Covid in Austria: 'Experts' Recommend 4th Jab for all 12 and older, because: science. I'm kidding: Dr. Kollaritsch: 'I trust the Pfizer Covid vaccine. They developed Viagra.'
Covid in Austria: 'Experts' Recommend 4th Jab for all 12 and older, because: science. I'm kidding: Dr. Kollaritsch: 'I trust the Pfizer Covid vaccine. They developed Viagra.'
Well, if he doesn't perceive any conflict of interests, there are none, yes?
He wants to get paid, cover is ass, and make nice with his owners - so any action takn which fulfills these is in his interest and theirs too. Thus, no conflict.
Rational choice theory and objectivism in action, at its finest.
Oh well, I'd also add that this, in woke-lingo, is actually 'intersectionalism' at work: for Dr. Kollaritsch and his ilk, there's nothing wrong with anything--they get outsized amounts of media attention (which is perhaps also good for some of his 'dying body parts'), they get subsidies by Big Pharma, and live their wet dreams of phascist technocracy. Nevermind other opinions or experiences, eh…
I believe Viagra was a drug to treat something else, which failed, and one of the adverse events this drug had was erections. Not letting it become a failure, they rebranded it as solution to erectile disfunction! Let's all hope and pray the truth comes out very soon. I have no doubts they are already conjuring up the next one, however even the believers are tired and fed up already. The current hype is on climate change and could involve some movement restrictions in the near future.
As to the 'soundness' of my 'advice', well, I'm merely pointing out the obvious, so, it's also a perceptual problem for those who, while lining for for the next injection, refuse to accept reality as-is.
In Sweden, you are no longer allowed to buy rat poison ver the counter, unless you have a license. This license you can only get after being allowed to take a course held by a governement agency or their appointed representative, and paying for the course, where the representative may set the price arbitrarily. The reason stated is of course safety & security, due to the potential for mishandling of rat poison.
However, anyone of any age is allowed to apply for a booster shot as wanted, despite the fact that you'd need several degrees in the appropriate sciences to really understand what the mRNA-injection does and how it does it, the potential dangers and so on.
Now, given that it is the same politicians appointing people approving or disapproving medicines and other chemicals for the respective agencies, how can it be logical, safe and secure to let anyone opt for an injection of an unknown experimental substance when the same person is not trusted to use rat poison correctly?
I've used this one, and it usually hits home despite weak rationalisations on how these two are very different. "Well, okay, they are different you say - how are they different?" Either the "programmed" starts thinking or they change the subject at that point.
After that, it can be good to bring up other illogical rules and regulations which make no sense apart from making life difficult for people. Like this one: you need a license to operate a chainsaw, unless it's on your own land and for non-commercial reasons. For safety & security, of course. So if I lack a license, and my neighbour also is lacking a license, none of us can fell trees on the others land, but we can fell the trees on our own. Where's the logic in that?
By using factually correct examples of illogical governemental regulations, you can prepare the "programmed" to start asing themselves "Why should I trust the people making the rules, when they clearly are incapable of taking reality into account when making up rules?"
Another swedish example, since we seem to be world champions re: stupid regulations. The driving license for manual resp. automatic are two different ones. For safety & security. Unless you got your license before this rule was enacted. So you could have gotten your license in the 1950s when we drove on the left side, never have driven a meter since, and your license would then be good for cars both manual and auto, motorcycles of all classes, snowmobiles, quads, mopeds of all classes, and smaller trucks and lorries. Whereas if you got your initial license this year, it's basically for a car and only a car and very lightweight lorries.
And yet another example to pile on: whether a vehicle is a bus or a car basically depend on the number of seats. We own an old Ford Windstar, which seats 7 comfortably, making it a car. If we put in an extra seat, it becomes a bus and - for safety & security - you all of a sudden need a bus driver's license. Even if you have a license for heavy trucks with trailers, the law regards you as inapable of driving a bus...
Most people aren't aware of the inconsistent rules and regulations of any nation, since they rarely if ever think it over - they simply comply without thinking. By forcing them to think about this, their blind confidence in their authorities is undermined, increasing the odds of them asking "Why?" and then refusing to comply when the answer boils down to "Because I say so!".
