Yes I noticed her remarks as well re Covid was dangerous "early on" and then worked its way through humans to become less dangerous.
Except as you noted, whatever "covid" was, it wasn't causing unusual deaths or symptoms "early on."
I have been involved in the "anti-vax" movement since 2000, and one of its most prominent members also believes "Covid" was real and that they came down with a bad case of it in 2020 (and even last year). Nothing I suggested could convince this person otherwise.
Reportedly billions of people around the world have been pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to COVID-19 injections, and the entire issue of 'Covid' is shrouded in conjecture!
Seriously?!
The public has been fed a torrent of fear-mongering lies about this phoney baloney crisis, to trap them into submitting to injections over and over again, and a social credit system to control them.
Here's the bottom line...
NO-ONE has given VALID VOLUNTARY INFORMED CONSENT to these medical interventions, because NO-ONE was properly informed, and everyone was pressured, coerced, manipulated, and with many even MANDATED to submit to these medical interventions.
Is anyone understanding the significance of this yet? There is NO VALID CONSENT.
They said "getting the COVID vaccination is the only pathway back to a more normal life".
At that time the Australian COVID-19 vaccination program had been extended to include all people aged 50 years and over, but subsequently it was MANDATED for much of the Australian population, and also pressed upon children, who were at little or no risk of the common respiratory ailments called 'Covid'.
The Joint Statement notes, alarmingly: “To date, there have been over 160 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 world-wide and a death toll exceeding 3.3 million people."
What does this really mean? With 'cases' diagnosed on dodgy testing, and all sorts of deaths being attributed to 'Covid'.
This must all be reviewed now, the evidence base for the phoney baloney 'Covid' crisis that was used to make people submit to injections under threat of penalties - 'No Jab, No Job' to 'No Jab, No Life' - with the collaboration of the medical profession.
It is interesting that she co-wrote such a superb book about vaccines, calling them 225 years of witches brew, obviously rejecting the $cience thereby, yet fully accepts the same underlying $cience about viral contagion.
I, no expert just someone who looks at this stuff everyday since 2021, was also reluctant to seriously consider the arguments against viruses (existence of/ability of to cause contagious diseases). She has registered on Substack but I don’t think she’s posted anything yet.
In any event she is a hero to me for her work. I don’t subscribe to the “controlled opposition” label to everyone whose views differ from mine.
Yes - her other work pre-dates 2020 and (as I said) what she believes about COVID and SARS-CoV-2 doesn't detract from that work, and her entire Rogan conversation is well worth listening to.
I just searched my subtack: I don't see a time I have used the term "controlled opposition" or referred to specific individuals as being "controlled op."
I've said
--"approved" or "elevated" voices (referring to the elevated doctor/nurse scripts coming out of NYC and other select places in spring 2020).
--"counter op" and "dual-op" to characterize intelligence/military directed efforts
--permitted/promoted dissent (i.e., in the False Binary article), which is NOT referring to individuals but to perspectives or positions.
I didn’t mean to imply that you said anything about her or anyone else being controlled opposition. I was just making a general point about people fighting against all the hogwash, as Peggy Hall calls it, that I don’t like jumping to that type of generalization about them, even though in some cases it might be true to whatever extent.
There are three major challenges facing anyone who embarks on a serious investigation into the ‘no-viruses’ or even the ‘no SARS COV2’ or the ‘No Pandemic’ positions.
1. Critical thinking skills. i.e. can you formulate an argument without resorting to logical fallacies? Regrettably, it has become very apparent that many of those with an extensive academic background are frequently oblivious to their reliance on logical fallacies when challenged to defend the validity of something they have never previously thought to question.
2. Groupthink. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrate an alarming tendency for people to deny even what they can see with their own eyes if it requires them to have a contrary opinion to their peers. Unfortunately this phenomenon appears to be even more of an issue amongst those who have received extensive academic training. Highly educated people really struggle to adopt a position that is at odds with their peer group.
3. Dealing with the psychological implications. This should never be underestimated. In the case of the COVID event, a rejection of the pandemic narrative requires an acceptance of some truly horrifying realities that can be devastating to the human psyche. Mass iatrogenic deaths being just one implication. For those who work in the medical profession, or even those who may have left the profession having become disillusioned with its many failings, there may still be great difficulty accepting that they have devoted much of their lives to operating under a false paradigm and, albeit unwittingly, may have at times caused harm to those in their care.
