Read--in disbelief--how Norwegian physicians struggle to explain why 'vulnerable' people should take a fifth injection, despite the prior four haven't worked
"Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?"
On the assumption that the question isn't rethorical, this is the answer:
Originally, germanic/nordic concepts of justice, fairness and equality (equal treatment for equal deeds was what it meant back then, the notion is still with us as an ember) did not take intent into account when judging an action. If cause was brought against someone at Ting, and the Ting mulled the charge over, only things proving or disproving the actual action mattered, not the intent.
Ancient Greece and Roman was much the same, as was all non-Abrahamic cultures and faiths. With christianity morphing the jewish faith to a new one, and the concept of sin and redemption entered the cultural concepts, so too came intent to matter, and from the age of science (let's say 1750 just to drop a marker on the definite side of science edging out religion as the foundation of how the ontological and epirstemological foundation for the world was constructed and perceived) onwards, intent has become pre-eminent even trumping actual deeds and consequences.
"It went to Hell, but atleast we meant well" is the prevailing attitude. After that pre-amble (in which post-modernism is used as an analytical tool rather than a position) the answer to your question is unavoidable:
The doctors and nurses and researchers mean well, and therefore are not violating any ethical concerns or principles. It was that easy to subvert them - let intent matter more than any other factor, and they will happily think up the rationalisations for violating any and all oaths themselves.
And the pattern of intent holds true in all fields in Europe and european-derived nations. If old Janus was worshipped today, his creed would have been bastardised into the unholy twins "I didn't mean for X to happen" and "I meant well, that should cunt for something".
Appendix: I got hung up on the memetic signals in the image. Rainbow-patterned medical equipment. Her shirt reading "Obey". And a 33 year old wearing torn blue jeans, as if she was 14. While she may certainly decided on her dress herself, I am equally free to opine on her choice. The one freedom cannot exist without the other after all. And her mouth covered by a cloth-mask which cannot stop a virus. Rainbow, "Obey", the woman's mouth covered as with a veil.
What would Marshall McLuhan have said about constant semiotic and memetic associative imagery everywhere, where it has no rational reason for being represented?
I didn't want to get into the staged picture: in fairness, the rainbow-themed rubber band is certainly something the (virtue-signalling) nurse and/or doctor has been using; as to Anne-Lise's fashion choices, well, what can I say about them (that you didn't say already)?
As to the face-diaper, well, it looks pretty unsued, perhaps even 'staged', to me, but then again, the main issue I'd highlight is the study-leading doctor's statement: four jabs haven't keept Anne-Lise from 'catching Covid', and while they don't know how the human body will react to repeatedly-dosed mRNA therapeutics over the long-term--remember: after 3 months Abs levels are back to pre-injection levels--so let's just do what hasn't worked again. And again. And again.
At some point, this will not work anymore, and what would people like Anne-Lise do then?
She dies, simple as. "Doctors and executioners both get paid if their charge is killed" is an old saying.
Also, the only real caveats to human experimentation in the much-misunderstood Helsinki declaration (which is not law in any nation, no more than the Nuremberg code is) are that consent must be freely given and that the patient is a volunteer. Both of these have been adhered to, so the doctor commits no ethical violation, from his/hers point of view. As for giving people with various conditions the shot again and again, that's the experiment.
The main questions, if not 'the meaning of life', might thus be said to be: what are we dying for? For whom? And, last but not least, was it a life worth living?
As to esp. the third item on that list, I'd argue that it's quite obviously not worth living for Anne-Lise: too afraid to walk outside, highly cautious before Covid, and now…?
I'm have too much of my ancestry in me to ven care about that kind of greek thinking. I live, I love, I fight and in the end I die. What is there to agonise about?
Provided their voluntary actions DON'T result in mandates, they are free to choose. The irony of them exercising their freedom to choose, only to result in their actions producing compulsation on the rest.
