian as such. The ultimate decider between people is good and bad, not declared affiliation.

A primary definition of a national unit by "race" replaces community with breeding pool. This places it in the sphere of evolutionary theory and, as such, makes a nonsense of anything other than the maintenance of genes. There is no science, that I'm aware of, that has identified the moral sense in a particular chromosome and it is the moral sense that unlocks access to civilised life and a superior human condition. If one is truly concerned about living the good life then it is the formations that nurture wisdom and good behaviour that we should seek to conserve and embellish. A race based definition of good and bad is a feign for the self serving and malign.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

^^
Troll

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Actor Alec Musser, 50, passed away. He suffering from "a severe case of Covid" and died from the illness. He was both vaccinated and boosted.

'All My Children' actor Alec Musser dead at 50, fiancée suspects COVID contributed

Alec Musser, famous for his time on "All My Children" passed away at his home in Del Mar, Florida on Saturday. His fiancée Paige tells Fox News Digital she think Covid-19 contributed to his death.

uk.yahoo.com

 

[tldr]

^^
Goldfish

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

.....
We now seem to be stuck with this virus for years to come, absent some sudden catastrophic failure of the vaccine experiment. It’s very clearly not starting to behave like a normal benign respiratory virus. The population is very clearly not developing a protective immune response that forces this virus into extinction through a competitive disadvantage versus other respiratory viruses.

But it’s worse. The evidence we have suggests that virulence is merely increasing, with BA.2.86 representing a return to greater virulence, with a Delta-like Furin cleavage site that causes increased cell damage. And it now seems to be going a step further, with a further improvement to the Furin cleavage site that has never been seen before, emerged independently on multiple separate branches and is now spreading in multiple countries.

I don’t know how this ends. But I do know this: We disrespected the laws of nature. We thought we knew better. We thought we had a technofix. A technofix so good, so safe, we even gave it to children.

And all the evidence we now have suggests we’re paying a very high price for it.

COVID vaccines “work” by instructing your immune system to give up the fight against the virus – Rintrah

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Well, I'll have a go but remember it's only my opinion so will benefit from feedback. It will also go on for a bit so I've done my best to give a summary in the next paragraph as this is probably as far as you'll get into it.

The material atheist perspective is an evolutionary one - the survival of the fittest. Think here of the dinosaurs - they existed merely to consume and breed. From a human perspective 'everything is permitted'. That which is strong is moral and that which is weak is immoral - strength here defined as the ability to control, consume and exploit. De Sade did nothing wrong from this point of view.

Think of Selfish Gene Theory for example:

'The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.

---

What stood out was Dawkins's radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection. No other unit shows such persistence — not chromosomes, not individuals, not groups and not species. These are ephemeral vehicles for genes'

In retrospect: The Selfish Gene - Nature


We can see this in "woke" ideology - which rests on an atheist materialist foundation.

The rules of society (from this view) are impositions of power implemented by those with the whip hand. There is no immanent moral model to bring into effect other than that of the supremacy of power.

Plato had a character, Thrasymachus, whose position was that ' justice is conventionally established by the strong, in order that the weak will serve the interests of the strong. The strong themselves, on this view, are better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests directly.' (He was Plato's personification of tyranny in this dialogue)

And so we see the insistence on collective action, with the individual as merely a component unit, as the primary definition of identity. The "weak" must bind together to fight for power with the "strong". There is no moral code of conduct to follow - politics is an affair of tooth and claw. That is what gives them the justification to act lawlessly - shout down critics, engage in riot, act preferentially, desecrate, lie, thieve and assault etc.

The fact that the other guy has resources that you want is what is immoral - there are no ethics here. It's a criminal psychology.

So, how does this affect national communities? Well, first, allow me to say that we are bound to act justly and wisely towards everyone by the precepts of our own tradition while, nevertheless, acting with due prudence and practicality.

A national heritage includes codes of moral behaviour that do not immediately arise in superficial contact but take time - often long periods - to develop and inculcate.