So, although I cannot deny finding Suzanne Humphries’ position frustrating when I have great admiration for the work she has done to expose the vaccination fallacy, I can also be sympathetic when I consider that she is likely being influenced by one or more of the points above.
With the ‘burden of proof reversal’ logical fallacy being such a common defense position from the defenders of virology, i.e. “prove that viruses aren’t the cause of disease then”, I am adding a fourth point to the above:
4. Uncertainty about the true cause of disease. Human beings do not deal well with unexplained mysteries. The Scientific Method is a logical approach which attempts to safeguard us from a decent into superstition. Unfortunately in cases where either the Scientific Method has NOT been used to prove a cause and effect relationship (e.g. Virology) or because the Scientific Method CANNOT be used to identify an unknown cause for an effect phenomenon (e.g. the apparent contagiousness of yawning), we are left with uncertainty. To try and avoid the discomfort of uncertainty it seems that most people will prefer to accept an unproven explanation or even a nonsensical explanation until something better comes along.
That 1916 polio epidemic, which I'd either forgotten about or never heard of, caused a familiar "lock yourself in your apartment until the authorities say it's safe to come out" panic in NYC.
This paper from July 2020 discusses it a bit. "Can pandemics affect educational attainment? Evidence from the polio epidemic of 1916":
Unfortunately, you completed the full circle typical for non-hardcore biologists. You still correctly argue with the spaced-out Dr. Suzanne Humphries about several things others taught you. May I suggest that you talk more to Nick Hudson @NickHudsonCT on X?
Yes I noticed her remarks as well re Covid was dangerous "early on" and then worked its way through humans to become less dangerous.
Except as you noted, whatever "covid" was, it wasn't causing unusual deaths or symptoms "early on."
I have been involved in the "anti-vax" movement since 2000, and one of its most prominent members also believes "Covid" was real and that they came down with a bad case of it in 2020 (and even last year). Nothing I suggested could convince this person otherwise.
Clearly, we have work to do on all fronts.
"Why do people still believe in Covid"?
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/why-do-people-still-believe-in-covid
Where was Suzanne Humphries throughout 'Covid'?
I looked for her a number of times, and it was like she'd been vaporised, no sign of her.
And now here she is.
It's astonishing!!!
Reportedly billions of people around the world have been pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to COVID-19 injections, and the entire issue of 'Covid' is shrouded in conjecture!
Seriously?!
The public has been fed a torrent of fear-mongering lies about this phoney baloney crisis, to trap them into submitting to injections over and over again, and a social credit system to control them.
Here's the bottom line...
NO-ONE has given VALID VOLUNTARY INFORMED CONSENT to these medical interventions, because NO-ONE was properly informed, and everyone was pressured, coerced, manipulated, and with many even MANDATED to submit to these medical interventions.
Is anyone understanding the significance of this yet? There is NO VALID CONSENT.
Just think about the intimidating demands doctors were making to support this agenda, for example this joint statement from the Australian Medical Association and Council of Presidents of Medical Colleges in Australia, published in May 2021: https://www.ama.com.au/media/joint-statement-covid-vaccination-only-pathway-more-normal-life
They said "getting the COVID vaccination is the only pathway back to a more normal life".
At that time the Australian COVID-19 vaccination program had been extended to include all people aged 50 years and over, but subsequently it was MANDATED for much of the Australian population, and also pressed upon children, who were at little or no risk of the common respiratory ailments called 'Covid'.
The Joint Statement notes, alarmingly: “To date, there have been over 160 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 world-wide and a death toll exceeding 3.3 million people."
What does this really mean? With 'cases' diagnosed on dodgy testing, and all sorts of deaths being attributed to 'Covid'.
This must all be reviewed now, the evidence base for the phoney baloney 'Covid' crisis that was used to make people submit to injections under threat of penalties - 'No Jab, No Job' to 'No Jab, No Life' - with the collaboration of the medical profession.
It is interesting that she co-wrote such a superb book about vaccines, calling them 225 years of witches brew, obviously rejecting the $cience thereby, yet fully accepts the same underlying $cience about viral contagion.
