David Whitehead, Cult of the Medic |531|

The only two white knights on the planet are Malone and Yeadon. Anyone who doesn't support their viewpoint is corrupt; de facto. Illogical.

It‘s far more complicated, also I don’t think they‘re so simple minded as to think that. I very much doubt they have stated their position (it certainly is not mine) as you have done in the sentence that I quoted and highlighted.

They both are in a position financially which makes it relatively easy to speak out, but they are far from the only ‘white knights’ - you just aren’t aware of many others because if they were high profile many have been censored and rubbished and if not they’ve lost their jobs and been shunned by their bosses. I’ve been writing to a Canadian Dr in that position. He also could probably afford to in the short term because his wife is a psychiatrist, but I have resigned from a company when I found out how gash they were when my wife wasn’t working. I did so on a matter of principle.

I suspect a lot of their colleagues might agree with Malone & Yeadon, or at least have some sympathy with them, but maybe not. In any event M & Y will surely be proved to be on the right side of things, or at least not on the wrong side.

You have consistently opposed my questioning posts throughout the Covid event, I think you too will be proven wrong, although I suspect you will never admit it. You will probably say I was not balanced enough, but can’t you see that trying to have nuanced discussion with dogmatic ‘thinkers’ is not possible even with what are normally ‘reasonable‘ people? On the PsiQuest forum, to Ian and Dave and others I’m now a rabid pusher of anti-vax material (and that is not my only flaw) - no discussion about that is possible. I could prove that to you if proof were needed! That’s why I’m now seen as a pariah. My argument is that there definitely ought to be more sceptical discussion about vaccines than there is currently. For gods sake it is now obvious that this is needed!

In any event, things on the other side seem to be unravelling quickly at present, we’ll see what happens when the tide really turns. I hope this brings about a change in that many more will begin to question things and begin to realise that things are not always as they appear. Sometimes questioning is vital.
 
A Freedom of information request in the UK is showing that the rate of death from covid (and only covid) is much lower than what might be expected from media reports on the pandemic. Death rates from covid seem to be exaggerated by 8X.

 
The pandemic is over in the UK. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow this example and drop the mandates and restrictions.

 
Yes indeed - for once Britain really does lead the world!

It is pretty certain that even if Boris falls - which he might - his replacement will follow the same policy.

Remember that we have been nearly unrestricted since July last year. Now the rules on masks are going - although I read that the schools are putting up a fight about this - and the use of the vaccine passport within Britain is being dropped. They would still encourage us to get vaccinated, but I strongly suspect that there will be very little further uptake of the vaccine (except perhaps for travel abroad), because most of those who are not fully vaccinated (myself included) are resisting because of concern over their safety.

It also seems to be openly acknowledged that Omicron is a very mild disease (though like all mild diseases they can hit very ill people harder). It is a mild disease, and it is going everywhere - which gives people complete immunity to COVID. Natural immunity seems to be essentially blind to the various variants - though this still needs to be proved in practice.

Boris was going to lockdown for Christmas and the New Year, because of rising COVID infection rates, but he didn't because of the upraur over his lockdown breaking parties. This allowed time for the infection numbers to start to FALL. This would certainly have been attributed to a lockdown if we had had one, but we didn't. The NHS was pushing the need for a lockdown, but was caught using some exaggerated data, and the newspaper I read, the Daily Telegraph has been full of discussions about the dodgy computer models used by Professor Ian Fergusson. The DT also contributed to what has happened, because one of its journalists tapped into a Twitter discussion with the head of SAGE, and he rather gave the game away that their recommendations were meant to assist in a decision that had already been taken - rather than being objective scientific assessments.

I think those events have shocked a lot of people here into realising that the COVID response was either a huge hysterical over-reaction, or something more sinister (definitely my view).

I don't think the censorship has completely dropped away from the newspapers, but they seem to be pushing at its edges hard now. I hope they will begin to explore the VAERS vaccine data pretty soon.

Needless to say, I am totally delighted by what has happened!