Jun 12, 2022·edited Jun 12, 2022Liked by epimetheus
I noticed you wrote 'until everyone FEELS safe’ and not "until everyone IS safe.' Your wording is spot on. Beyond this OCD desire for safety, the powers that be and their agitators aren't interested in people being safe from an objective standpoint. (Why the government would get to choose what the appropriate standard is another question entirely.) It's all about people feeling safe, but those who need to feel safe will never feel safe. The goal posts will always move. Force people to wear masks, and it won't be enough. Stores need to cut down on the number of clients. Cut down on the number of clients, and it's still not enough. Everyone needs to be vaccinated in the shop. If they deny service to unvaccinated, it's not enough. Did all the clients have 17 boosters? And on and on and on.
When the search for the illusive safety becomes a mental illness, we're screwed.
I did write this intentionally, Sophia: Anne-Lise's stance can neither be explained rationally nor does anyone in the piece states anything that may be characterised as such.
That poor woman is extremely afraid, which is partially understandable given her health-related conditions, yet, it can equally neither be explained by her experience with these injections (4 jabs, got Covid anyways) nor the course of disease (a quite 'mild' one, in March). It's a testament to the ability of propaganda, as well as to our incapacity to perceive reality accurately.
So, this is what we get: highly emotionalised hit pieces, with a (perhaps) super-staged illustration, to induce our sympathies with 'those for whom Covid isn't over', as the subtitle in the picture holds.
'We're not safe, until everyone is safe', we're told.
We all have different perceptions of 'safety', even though, as the usefulness of, say, seatbelts shows, there may be certain things that make more sense than these injections.
As we know, females, rightly, are more fearful than real males. When we allowed females to have excessive influence and power, what did we expect to happen?!
Females are ruled by emotions, which are easily manipulated.
With very, very rare exceptions, combat generals are men for a reason! I am not talking about General Mil Li!
If I remember my evolutionary psychology correctly (and the wife's library on gender studies), men define themselves patrly by combative and competitional comparisons with one another, partly by showing off before women, and partly by performing tasks a woman asks of them.
A bachelor offering to come clean and repair the drains for a single woman he is onterested in f.e.
Women on the other hand define themselves compared to eachother too, but also by how well they can control men and both how much desried they are and for which men they are the focus of desire and want.
Said single woman from above judging the bachelor on his technical skill, willingness to perform, and if he has the guts to start making invites and how he responds to her cold and/or hot-countersignals.
This is of course on largest possible group-level, so any individual will vary from this - and when culture, ethnicity, age, class et c is added it looks like a Cherry Bomb went of in a box of LEGOs so to speak. Yet the pattern is there, according to some.
In a given and structured societal system where base semantic and sociological definitions are set and perceived as natural to the point we don't think about them, the above works very well as those men and women unable or unwilling to both conform and perform will quickly deselect themselves from the general populace; which is not the same as there being total conformity - rather it is the question of knowing how to use the rules vs. ignoring, not understanding or deliberately violating said rules, mores and norms.
Of course, the last 50 years very deliberate attack on all social mores, norms and so on by french and american perverts with academic titles (yes, really, a frightening amount of french post-structuralist and post-modern philosphers are pederasts, pedophiles and so on) meanswe are now in Humpty Dumpty-land, where the only remianing question is who is to be slave and who is to be master.
And as Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again, we must forge forward.
Females are easily ruled by fear of disease. Males are easily ruled by fear of outsiders and anger and horror and grief. We are _all_ susceptible to emotional manipulation.
I can, sadly, relate to that kind of 'argument' from my immediate kin: my brother once texted me stating that he didn't 'want me to die on a ventilator'. Same shit, different smell, I'd say.
The propaganda is immense, but it's crucial, I'd argue, to differentiate between 'enemy' agit-prop and the BS one tends to agree with: most hyper-vaxxers fall, apparently, in the latter category, and if it wasn't for these injections, they'd also taken whatever else as 'remedy'.
"Back in high school, I learned about the Hippocratic Oath: ‘first, do no harm’—how would that tune with the admission of ignorance?"
