Now let's see if this stirs up enough outrage for 'the system' to finally jump-start into action, or the courts to function as they should; if they won't, not many options remain
I found the wording of the caption on Theodor's picture interesting: 'The inflammation of the heart was caused by a strong immune response to the second dose of the vaccine against the coronavirus.’ I'm not a doctor, and so maybe my reaction is silly, but it sounds to me like the writer is trying to create the subtext that the problem is related to the fact that the injection is "working." Or perhaps these two + years have made me terribly cynical. I don't know.
The way these mRNA injections 'work' (let's leave that aside for the moment), is that the synthetic mRNA tells your body to 'express S proteins', hence once injected with these products, your own cells express a non-human protein. It's never happened before that any administered product does this.
The consequence is your body's immune system recognising this non-human protein expressed by your own cells--and attacking it. It's not 'a common side-effect', I'd argue, it's the mechanism of action of these mRNA products.
So, in a way, Sophia, you're not 'terribly cynical', you just paid attention to the details for 2+ years, hence you're able to spot the BS right away.
Thus, that headline isn't technically incorrect; it's, however, thoroughly misleading as to cause (mRNA making your cells express a non-human protein) and effect (your immune system attacking your cells doing so).
I think Norway uses system of compensation similar to ours, in that the sum received has an arbitrary cap, and is doled out as a share of resources allotted in state budget to such matters?
That's why the almost 1 000 children who were injured by Pandemrix got about 50 000:- each as compensation, for being injured for life and having a condtion which bars them from many careers, jobs and licenses.
Tangent:
I feel we (meaning the culturally germanic and celtic peoples) have adopted the latin/american meaning of the word trust. I might be misremembering but trust should mean "to know what and hoe someone or something is" as in to know what to expect as realistic/probable and plausible possibilities. Trust is not supposed to mean "to rely on" or "have faith in", that should be reliability, pålitlighet, zuverlässigkeit (hope I got that right?).
I trust the crows to try to nab a chicken if the roof on the chicken-run isn't kept in shape. Because I know what a crow is, what it does and how to handle it. I trust a fox to be a fox, not an emu.
If you see what I mean?
That's part of the cognitive problem, at least to me due to my academic background: words mean less and less, or perhaps more and more? More flux, less definition. Trond apparently still trusts norwegian healthcare system despite experience. He also seems to trust governement, despite it having zero accountability.
I guess I have my personality to thank for a lot: I never extend more trust than I can hold someone to account for; personally, materially and if need be physically. I expect the same in return. I mean, if someone can rip me off scot free knowing I have no recourse, I would be pretty darn stupid to trust them, wouldn't I? Now, how much recourse does the individual have against an organisation such as a state or a corporation? Right. When business-men and lawmakers both fear losing all they own, their names and their lives, they stay if not honest, then at least more honest when there's no real risk at all.
This came up in conversation in a roundabout way with my boss today. He posited there has been a decline in a type of social responsibility (or honour) amongst German industrialists and commercial leaders over the last 50 years. I countered that such honour has been equally lacking amongst the political leadership class of our times and that just as with the lies and deceptions of the invasion of Iraq or the financial crisis I expected no leading political/pharmaceutical/etc. figures would land in jail after the pandemic. And with zero negative consequences for dishonesty, how can we really expect honourable conduct?
I suspect he identifies with those who are burdened with the responsibility of making difficult decisions about other people's lives. He dismissed my concerns of growning totalitarian tendencies of western democracies in efforts to maintain control and we debated the merits of the pandemic measures some more. He then conceded that his starting premise when considering the legitimacy of the measures is that the German academia and its scientists would have sounded the alarm if it was unjustified. Oh, how happy are they who have not seen but believe in the powers of the priests.
Well, I put it to him that this is essentially the difference between him and me. I belong to the "do your own research" faction. A modern heretic, I no longer trust the credentialed expert class as I've caught them with their hands in the till and playing fast and loose with the "facts" far too many times.
For a while now, I've found this to be one of the defining differences between we regime critics and the faithful regime supporters - TRUST. Now, I realise that I DO trust them, but as Rikard points out, I trust them to act in their own self-interest!