Take for example malicious damage. Toddlers are renowned for malicious damage during temper tantrums but it is abhorred in older children and adults. One may not act out one's tempest of negative emotions on someone else's property, interests or peace of mind. It is sub-adult and inferior behaviour not to observe prudent boundaries.

Malicious damage here does not simply refer to vandalism but also to inaction. If someone was being gaslit, burgled or embezzled, and you knew it was going on but they were unaware or unsure, then there is a moral duty for you to advise them - to omit to do so is immoral. To be moral is to be a man or a woman, to be immoral is to be merely a male or a female.

There are deep prohibitions on such things as malicious damage in established communities and these rules enable a high trust society to operate. Not only does a high trust society lower costs of transactions and facilitate prosperity, it also enables a higher level of operation - a 'transcendence'. Peace produces stepped evolutionary change by disarming anxiety.

Think of something along the lines of moving from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine - flight was impossible without a petrol fueled motor. The great world religions saw enormous leaps in civilisation exactly as an output of high trust improvements. Low trust encourages enslavement, high trust encourages liberty. Personal rights become increasingly possible as a result.

With trust it is then possible to establish a society that transcends the vulgar survivalism, of say a pirate settlement or a drug infested slum, by being in an environment where one can successfully engage in productive activity without it deteriorating into a cat fight. This is why low trust types, while they may be sly, are limited in scope and high trust types, while they may be less saavy to dissimulation, are interesting - realms open to them that were previously beyond their grasp.

The concern that Mr P is articulating is that an engorged influx of individuals from low trust societies will reproduce the same conditions in our society as that from which they fled. Integration becomes overwhelmed. Sweden is a point in case here. Its current condition is precisely an outcome of the degradation of a high trust cultural superstructure - there's a blurred vision that inhibits decisive countermeasures to deviant behaviour.

This is not an objection to the individual migrants (these may be good or bad people each in and of themselves) but in the overloading of capacity and the creation of pockets of people who view their hosts as targets of cynical exploitation - as weak and stupid fools who want to be told lies in return for their stuff and daughters. The concept of moral dignity in high trust societies (something which has a very strong influence on normal action) is a nonsense to them.

Furthermore, high trust exists in pockets outside which the base mechanisms of biology rule - see chimps as an illustration here. This is a fact of biological existence - the universalism of God is a relevation of a higher condition of existance (analogous to the difference of condition between a sponge and a rocket scientist).

Now, I have to include here that I would choose to be in the company of a good Christian African over that of a wicked criminal Irishman every time. That criminal Irishman might appeal to some racial intersection but the deciding factor in the choice would be the difference in integrity between the two. Thus, I would have no problem as describing the criminal as verminous human filth while I would consider it a disgrace to describe the Christian as such. The ultimate decider between people is good and bad, not declared affiliation.

A primary definition of a national unit by "race" replaces community with breeding pool. This places it in the sphere of evolutionary theory and, as such, makes a nonsense of anything other than the maintenance of genes. There is no science, that I'm aware of, that has identified the moral sense in a particular chromosome and it is the moral sense that unlocks access to civilised life and a superior human condition. If one is truly concerned about living the good life then it is the formations that nurture wisdom and good behaviour that we should seek to conserve and embellish. A race based definition of good and bad is a feign for the self serving and malign.

Myles will shit himself when he sees the length of this

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Myles will shit himself when he sees the length of this

As I said above I believe it to be a troll attempt Sir.

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

Myles will shit himself when he sees the length of this

Has he some fixation on length? Why would this be?

 

[jpc]

.....
We now seem to be stuck with this virus for years to come, absent some sudden catastrophic failure of the vaccine experiment. It’s very clearly not starting to behave like a normal benign respiratory virus. The population is very clearly not developing a protective immune response that forces this virus into extinction through a competitive disadvantage versus other respiratory viruses.