On the assumption that the question isn't rethorical, this is the answer:
Originally, germanic/nordic concepts of justice, fairness and equality (equal treatment for equal deeds was what it meant back then, the notion is still with us as an ember) did not take intent into account when judging an action. If cause was brought against someone at Ting, and the Ting mulled the charge over, only things proving or disproving the actual action mattered, not the intent.
Ancient Greece and Roman was much the same, as was all non-Abrahamic cultures and faiths. With christianity morphing the jewish faith to a new one, and the concept of sin and redemption entered the cultural concepts, so too came intent to matter, and from the age of science (let's say 1750 just to drop a marker on the definite side of science edging out religion as the foundation of how the ontological and epirstemological foundation for the world was constructed and perceived) onwards, intent has become pre-eminent even trumping actual deeds and consequences.
"It went to Hell, but atleast we meant well" is the prevailing attitude. After that pre-amble (in which post-modernism is used as an analytical tool rather than a position) the answer to your question is unavoidable:
The doctors and nurses and researchers mean well, and therefore are not violating any ethical concerns or principles. It was that easy to subvert them - let intent matter more than any other factor, and they will happily think up the rationalisations for violating any and all oaths themselves.
And the pattern of intent holds true in all fields in Europe and european-derived nations. If old Janus was worshipped today, his creed would have been bastardised into the unholy twins "I didn't mean for X to happen" and "I meant well, that should cunt for something".
Appendix: I got hung up on the memetic signals in the image. Rainbow-patterned medical equipment. Her shirt reading "Obey". And a 33 year old wearing torn blue jeans, as if she was 14. While she may certainly decided on her dress herself, I am equally free to opine on her choice. The one freedom cannot exist without the other after all. And her mouth covered by a cloth-mask which cannot stop a virus. Rainbow, "Obey", the woman's mouth covered as with a veil.
What would Marshall McLuhan have said about constant semiotic and memetic associative imagery everywhere, where it has no rational reason for being represented?
I didn't want to get into the staged picture: in fairness, the rainbow-themed rubber band is certainly something the (virtue-signalling) nurse and/or doctor has been using; as to Anne-Lise's fashion choices, well, what can I say about them (that you didn't say already)?
As to the face-diaper, well, it looks pretty unsued, perhaps even 'staged', to me, but then again, the main issue I'd highlight is the study-leading doctor's statement: four jabs haven't keept Anne-Lise from 'catching Covid', and while they don't know how the human body will react to repeatedly-dosed mRNA therapeutics over the long-term--remember: after 3 months Abs levels are back to pre-injection levels--so let's just do what hasn't worked again. And again. And again.
At some point, this will not work anymore, and what would people like Anne-Lise do then?
She dies, simple as. "Doctors and executioners both get paid if their charge is killed" is an old saying.
Also, the only real caveats to human experimentation in the much-misunderstood Helsinki declaration (which is not law in any nation, no more than the Nuremberg code is) are that consent must be freely given and that the patient is a volunteer. Both of these have been adhered to, so the doctor commits no ethical violation, from his/hers point of view. As for giving people with various conditions the shot again and again, that's the experiment.
Well, everyone dies in the end, ain't it?
The main questions, if not 'the meaning of life', might thus be said to be: what are we dying for? For whom? And, last but not least, was it a life worth living?
As to esp. the third item on that list, I'd argue that it's quite obviously not worth living for Anne-Lise: too afraid to walk outside, highly cautious before Covid, and now…?
I'm have too much of my ancestry in me to ven care about that kind of greek thinking. I live, I love, I fight and in the end I die. What is there to agonise about?
Provided their voluntary actions DON'T result in mandates, they are free to choose. The irony of them exercising their freedom to choose, only to result in their actions producing compulsation on the rest.
Amen, my friend.
