Covid, Postmodernism, and Biotyranny: Self-Victimisation is Driving the Return of Mandates Later this Year

Read--in disbelief--how Norwegian physicians struggle to explain why 'vulnerable' people should take a fifth injection, despite the prior four haven't worked

We here in Team Reality have long mused, debated, and, at times, despaired about the seeming imperviousness of the medical-political establishments to objective facts: why wouldn’t ‘they’ see that one or the other issue connected to all matters Covid-19 is problematic?

Surely, one part of the answer is certainly the deplorable, reckless, and generally sorry state of corporate mass media. They are beholden to vested interests, hence their newsrooms and editorial meetings are dominated by concerns what is safe for one’s career (e.g., woke virtue-signalling), as opposed to the business of presenting, in an even-handed fashion, facts to the public.

Yet, this is nothing new, as countless publications have been documenting this since the awesome impact of wartime propaganda in WW1, in particular its Anglo-American experiences.

Nothing new under the sun, then, so, why yet another essay about it?

Well, a couple of days ago I was reading a highly emotionalised piece over at NRK, Norway’s state broadcaster, on this subject matter. Entitled, ‘Here Anne-Lise (33) is getting bloodwork done for the fifth Covid injection’, the seemingly patent absurdity of it all caught my attention (link here; my emphases here and in the following).

‘I’m terrified of being infected. I’m afraid of ending up on a ventilator, and that I might not wake up at-all’, says Anne-Lise A. Olsen.

NRK meets her at Akershus University Hospital (Ahus), where she, as one of the first in this country, will receive a fifth Covid injection.

She is offered a fifth dose because she participates in the Nor-vaC study. The study is a collaborative project between Diakonhjemmet Hospital and Ahus, where they examine the antibody response after Covid vaccination in patients with joint, intestinal, and liver disease who are undergoing immunosuppressive treatment.

‘I have a liver transplant, and I also have an intestinal disease’, explains Anne-Lise.

This is, I kid you not, the opening of the piece. Anne-Lise’s story is, of course and without question, a heart-breaking one: a 33 year-old woman whose entire life has been derailed due to her medical conditions, but the tracks are leading her only through ‘danger zone’ for more than two years now.

Here’s how this particular episode played out, that is, until 5 June 2022: as a participant in the Nor-vaC study, researchers are constantly measuring her bloodwork, in particular looking for antibody levels. Here are the main, if very sad, take-aways:

‘It seems that I get a slight increase of antibodies three to five weeks after injection, but three months later, the antibodies are completely gone’, says Anne-Lise.

So far, findings from the Nor-vaC study, as well as international studies, show that patients with severely weakened immune systems have a poorer response to the Covid injectables compared to healthy individuals. The causes of a weakened immune system can be many, include the patient’s underlying morbidities and the use of immunosuppressive drugs. The latter group makes up, according to the Institute of Public Health (IPH), about 75,000 people, including approx. 1,000 patients who underwent liver transplants.

‘We see that the liver transplant recipients respond less well to the Covid vaccines than healthy people, and we suspect that the antibody level in the transplant recipients decreases faster after vaccination. Still, there are also some who have no response to the vaccine at all, says chief physician Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen, who leads the Nor-vaC study at Ahus.

So far, the IPH has recommended a three-dose regimen as ‘basic immunisation’ for individuals who fall into these ‘vulnerable’ groups, followed by a fourth injection (2nd booster, if you’re keeping counts) three months thereafter. Now, however, the IPH is moving a bit and opened up for—shockingly—individual assessments for further injections beyond the fourth dose.

This is the crucial context of the above-cited piece: Norwegian hospitals have begun offering a fifth dose to some 80 patients after liver transplantation, including a detailed follow-up about their response to the fifth injection.

‘We see that the number of patients who respond well to the vaccine increases slightly for each dose given’, says Jørgensen and emphasises that the vast majority of patients tolerate the vaccine well without more side effects than in healthy people.

Curious, eh? I do wonder, upon re-reading this statement by Dr. Jørgensen, if that may be, at least in part, because it’s simply impossible at that point to distinguish between the ‘background’ troubles of ‘patients with joint, intestinal, and liver disease who are undergoing immunosuppressive treatment’? But I digress.

With the arrival of Omicron about half a year ago, though, the dynamic of the pandemic changed, it ‘gradually became clear that the risk of hospitalisation decreased dramatically compared with previous variants’, that is, relative to the much larger numbers of infected people (which is a crucial piece of information left out of the NRK piece).

And here’s why I’m translating so much of this piece:

‘Still, Omicron can be dangerous for organ transplant recipients’, says Jørgensen, adding that ‘the problem is that we know very little about who of the transplant recipients develops serious disease. Therefore, we currently recommend repeated vaccination of particularly vulnerable groups’, says the chief physician.