But it’s worse. The evidence we have suggests that virulence is merely increasing, with BA.2.86 representing a return to greater virulence, with a Delta-like Furin cleavage site that causes increased cell damage. And it now seems to be going a step further, with a further improvement to the Furin cleavage site that has never been seen before, emerged independently on multiple separate branches and is now spreading in multiple countries.

I don’t know how this ends. But I do know this: We disrespected the laws of nature. We thought we knew better. We thought we had a technofix. A technofix so good, so safe, we even gave it to children.

And all the evidence we now have suggests we’re paying a very high price for it.

COVID vaccines “work” by instructing your immune system to give up the fight against the virus – Rintrah

Very interesting thanks!
I'd heard about the viral load increasing in the waste water.
The rest is very plausible and depressing.

 

[Tiger]

.....
We now seem to be stuck with this virus for years to come, absent some sudden catastrophic failure of the vaccine experiment. It’s very clearly not starting to behave like a normal benign respiratory virus. The population is very clearly not developing a protective immune response that forces this virus into extinction through a competitive disadvantage versus other respiratory viruses.

But it’s worse. The evidence we have suggests that virulence is merely increasing, with BA.2.86 representing a return to greater virulence, with a Delta-like Furin cleavage site that causes increased cell damage. And it now seems to be going a step further, with a further improvement to the Furin cleavage site that has never been seen before, emerged independently on multiple separate branches and is now spreading in multiple countries.

I don’t know how this ends. But I do know this: We disrespected the laws of nature. We thought we knew better. We thought we had a technofix. A technofix so good, so safe, we even gave it to children.

And all the evidence we now have suggests we’re paying a very high price for it.

COVID vaccines “work” by instructing your immune system to give up the fight against the virus – Rintrah

Artificial stimulation of the immune system (vaccination) ruins people’s adaptive immune responses. It is estimated that a flu shot can weaken your response to a future exposure to flu by up to 50%.

In terms of the persistence of Covid 19, there’s a good chance that the jabs are driving (carrying) each new variant.

 

[tldr]

.....
We now seem to be stuck with this virus for years to come, absent some sudden catastrophic failure of the vaccine experiment. It’s very clearly not starting to behave like a normal benign respiratory virus. The population is very clearly not developing a protective immune response that forces this virus into extinction through a competitive disadvantage versus other respiratory viruses.

But it’s worse. The evidence we have suggests that virulence is merely increasing, with BA.2.86 representing a return to greater virulence, with a Delta-like Furin cleavage site that causes increased cell damage. And it now seems to be going a step further, with a further improvement to the Furin cleavage site that has never been seen before, emerged independently on multiple separate branches and is now spreading in multiple countries.

I don’t know how this ends. But I do know this: We disrespected the laws of nature. We thought we knew better. We thought we had a technofix. A technofix so good, so safe, we even gave it to children.

And all the evidence we now have suggests we’re paying a very high price for it.

COVID vaccines “work” by instructing your immune system to give up the fight against the virus – Rintrah

Similar to what Bossche is talking about, although his warning is about a more virulent strain later this year that will knock out a large proportion of the vaccinated population whose immune systems have been dismantled.

This guy is talking about something like the genesis of the Phage in Star Trek.


'... you see signs that the COVID vaccines induce tolerance against the Spike protein. The most noticeable sign, is the transition from an IgG3 antibody response (the sort your body normally uses to protect itself against viruses) to an IgG4 antibody response (an antibody that is much worse at neutralizing viral particles than IgG3 and discourages immune cells from destroying infected cells).

...

[Normally] when you get infected by SARS2, it’s your own immune system that makes you feel sick, not the virus. Your immune system goes on high alert and tries to get rid of this virus. The symptoms you experience, are all one variety or another of your immune system fighting this virus. Fever? Heating you up to kill viruses. Sneezing, coughing? Expunging viral particles from your body. Exhausted, in pain? That’s mostly due to inflammation.

...

[The vaccine stops these symptoms but] just because your body stopped fighting this virus, does not mean this virus stops harming you. This is a virus that infects the endothelium, the cells lining your blood vessels. So what does it look like, when your body doesn’t bother fighting a virus that infects these cells? You may feel fine, but then you suffer an unexpected heart attack or stroke. You died of COVID, but because the vaccine discouraged your immune system from fighting the virus, your death did not look like a COVID death.