"...would sounded the alarm if it was unjustified."
That's an attitude that may well be the sound of the world ending. That attitude, from makroscale stuff like epidemic diseases or asteroid strikes to mikroscale stuff like your local place of employment's ineffective - even totemic or psychologically fetischistic or cargo kult-like - measures... it always causes a problem to become disaster.
When I did my auskultation (student teacher) when studying to become a teacher, when thing was hammered home: do not suspect. Inform immediately at the first suspicion of a child suffering abuse in the home or elsewhere, any kind of abuse. It was absolutely forbidden to think "If something really was wrong, somebody would of aid something". One instructor, an elderly woman, voiced it in a way we could feel it physically: "You are that someone! It is better you report immediately, even if it is in error, than for you to go around thinking you need more proof while a child may suffer abuse and molestation."
It drove home that it is on me, no one else, no matter circumstances or ifs and buts and maybes what I do. It was a very stark contrast to the general socialist democratic spirit of Sweden, where everything is someone else's responsibility.
A perfect example of that: I do voluntary work for a church handing out food to impoverished swedes (yes, we have more than 100 000 people so poor they are close to the UN definition of starvation) and we recently got a black mark from the municipal council's food inspector. The bread we give out is not correctly labeled for the benefit of allergics.
So it was suggested that such bread that is given to us which comes without labels, we put on a separate table with a sign "Allergics beware, unknown contents" (like nuts or fruit or so). Unacceptable on two accounts according to regs: one, it's not on an allergic person to check if something is safe, it is the person giving or serving it that has sole repsonsibility, and two, one may not point out and stigmatise a group of people as deficient in that manner such a sign would do.
As I think I've stated, here or elsewhere: this is not Orwell's '1984' or Zamjatin's 'We', this is Terry Gilliams 'Brazil'.
I found the wording of the caption on Theodor's picture interesting: 'The inflammation of the heart was caused by a strong immune response to the second dose of the vaccine against the coronavirus.’ I'm not a doctor, and so maybe my reaction is silly, but it sounds to me like the writer is trying to create the subtext that the problem is related to the fact that the injection is "working." Or perhaps these two + years have made me terribly cynical. I don't know.
As I understadn it, a common side-effect is the immune system attacking the body which leads to all sorts of dangers and problems.
So in a sense, yes, getting a lifethreatening debiitating condition means the shot is working.
The way these mRNA injections 'work' (let's leave that aside for the moment), is that the synthetic mRNA tells your body to 'express S proteins', hence once injected with these products, your own cells express a non-human protein. It's never happened before that any administered product does this.
The consequence is your body's immune system recognising this non-human protein expressed by your own cells--and attacking it. It's not 'a common side-effect', I'd argue, it's the mechanism of action of these mRNA products.
So, in a way, Sophia, you're not 'terribly cynical', you just paid attention to the details for 2+ years, hence you're able to spot the BS right away.
Thus, that headline isn't technically incorrect; it's, however, thoroughly misleading as to cause (mRNA making your cells express a non-human protein) and effect (your immune system attacking your cells doing so).
Whatever happened to Norway's tradition of weregild?
Modernity 'happened'.
As an aside, I suppose it'll come back before too long, if the courts are seen to be non working re the Covid injection catastrophe.
People don't understand, the fascists want most of us dead. Read this: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-08-scientists-uncover-human-heart-regenerate.html
I think Norway uses system of compensation similar to ours, in that the sum received has an arbitrary cap, and is doled out as a share of resources allotted in state budget to such matters?
That's why the almost 1 000 children who were injured by Pandemrix got about 50 000:- each as compensation, for being injured for life and having a condtion which bars them from many careers, jobs and licenses.
Tangent:
I feel we (meaning the culturally germanic and celtic peoples) have adopted the latin/american meaning of the word trust. I might be misremembering but trust should mean "to know what and hoe someone or something is" as in to know what to expect as realistic/probable and plausible possibilities. Trust is not supposed to mean "to rely on" or "have faith in", that should be reliability, pålitlighet, zuverlässigkeit (hope I got that right?).
