The End of Covidistan, pt. 5: Rebuttals of 'the Science™' and the Bio-Ethics Commission, with the latter arrogating more state rights over one's body
#never again is far to weak to express the depravity and, yes, totalitarian impetus by 'the Science™' to destroy what remains of civil rights, bodily autonomy, and popular sovereignty
Reference is made to yesterday’s posting about the proposed Covid mandate reparations fund, to be set-up by the State of Lower Austria (see here).
Today, there is significant evidence of the advanced decay of the régime and its willing executioners.
This posting comes in two parts: first, a translation of a tabloid piece that appeared earlier today in Die Kronen-Zeitung, Austria’s largest newspaper in which ample space is given to frustrated ‘scientists’ to voice their disgust with the ending of their influence over public policy.
The second part is a translation an ‘ad-hoc statement’ by the Austro-Covidian Bioethics (sic) Commission in response to the Covid mandate reparations. For background on its chairwoman, one Christiane Druml, you are referred to earlier pieces, in particular this one from early February 2022, which contains this gem:
‘The Covid-19 vaccine mandate could be the beginning of a new effort to protect people against unnecessary [sic(k)] diseases like measles, whooping cough, and influenza—also with vaccine mandates’…asked about influenza, [Druml] opined that ‘society absolutely has an interest in avoiding unnecessary influenza waves’.
As always, translations and emphases are mine, as are the bottom lines. Sigh.
After [the régime’s advisory board] GECKO is Dissolved
‘Unacceptable’: Researchers Call Out the Government
The planned Corona reparations in Lower Austria are the straw that broke the camel’s back: ‘The Science’ [my modification] goes on the offensive.
By Erich Vogl and Gregor Brandl, Kronen-Zeitung, 22 March 2023
Austria is not good place to do science at the moment, even if there are top scientists like physics Nobel laureate Anton Zeilinger. According to studies [that remain uncited], scepticism and disinterest march hand in hand—in the wrong direction. Fired up by recent statements by Chancellor [Nehammer] on climate policy and dependence on expert opinions [Expertenhörigkeit], now occurred the self-dissolution of government’s Covid advisory board GECKO (which its members explained blaming politicians).
Formation of new Lower Austrian state government was the straw that broke the camel’s back: they wanted to pay back millions of euros in damages caused by Corona measures [brazenly, ‘the Science™’ here arrogates to itself supremacy over electoral results]. A genuflection before the FPÖ, as political analyst Thomas Hofer states [disgustingly, ‘experts’ agree with ‘the Science™’ in their contempt for the people]. Mathematician Erich Neuwirth: ‘There was a STEM-trained FPÖ federal presidential candidate who spoke in all seriousness about Chemtrails and thus made sided with conspiracy theorists'.’
Physicist and science explainer [Wissenschaftserklärer; I don’t know what that is] Florian Aigner is ‘very disappointed about politicians’ disregard for “the Science™” [my modification]’. Helga Kromp-Kolb, climate researcher and Krone columnist, also agrees: ‘Currently, one has the impression that parts of the government feel threatened by “the Science™” [again, my modification]’. Molecular biologist Ulrich Elling adds: ‘The ÖVP’s treatment of experts is intolerable, ungrateful, and populist.’ [Elling’s comment reads like a sad and angry teen who figured out that his former girlfriend, who looked like the love of his life, abandoned him for a better-looking boy]
Nobel Laureate Zeilinger on Science Scepticism
Admittedly, the scientific community has also made misjudgements about Corona. Kromp-Kolb therefore insists on listening to different opinions. One should not only trust one’s ‘own researchers’. Unfortunately, scientists have often sold-out to political actors.