I noticed you wrote 'until everyone FEELS safe’ and not "until everyone IS safe.' Your wording is spot on. Beyond this OCD desire for safety, the powers that be and their agitators aren't interested in people being safe from an objective standpoint. (Why the government would get to choose what the appropriate standard is another question entirely.) It's all about people feeling safe, but those who need to feel safe will never feel safe. The goal posts will always move. Force people to wear masks, and it won't be enough. Stores need to cut down on the number of clients. Cut down on the number of clients, and it's still not enough. Everyone needs to be vaccinated in the shop. If they deny service to unvaccinated, it's not enough. Did all the clients have 17 boosters? And on and on and on.
When the search for the illusive safety becomes a mental illness, we're screwed.
I did write this intentionally, Sophia: Anne-Lise's stance can neither be explained rationally nor does anyone in the piece states anything that may be characterised as such.
That poor woman is extremely afraid, which is partially understandable given her health-related conditions, yet, it can equally neither be explained by her experience with these injections (4 jabs, got Covid anyways) nor the course of disease (a quite 'mild' one, in March). It's a testament to the ability of propaganda, as well as to our incapacity to perceive reality accurately.
So, this is what we get: highly emotionalised hit pieces, with a (perhaps) super-staged illustration, to induce our sympathies with 'those for whom Covid isn't over', as the subtitle in the picture holds.
'We're not safe, until everyone is safe', we're told.
We all have different perceptions of 'safety', even though, as the usefulness of, say, seatbelts shows, there may be certain things that make more sense than these injections.
As we know, females, rightly, are more fearful than real males. When we allowed females to have excessive influence and power, what did we expect to happen?!
Females are ruled by emotions, which are easily manipulated.
With very, very rare exceptions, combat generals are men for a reason! I am not talking about General Mil Li!
If I remember my evolutionary psychology correctly (and the wife's library on gender studies), men define themselves patrly by combative and competitional comparisons with one another, partly by showing off before women, and partly by performing tasks a woman asks of them.
A bachelor offering to come clean and repair the drains for a single woman he is onterested in f.e.
Women on the other hand define themselves compared to eachother too, but also by how well they can control men and both how much desried they are and for which men they are the focus of desire and want.
Said single woman from above judging the bachelor on his technical skill, willingness to perform, and if he has the guts to start making invites and how he responds to her cold and/or hot-countersignals.
This is of course on largest possible group-level, so any individual will vary from this - and when culture, ethnicity, age, class et c is added it looks like a Cherry Bomb went of in a box of LEGOs so to speak. Yet the pattern is there, according to some.
In a given and structured societal system where base semantic and sociological definitions are set and perceived as natural to the point we don't think about them, the above works very well as those men and women unable or unwilling to both conform and perform will quickly deselect themselves from the general populace; which is not the same as there being total conformity - rather it is the question of knowing how to use the rules vs. ignoring, not understanding or deliberately violating said rules, mores and norms.
Of course, the last 50 years very deliberate attack on all social mores, norms and so on by french and american perverts with academic titles (yes, really, a frightening amount of french post-structuralist and post-modern philosphers are pederasts, pedophiles and so on) meanswe are now in Humpty Dumpty-land, where the only remianing question is who is to be slave and who is to be master.
And as Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again, we must forge forward.
Thanks.
That is quite an accurate summary.
Females are easily ruled by fear of disease. Males are easily ruled by fear of outsiders and anger and horror and grief. We are _all_ susceptible to emotional manipulation.
Males are ruled by the fear of not getting bunga bunga.
"We are _all_ susceptible to emotional manipulation"
True. Because we are human/emotional beings.
I can, sadly, relate to that kind of 'argument' from my immediate kin: my brother once texted me stating that he didn't 'want me to die on a ventilator'. Same shit, different smell, I'd say.
The propaganda is immense, but it's crucial, I'd argue, to differentiate between 'enemy' agit-prop and the BS one tends to agree with: most hyper-vaxxers fall, apparently, in the latter category, and if it wasn't for these injections, they'd also taken whatever else as 'remedy'.