David
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
The UK Office of National Statistics has finally been arm twisted into supplying data about those tying only of COVID:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...foi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021

Just take a look - 6183 people actually died from COVID (i.e. COVID was the only condition mentioned on their death certificate). The total number of people who have died with COVID mentioned on their death certificate is 153,202.

This is a major part of this scandal worldwide. Anyone who tested positive for COVID in Britain (and I think elsewhere) and died in the next 28 days was recorded as dying of COVID. This introduced an awful distortion into the figures because everyone going into hospital as an in-patient was tested as they went in. So there were people going into hospital with terminal cancer, strokes, heart attacks, etc, who were all recorded as dying of COVID!

Now I am sure a plausible statistical case could be made that a few more people could be said to have died from COVID than the 6000-odd people recorded on that page, but nothing like 153202!

Apologies to K9 whom I just noticed has already reported this, but anyway here are the gory details! I don't understand why the two sets of figures aren't the same, but either figure is amazing.

David
 
Last edited:
@K9!

”Thats why free speech is so necessary, it‘s not another right - it’s the right!”

Very thoughtful and wise words from Jordan Peterson K9, thanks for bringing my attention to that video. ;;/?
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I'm a Peterson fan. Always a good listen to my mind.

His warnings regarding authoritarianism, the same echoed by many here, is valid and worth diligence. This is a consistent point of his if you've listened to him at all. He's a student of 20th century Marxist/Communist experiences, and an obvious critic of them. I believe justifiably so.

A couple other points:

He theorizes that the motivation behind the various public health policies we've seen across the globe these past couple years were a) motivated by fear and b) indicative of our unpreparedness. Note: He doesn't mention any conspiratorial element; no mention of the concept of a "plandemic" as is so often cheekily tossed about here. I said about as much at the onset of this thing. I used terms like "humans bumbling about" and similar. That while we may very well be screwing the proverbial pooch in our response, it wasn't purposeful in that regard. It was much more likely the result of humans just being messy.

(Of course there are bad actors who step into situations like this; times of confusion and fear. I've never debated that.)

Lastly, when asked what he would have done if he were "president of the world" he said he'd defer to the individual. I wish the interviewer would have pressed him on this point. Practically, what would this have meant? He would have told people to do whatever they think is best? Would that be the same policy position he'd advise we take against any existential threat? I don't see how see how this is a real world position; seems more whimsical to me.
 
He would have told people to do whatever they think is best? Would that be the same policy position he'd advise we take against any existential threat? I don't see how see how this is a real world position; seems more whimsical to me.
The best way to test this would be simple retrospect, with minimal hypothesizing: Would the world today be healthier or sicker if mandates were dismissed from the start in 2020? Especially regarding avoidance of suppressing the vast arrays of treatment options being explored by private practices.
 
Last edited:
The best way to test this would be simple retrospect, with minimal hypothesizing: Would the world today be healthier or sicker if mandates were dismissed from the start in 2020? Especially regarding avoidance of suppressing the vast arrays of treatment options being explored by private practices.
The best is to apply 20/20 vision to the past?

This skips over the most important part that pretty much every serious scientist acknowledged at the beginning: this was a novel virus. Sure, many started calling various public policy decisions into question but not after the world was faced with, and made, a series of decisions as to how to move forward.

Regardless, if even asserting your "test" as a valid interpretation, where does the dependency for a oligarchian conspiracy fit in? Remember, the prevailing view here is that this was a "plandemic".
 
The best is to apply 20/20 vision to the past?

This skips over the most important part that pretty much every serious scientist acknowledged at the beginning: this was a novel virus. Sure, many started calling various public policy decisions into question but not after the world was faced with, and made, a series of decisions as to how to move forward.

Regardless, if even asserting your "test" as a valid interpretation, where does the dependency for a oligarchian conspiracy fit in? Remember, the prevailing view here is that this was a "plandemic".

If you had been the king of the world in Jan 2020, would You have gone with:
A- top down authoritarian force to attempt to steer all countries to the same WHO protocol.
Or
B- encourage all countries to find their best solution independently so the winning solution can be copied by the losers.
 