...

I’m sure that during Delta, these vaccines prevented people who received them from dying. Perhaps there is still protection from severe outcomes today.

But at what cost?'

So, what he's saying is that the vaccine is a sticking plaster. It stops people getting symptoms by stopping the body from fighting the virus. This means they don't develop a cytokine storm which put a lot of people with underlying morbidities into ICU.

However, he argues, it essentially makes the vaccinated into Petri dishes who become vessels that cultivate new strains and act as asymptomatic spreaders. The evidence that this concern has become a reality is very high levels of the virus in wastewater samples - Dutch data being his example here. He is not saying that the vaccine itself is the cause of harm, he's saying that the solution the vaccine uses has profound medium to long term consequences.

Not much we can do about it other than to avoid mRNA vaccines. The dice will roll.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Could you summarise that please Sir?

 

[Mad as Fish]

Could you summarise that please Sir?

You might die tomorrow as opposed to next week.

 

[jpc]

This is a very long but worthwhile read.
With a few videos thrown in.
Shows how intellectual dishonesty and grasping for funds can become so dangerous to rational critiques of situations such as covid-19.

Dissecting A Modern Vaccine Propaganda Piece | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[tldr]

This is a very long but worthwhile read.
With a few videos thrown in.
Shows how intellectual dishonesty and grasping for funds can become so dangerous to rational critiques of situations such as covid-19.

Dissecting A Modern Vaccine Propaganda Piece | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Well, it goes into the suppression of discussion and dissent.

Back the C17th and C18th there was a lot of criticism of the Académie des Sciences (the French institution set up by Louis XVI) for this reason by continental enlightenment thinkers. This is why the English model of the Royal Society was often used as a positive contrast to a somewhat staid and posturing absolutist institution (this was before later reforms). So there is a parallel in history.

The key argument in the article is the lack of complex analysis. It points to the board examinations of doctors to illustrate this:


'One of its foundational concepts are first order vs. second order vs. third order questions. In first order questions, you simply have to recall a testable factoid (e.g., which of the following is a side effect of ciprofloxacin), while in second order questions, you need to be able to link two memorized facts together (which of the following would be an expected side effect of the first line antibiotic to treat this infection), while in third order questions, you need to link three chains of memorized facts together (e.g., based on the patients symptoms, for the condition those symptoms suggest [with the condition not being stated in the question], what is the most common side effect of the drug that would be used to treat it).

Initially medical students receive more first order questions. Then, later in their training as they have more medical knowledge (e.g., they can instantly identify the infection being described by the question stem) their examinations test a great proportion of second or third order questions (you have to pass quite a few to get a medical license).

In the previous article, I argued that the main reason the vaccine propagandists won’t ever agree to public debate is because much of what they espouse has a high enough discordance with reality that it instantly falls apart under cross examination and second order thinking.'

(just a note here that doctors have to navigate extraordinarily difficult training and deserve our admiration)


This is quite difficult material to understand but I think it refers to context mapping. Like layers in a map - as the training of a doctor progresses they become more familiar with the context of the route they are choosing to navigate.
So, first of all they may just see a line of a road, then they see features like towns and forests, and then they may be able to view the topography (changes in elevation).

As their knowledge improves through more advanced training and experience, they have an improved ability to navigate to the destination. If they only have first order knowledge, they may miss important obstacles or hazards that will frustrate their treatment (I'm sure a doctor would be able to phrase this better).

What this article is arguing is that the bio-medical establishment is hamstringing second and third order analysis in order to force their solution. So, for example, vitamin supplements and repurposed drugs that may reinforce innate immune systems and dissipate virulence are rubbished. The solution they propose is an amelioration of symptoms rather than a cure - which goes with the view that it's in the interest of the medical industrial complex to keep people sick rather than cure them.