Sorry for going off on a rant like that, but thinking about people not thinking tends to light my fuse.
Well, if he doesn't perceive any conflict of interests, there are none, yes?
He wants to get paid, cover is ass, and make nice with his owners - so any action takn which fulfills these is in his interest and theirs too. Thus, no conflict.
Rational choice theory and objectivism in action, at its finest.
Oh well, I'd also add that this, in woke-lingo, is actually 'intersectionalism' at work: for Dr. Kollaritsch and his ilk, there's nothing wrong with anything--they get outsized amounts of media attention (which is perhaps also good for some of his 'dying body parts'), they get subsidies by Big Pharma, and live their wet dreams of phascist technocracy. Nevermind other opinions or experiences, eh…
I believe Viagra was a drug to treat something else, which failed, and one of the adverse events this drug had was erections. Not letting it become a failure, they rebranded it as solution to erectile disfunction! Let's all hope and pray the truth comes out very soon. I have no doubts they are already conjuring up the next one, however even the believers are tired and fed up already. The current hype is on climate change and could involve some movement restrictions in the near future.
Hmmm, which country might that be, if I may ask?
Oh my, well, let them, I suppose?
If they come back for more, I doubt there's much you could do about it…
Oh my, you're way to kind here, my friend.
As to the 'soundness' of my 'advice', well, I'm merely pointing out the obvious, so, it's also a perceptual problem for those who, while lining for for the next injection, refuse to accept reality as-is.
Try this comparison on "the programmed":
In Sweden, you are no longer allowed to buy rat poison ver the counter, unless you have a license. This license you can only get after being allowed to take a course held by a governement agency or their appointed representative, and paying for the course, where the representative may set the price arbitrarily. The reason stated is of course safety & security, due to the potential for mishandling of rat poison.
However, anyone of any age is allowed to apply for a booster shot as wanted, despite the fact that you'd need several degrees in the appropriate sciences to really understand what the mRNA-injection does and how it does it, the potential dangers and so on.
Now, given that it is the same politicians appointing people approving or disapproving medicines and other chemicals for the respective agencies, how can it be logical, safe and secure to let anyone opt for an injection of an unknown experimental substance when the same person is not trusted to use rat poison correctly?
I've used this one, and it usually hits home despite weak rationalisations on how these two are very different. "Well, okay, they are different you say - how are they different?" Either the "programmed" starts thinking or they change the subject at that point.
After that, it can be good to bring up other illogical rules and regulations which make no sense apart from making life difficult for people. Like this one: you need a license to operate a chainsaw, unless it's on your own land and for non-commercial reasons. For safety & security, of course. So if I lack a license, and my neighbour also is lacking a license, none of us can fell trees on the others land, but we can fell the trees on our own. Where's the logic in that?
By using factually correct examples of illogical governemental regulations, you can prepare the "programmed" to start asing themselves "Why should I trust the people making the rules, when they clearly are incapable of taking reality into account when making up rules?"
Another swedish example, since we seem to be world champions re: stupid regulations. The driving license for manual resp. automatic are two different ones. For safety & security. Unless you got your license before this rule was enacted. So you could have gotten your license in the 1950s when we drove on the left side, never have driven a meter since, and your license would then be good for cars both manual and auto, motorcycles of all classes, snowmobiles, quads, mopeds of all classes, and smaller trucks and lorries. Whereas if you got your initial license this year, it's basically for a car and only a car and very lightweight lorries.
And yet another example to pile on: whether a vehicle is a bus or a car basically depend on the number of seats. We own an old Ford Windstar, which seats 7 comfortably, making it a car. If we put in an extra seat, it becomes a bus and - for safety & security - you all of a sudden need a bus driver's license. Even if you have a license for heavy trucks with trailers, the law regards you as inapable of driving a bus...
Most people aren't aware of the inconsistent rules and regulations of any nation, since they rarely if ever think it over - they simply comply without thinking. By forcing them to think about this, their blind confidence in their authorities is undermined, increasing the odds of them asking "Why?" and then refusing to comply when the answer boils down to "Because I say so!".
Sorry for going off on a rant like that, but thinking about people not thinking tends to light my fuse.