Austria’s most famous scientist, Anton Zeilinger, defines two categories in his search for causes [of science scepticism]. On the one hand, there are too few good science journalists [oh, if only there would have been more people like, say,
, which would have resolved, well, ‘vaccine hesitancy, right?]. On the other hand, the foundation for the development of science scepticism can be identified occurring as early as in school. There, science is not taught in an exciting way, as Neuwirth also notes [so, they’re basically admitting massive problems in teacher training: I have first-hand experience of that problem, if you’d need information about it, please get in touch]. Zeilinger: ‘Here you could create the pre-conditions for people’s [in-] ability to understand “the Science™’ later in life’ [my modifications, even though Zeilinger may be correct about this].Ad-hoc Response to the Current Debate on a ‘Corona Reparation Fund’
Statement of the Bioethics Commission, 20 March 2023
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact not only on the individual lives of people worldwide, but also on the development of our society. However, recent political pronouncements and debates have increasingly been characterised by a negation of scientific findings and have thus taken a highly questionable, in some cases downright unethical direction. [I’ll address these allegations of 'questionable ethics’ in the bottom lines]
The statement of the Bioethics Commission of 27 October 2021 emphasises that ‘a pandemic…is not a private matter’ and that ‘events such as the current COVID-19 pandemic…are always collective events beyond any possible personal concern. In order to cope with them, societal cooperation of, and solidarity among, individuals are needed.’ [line break added]
In the current public debates, it is precisely this solidarity-based action that is being called into question. While questions about the proportionality of concrete measures in the pandemic are justified [who are you to judge?] and also necessary, it is neither ethically nor legally justifiable to now demand ‘justice and reparation’ for those who were not willing, although able, to share the immanently necessary restrictions on individual freedoms in a pandemic in a spirit of solidarity. [line break added; Overton Window definition powers for me, but not for thee, member of the pesky, unruly, and egotistic rabble]
On a linguistic plane, the use of the term ‘reparation’ should also be rejected, which is obviously aimed at manipulatively placing the COVID-19 measures in the context of crimes under international and human rights law [gee, I wonder who gave these ‘experts’ that particular idea…]. Furthermore, the rejection of public propagation of the Corona vaccination is to be classified as a violation of the state's duty to protect. The proposed lack of public information could lead to the discrediting of effective instruments for the protection of vulnerable groups and thereby indirectly cause avoidable public health hazards [I don’t know what to say about this: evidence-free blabber and the de facto declaration of moral and intellectual bankruptcy will do, I suppose].
It shall also be pointed out that all those who, at the risk of their own health, worked for years in the health-care sector to combat the pandemic, were repeatedly exposed to threats and accusations. The violence (psychological and sometimes even physical) suffered by many of them is not mentioned sufficiently in the current debate about ‘justice and reparation’, and the work of nurses, doctors and other health workers goes largely unacknowledged [so, claiming the ‘pandemic’ caused such detrimental outcomes is incorrect in the preceding paragraph if we’re talking about the 'victims’ of government policies, but there are ‘true victims’ who, of course, are those did the government’s bidding and ‘suffered’ from it; those who lost their livelihoods, civil liberties, and reputations as dissidents are, of course, no ‘worthy’ of ‘justice and reparation; remember: this is the head of the Bioethics Commission who utters such depravities]. The same applies to those who, during the pandemic, in thousands of hours of voluntary work, provided politicians with facts and scientific [sic] findings, from which the politicians drew their conclusions. The Bioethics Commission sees the danger that this new rhetoric, which is obviously only tactically motivated, will reignite the threats and accusations against precisely those who worked to overcome the pandemic [dear rabble, take note, you’re abusing the benevolent government, their public health and other ‘expert’ advisors yet again: shame on you].
The Bioethics Commission emphasises the necessity and the opportunity to balance the undoubtedly existing social distortions through a process of coming to terms [Aufarbeitung] with the pandemic. Coming to terms with the difficult period of the pandemic for all people in our society can only achieve this goal through a transparent debate based on scientific findings and thus also generate common knowledge that is helpful for future developments [but we, ‘the experts’ and ‘Science™’, will be permitted to determine the parameters of said Aufarbeitung, hence, the rabble is to return to its proper place].
Bottom Lines
After three-plus years of this insanity, at the moment we are slowly creeping towards the resolution of the Covid ‘pandemic’, we’re told by ‘the Science™’ to meekly return to the flock of sheeple. As if we needed any more evidence about the utter depravity of ‘the Science™’ and their handmaidens in ‘Bioethics’.
Moreover, the level of condescension about popular will and election results on display is very much mind-blowing. ‘Technocracy’ is the way to go, and the only way these people get to vote is on pre-approved outcomes. Talk about the arrogance of the psychopaths in la coats who, after three years of outsized influence over policy, are today drunk on their exaggerated egos. How pathetic?
As a reminder, here’s what former Nazi leader Hermann Göring said to Gustave Gilbert in the context of the Nuremberg Trials:
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
As a thought experiment, here’s how I’d modify this in light of the above:
After all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked [by, say, Sars-Cov-2], and denounce the sceptics for vaccine hesitancy, and exposing the country to greater danger.
See how easy this is?
You’re welcome.
They want us to act like good little boys and obey. Never. The great many people world wide need to wise up and say a BIG FU to scientific hieratic classes. Why are the priests of science so damn adamant and angry about Us saying no? Is it because they will lose lots of money and their glory orgies will stop? You decide. I doubt they themselves are fearful of some virus.
First of all, my congratulations on the victory in Lower Austria.
Second of all, we'd do well to remember that COVID tyranny was to a significant extent brought about by nerds in white coats who suddenly became Very Important and enjoyed the attention. They've done an enormous amount of damage to the reputation of science, with consequences that are yet to be seen.