Please help me out on this one, dear readers: Omicron may be more dangerous to transplant recipients (or not), and even half a year later, we apparently don’t know that.

Didn’t we just undergo a wave of Omicron that infected some ± 70% of the population?

Shouldn’t we have at least some experience with it? Also, I fail to understand the good doctor’s ‘logic’ (if one might wish to call it that, generously speaking): we ‘know very little’ about’ the problem, ‘therefore, we…recommend repeated vaccination’?

Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?

To me, this entire situation reeks of malpractice, in particular as Dr. Jørgensen then went on to state the following in response to the pertinent question of ‘how many doses do transplant recipients need‘?

‘Now we are in a period where the virus does not do much damage, but we expect a new wave of infections in the autumn. How this develops will then be decisive for what we recommend next, but we see that it may be necessary to recommend a sixth dose as well’, says Jørgensen.

Needless to say, no questions were asked about the illogical statements highlighted above, or how ‘more of the same, even though we don’t know if it works’ could be a solution to Anne-Lise’s and her fellow transplant recipients woes.

The NRK piece ends on the following note:

Since February, practically all non-pharmaceutical interventions have been scrapped, which, in combination with Omicron’s highly contagious nature, has led to large parts of the population having undergone infection.

So did Anne-Lise. She became infected in March.

‘Luckily, it went well with me then, but I am still afraid of being infected.’

Therefore, Anne-Lise continues to keep some measures for herself and her family: ‘I avoid large gatherings, and I avoid going shopping and taking public transport.’

She is still happy that the rest of society gets to experience a more normal everyday life again: ‘I understand the importance of society being open for the economy, for the workplaces, and not least for children and young people. But for people like me, it’s a bit stressful, she says.

Our (Fake) Culture of Victimhood Drives Mandates

So, at this point, you’re probably asking yourself how this piece ties in with the title I’ve chosen?

First of all, do note the ironic absurdity of poor Anne-Lise and her fellow transplant recipients—and note that I’m not making fun of this—who are currently participating in this questionable, to me at least, trial about just how much mRNA injections the human body may be able to absurd.

Four injections haven’t done much, for after three months, antibody levels are back to before the shot.

And three or four injections haven’t prevented Anne-Lise from becoming infected, either.

Still, in the name of the (un-) holy trinity of ‘science’, ‘progress’, and ‘allopathic medicine’, warrior physicians carry the banner of these failed products around town. Their crusade to the medical Jerusalem—mass vaccination-induced population immunity—having failed, they now turn their eyes to the most vulnerable groups.

And this, in turn, brings us to the crucial point of my argument: according to the IPH, particularly vulnerable groups (definitions here) will be eligible to get more injections, which will, eventually, enable politicians and their camp followers in legacy media to proclaim, claiming altruism, that ‘we’re not safe, until everyone feels safe’.

Therefore, new mandates are o.k., because surely everyone must care for the most vulnerable groups.

I don’t mean to imply that I don’t feel sad for the most vulnerable amongst us. What I am saying, though, is that the well-established culture of claiming victimhood, as well as the ancillary notion of ‘becoming an ally’, both induced by the more recent postmodernist inclinations emanating from North American academia, are a direct threat to our societies.

It’s easy to virtue-signal one’s ‘ally status’ by claiming the societal need to ‘protect the vulnerable’ amongst us. No-one can say anything against this, lest you wish to become an accessory to the killing of grandma.

This is all patently absurd and beyond believe.

Not only because all transplant recipients, in particular those who regularly (have to) take immunosuppressive treatment, are at elevated risks, but they are so all the time. They are at elevated risks irrespective of Covid-19.

Anne-Lise took—and survived—four of these injections by now. All taken with the express aim of avoiding getting infected with Covid, which she ‘survived’ in March.

Is it beyond to quote Nietzsche on this one?

Still, with the creation of, and subsequent elevation to, ‘special status’ for certain groups of the general populace, the state has managed to do, above all, one thing: it brought into existence a group whose members will, whatever the reasons or motives of belonging to said ‘vulnerable’ group, forever advocate in favour of mandates, measures, and practices that exclude the wider society, in particular those who are deemed ‘carriers of infectious disease’, esp. ‘unvaccinated’ of all ages, creeds, backgrounds, and the like.

It’s brilliant, at least from a postmodernist point of view: everyone who wishes to claim ‘special status’, replete with expectations of certain perks and, yes, entitlements, may join the ranks of the ‘vulnerable’. It’s basically a kind of fake uber-inclusiveness grounded in atomised hyper-individualistic believes, or: narcissism.

So, here’s your (Hobson’s) choice, everyone

You can either claim eternal victimhood and expect others to carry any burden so that you may feel a bit more comfortable, or…

…you may get the f*** off your backsides, re-take responsibility for your live, and demand accountability from those claiming to represent us.

Failure to choose will inevitably result in the state pushing everyone around even harder next time around.