I trust the crows to try to nab a chicken if the roof on the chicken-run isn't kept in shape. Because I know what a crow is, what it does and how to handle it. I trust a fox to be a fox, not an emu.
If you see what I mean?
That's part of the cognitive problem, at least to me due to my academic background: words mean less and less, or perhaps more and more? More flux, less definition. Trond apparently still trusts norwegian healthcare system despite experience. He also seems to trust governement, despite it having zero accountability.
I guess I have my personality to thank for a lot: I never extend more trust than I can hold someone to account for; personally, materially and if need be physically. I expect the same in return. I mean, if someone can rip me off scot free knowing I have no recourse, I would be pretty darn stupid to trust them, wouldn't I? Now, how much recourse does the individual have against an organisation such as a state or a corporation? Right. When business-men and lawmakers both fear losing all they own, their names and their lives, they stay if not honest, then at least more honest when there's no real risk at all.
This came up in conversation in a roundabout way with my boss today. He posited there has been a decline in a type of social responsibility (or honour) amongst German industrialists and commercial leaders over the last 50 years. I countered that such honour has been equally lacking amongst the political leadership class of our times and that just as with the lies and deceptions of the invasion of Iraq or the financial crisis I expected no leading political/pharmaceutical/etc. figures would land in jail after the pandemic. And with zero negative consequences for dishonesty, how can we really expect honourable conduct?
I suspect he identifies with those who are burdened with the responsibility of making difficult decisions about other people's lives. He dismissed my concerns of growning totalitarian tendencies of western democracies in efforts to maintain control and we debated the merits of the pandemic measures some more. He then conceded that his starting premise when considering the legitimacy of the measures is that the German academia and its scientists would have sounded the alarm if it was unjustified. Oh, how happy are they who have not seen but believe in the powers of the priests.
Well, I put it to him that this is essentially the difference between him and me. I belong to the "do your own research" faction. A modern heretic, I no longer trust the credentialed expert class as I've caught them with their hands in the till and playing fast and loose with the "facts" far too many times.
For a while now, I've found this to be one of the defining differences between we regime critics and the faithful regime supporters - TRUST. Now, I realise that I DO trust them, but as Rikard points out, I trust them to act in their own self-interest!
update: oops, Rikard quoted my grammar mistake.
should be, "would have sounded the alarm"
"...would sounded the alarm if it was unjustified."
That's an attitude that may well be the sound of the world ending. That attitude, from makroscale stuff like epidemic diseases or asteroid strikes to mikroscale stuff like your local place of employment's ineffective - even totemic or psychologically fetischistic or cargo kult-like - measures... it always causes a problem to become disaster.
When I did my auskultation (student teacher) when studying to become a teacher, when thing was hammered home: do not suspect. Inform immediately at the first suspicion of a child suffering abuse in the home or elsewhere, any kind of abuse. It was absolutely forbidden to think "If something really was wrong, somebody would of aid something". One instructor, an elderly woman, voiced it in a way we could feel it physically: "You are that someone! It is better you report immediately, even if it is in error, than for you to go around thinking you need more proof while a child may suffer abuse and molestation."
It drove home that it is on me, no one else, no matter circumstances or ifs and buts and maybes what I do. It was a very stark contrast to the general socialist democratic spirit of Sweden, where everything is someone else's responsibility.
A perfect example of that: I do voluntary work for a church handing out food to impoverished swedes (yes, we have more than 100 000 people so poor they are close to the UN definition of starvation) and we recently got a black mark from the municipal council's food inspector. The bread we give out is not correctly labeled for the benefit of allergics.
So it was suggested that such bread that is given to us which comes without labels, we put on a separate table with a sign "Allergics beware, unknown contents" (like nuts or fruit or so). Unacceptable on two accounts according to regs: one, it's not on an allergic person to check if something is safe, it is the person giving or serving it that has sole repsonsibility, and two, one may not point out and stigmatise a group of people as deficient in that manner such a sign would do.
As I think I've stated, here or elsewhere: this is not Orwell's '1984' or Zamjatin's 'We', this is Terry Gilliams 'Brazil'.