I, no expert just someone who looks at this stuff everyday since 2021, was also reluctant to seriously consider the arguments against viruses (existence of/ability of to cause contagious diseases). She has registered on Substack but I don’t think she’s posted anything yet.
In any event she is a hero to me for her work. I don’t subscribe to the “controlled opposition” label to everyone whose views differ from mine.
Yes - her other work pre-dates 2020 and (as I said) what she believes about COVID and SARS-CoV-2 doesn't detract from that work, and her entire Rogan conversation is well worth listening to.
I just searched my subtack: I don't see a time I have used the term "controlled opposition" or referred to specific individuals as being "controlled op."
I've said
--"approved" or "elevated" voices (referring to the elevated doctor/nurse scripts coming out of NYC and other select places in spring 2020).
--"counter op" and "dual-op" to characterize intelligence/military directed efforts
--permitted/promoted dissent (i.e., in the False Binary article), which is NOT referring to individuals but to perspectives or positions.
I didn’t mean to imply that you said anything about her or anyone else being controlled opposition. I was just making a general point about people fighting against all the hogwash, as Peggy Hall calls it, that I don’t like jumping to that type of generalization about them, even though in some cases it might be true to whatever extent.
Yes, fair enough.
I'm more than fine calling Robert Malone "Operation Malone," however!
There are three major challenges facing anyone who embarks on a serious investigation into the ‘no-viruses’ or even the ‘no SARS COV2’ or the ‘No Pandemic’ positions.
1. Critical thinking skills. i.e. can you formulate an argument without resorting to logical fallacies? Regrettably, it has become very apparent that many of those with an extensive academic background are frequently oblivious to their reliance on logical fallacies when challenged to defend the validity of something they have never previously thought to question.
2. Groupthink. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrate an alarming tendency for people to deny even what they can see with their own eyes if it requires them to have a contrary opinion to their peers. Unfortunately this phenomenon appears to be even more of an issue amongst those who have received extensive academic training. Highly educated people really struggle to adopt a position that is at odds with their peer group.
3. Dealing with the psychological implications. This should never be underestimated. In the case of the COVID event, a rejection of the pandemic narrative requires an acceptance of some truly horrifying realities that can be devastating to the human psyche. Mass iatrogenic deaths being just one implication. For those who work in the medical profession, or even those who may have left the profession having become disillusioned with its many failings, there may still be great difficulty accepting that they have devoted much of their lives to operating under a false paradigm and, albeit unwittingly, may have at times caused harm to those in their care.
So, although I cannot deny finding Suzanne Humphries’ position frustrating when I have great admiration for the work she has done to expose the vaccination fallacy, I can also be sympathetic when I consider that she is likely being influenced by one or more of the points above.
With the ‘burden of proof reversal’ logical fallacy being such a common defense position from the defenders of virology, i.e. “prove that viruses aren’t the cause of disease then”, I am adding a fourth point to the above:
4. Uncertainty about the true cause of disease. Human beings do not deal well with unexplained mysteries. The Scientific Method is a logical approach which attempts to safeguard us from a decent into superstition. Unfortunately in cases where either the Scientific Method has NOT been used to prove a cause and effect relationship (e.g. Virology) or because the Scientific Method CANNOT be used to identify an unknown cause for an effect phenomenon (e.g. the apparent contagiousness of yawning), we are left with uncertainty. To try and avoid the discomfort of uncertainty it seems that most people will prefer to accept an unproven explanation or even a nonsensical explanation until something better comes along.
What do you except, she prolly all jabbed-up.
Once you get jabbed, you're brainwashed for life (unless you take 'special pills' to remove 'the spike protein'😉 )
That 1916 polio epidemic, which I'd either forgotten about or never heard of, caused a familiar "lock yourself in your apartment until the authorities say it's safe to come out" panic in NYC.
This paper from July 2020 discusses it a bit. "Can pandemics affect educational attainment? Evidence from the polio epidemic of 1916":
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7384283/
Unfortunately, you completed the full circle typical for non-hardcore biologists. You still correctly argue with the spaced-out Dr. Suzanne Humphries about several things others taught you. May I suggest that you talk more to Nick Hudson @NickHudsonCT on X?