B- encourage all countries to find their best solution independently so the winning solution can be copied by the losers.

Please note that Nigeria is being ignored (low case levels, low mortality, low vaccination rate).

MSM is still talking about urgent need for vaccines for Africa, while most African countries do better than Western countries. Omicron is hitting "vaccinated" Canada much worse than South Africa.
 
If you had been the king of the world in Jan 2020, would You have gone with:
A- top down authoritarian force to attempt to steer all countries to the same WHO protocol.
Or
B- encourage all countries to find their best solution independently so the winning solution can be copied by the losers.
Red herring question, right?

To whit: Country X determines a protocol. Citizens within that country would/could view any protocol as authoritarian (Jordan's concern). This isn't avoided in either of your A/B options.

The same voices here would be railing against their country's protocols.
 
Red herring question, right?

To whit: Country X determines a protocol. Citizens within that country would/could view any protocol as authoritarian (Jordan's concern). This isn't avoided in either of your A/B options.

The same voices here would be railing against their country's protocols.
No to this.
The "Country" would not be encouraged to isolate any protocol. On the contrary, the protocol would be ALLOWED to sell itself.
 
No to this.
The "Country" would not be encouraged to isolate any protocol. On the contrary, the protocol would be ALLOWED to sell itself.
The valid communist/authoritarian leaning argument against Option-B is as follows:
There WILL be at least a few countries with large sectors of their population throwing ground chicken bones in the air and dancing to cure the virus.

They play at the fears of the people who insist this can't be allowed. The Option-B argument against this is that the freedom approach will arrive at the best solution, and said damage will be mitigated far sooner than Option-A will realize that their authoritarian approach was wrong on their first 2, or 3 rollout attempts.
 
Okay, so you are categorically against any required actions. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do; they have to be "sold" on it; voluntarily convinced to take action. What's interesting to me is that society doesn't work that way. We all voluntarily give up freedom of choice as part of our contract with our fellow man. We don't operate motor vehicles at speeds above stated limits, we wear seat belts, we don't trespass on private property, we pay taxes, etc.

If COVID had turned out to be a 10x or 100x killer beyond what we saw, I expect most reasonable people would have questioned your laissez faire policy as negligent. After all, at least in the U.S., the excess deaths that would have occurred while the anti-vax minded folks worked through the facts that a) viruses do exist that cause disease, b) people are dying of this new novel virus, and c) the vaccine appears to work would have been massive.

I think it is a very nuanced thing and something that leads to a series of Devil's choices. But to assert that your approach is definitely best seems shortsighted if not naive/dangerous.
 
Okay, so you are categorically against any required actions. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do; they have to be "sold" on it; voluntarily convinced to take action. What's interesting to me is that society doesn't work that way. We all voluntarily give up freedom of choice as part of our contract with our fellow man. We don't operate motor vehicles at speeds above stated limits, we wear seat belts, we don't trespass on private property, we pay taxes, etc.

If COVID had turned out to be a 10x or 100x killer beyond what we saw, I expect most reasonable people would have questioned your laissez faire policy as negligent. After all, at least in the U.S., the excess deaths that would have occurred while the anti-vax minded folks worked through the facts that a) viruses do exist that cause disease, b) people are dying of this new novel virus, and c) the vaccine appears to work would have been massive.

I think it is a very nuanced thing and something that leads to a series of Devil's choices. But to assert that your approach is definitely best seems shortsighted if not naive/dangerous.
In option B, many/most countries would probably still default to top down authoritarian dictation within their borders. My point would be that those countries are probably not the ones who will innovate and discover a remedy.
 
Quebec, the province which supported the fascist Vichy regime in WWII, is now getting children to advocate for the arrest of the unvaccinated.

 
Last edited:
Quebec, the province which supported the fascist Vichy regime in WWII, is now getting children to advocate for the arrest of the unvaccinated.

is this real? are they be sarcastic? is this mainstream?
 
Back
Top