Thus areas outside the expertise of biological researchers are also not imputed into their analysis. The impacts on education, social life, the economy etc. are disregarded and narrow decisions are made that cause third degree burns to public health - and this is a critical blind spot in their ability to issue broad directives. This is something the conceit of a coterie of specialised experts conceals from them - they can't reckon the effects beyond their compartment.

I've seen the observation that practising doctors are under such workload pressure that they do not have the resources to question the information presented by the scientific infrastructure, which would explain why what was issued was largely unquestioningly implemented. Imagine if a doctor has to scrutinise the validity of every new medication or issue? It would be a terrible strain on confidence and practice. There's a heavy enough burden already.

 

[tldr]

Could you summarise that please Sir?

The sentences in bold text are the key points.

There are predictions of further consequences of COVID in the coming year.

There is no action we should take at the moment other than wait and see.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The sentences in bold text are the key points.

first order vs. second order vs. third order questions.

That's all I've got in bold Sir.

 

[tldr]

Well, it goes into the suppression of discussion and dissent.

Back the C17th and C18th there was a lot of criticism of the Académie des Sciences (the French institution set up by Louis XVI) for this reason by continental enlightenment thinkers. This is why the English model of the Royal Society was often used as a positive contrast to a somewhat staid and posturing absolutist institution (this was before later reforms). So there is a parallel in history.

The key argument in the article is the lack of complex analysis. It points to the board examinations of doctors to illustrate this:


'One of its foundational concepts are first order vs. second order vs. third order questions. In first order questions, you simply have to recall a testable factoid (e.g., which of the following is a side effect of ciprofloxacin), while in second order questions, you need to be able to link two memorized facts together (which of the following would be an expected side effect of the first line antibiotic to treat this infection), while in third order questions, you need to link three chains of memorized facts together (e.g., based on the patients symptoms, for the condition those symptoms suggest [with the condition not being stated in the question], what is the most common side effect of the drug that would be used to treat it).

Initially medical students receive more first order questions. Then, later in their training as they have more medical knowledge (e.g., they can instantly identify the infection being described by the question stem) their examinations test a great proportion of second or third order questions (you have to pass quite a few to get a medical license).

In the previous article, I argued that the main reason the vaccine propagandists won’t ever agree to public debate is because much of what they espouse has a high enough discordance with reality that it instantly falls apart under cross examination and second order thinking.'

(just a note here that doctors have to navigate extraordinarily difficult training and deserve our admiration)


This is quite difficult material to understand but I think it refers to context mapping. Like layers in a map - as the training of a doctor progresses they become more familiar with the context of the route they are choosing to navigate.
So, first of all they may just see a line of a road, then they see features like towns and forests, and then they may be able to view the topography (changes in elevation).

As their knowledge improves through more advanced training and experience, they have an improved ability to navigate to the destination. If they only have first order knowledge, they may miss important obstacles or hazards that will frustrate their treatment (I'm sure a doctor would be able to phrase this better).

What this article is arguing is that the bio-medical establishment is hamstringing second and third order analysis in order to force their solution. So, for example, vitamin supplements and repurposed drugs that may reinforce innate immune systems and dissipate virulence are rubbished. The solution they propose is an amelioration of symptoms rather than a cure - which goes with the view that it's in the interest of the medical industrial complex to keep people sick rather than cure them.

Thus areas outside the expertise of biological researchers are also not imputed into their analysis. The impacts on education, social life, the economy etc. are disregarded and narrow decisions are made that cause third degree burns to public health - and this is a critical blind spot in their ability to issue broad directives. This is something the conceit of a coterie of specialised experts conceals from them - they can't reckon the effects beyond their compartment.

I've seen the observation that practising doctors are under such workload pressure that they do not have the resources to question the information presented by the scientific infrastructure, which would explain why what was issued was largely unquestioningly implemented. Imagine if a doctor has to scrutinise the validity of every new medication or issue? It would be a terrible strain on confidence and practice. There's a heavy enough burden already.

Um, Louis XIV.