By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | December 10, 2021
It’s high school all over again. Remember those people who just had to be in the in crowd, no matter what?
They would act and dress and speak however they needed to in order to be in that crowd.
Well, that’s apparently how society itself is run.
The elites push ideas that increase their power. And the huge number of people desperate for acceptance and respectability and social status simply accept them. No evidence or reason necessary.
They will believe whatever they need to believe, whenever they need to believe it.
And if you dissent? Then just the way they socially punished the unpopular kids, they’ll jump on the bandwagon to destroy a heretic like you.
Ask one of these people: do you hold a single opinion that would surprise me? Is there any important question on which you disagree with Whoopi Goldberg?
I would love to ask students applying to Ivy League universities: name one opinion you hold that could make you unpopular.
I doubt they could name even one.
I mention this because of the enormous number of people, famous and obscure alike, one can find on social media who a year ago were denouncing the “Trump vaccine,” and who now want to exclude from society anyone who declines it.
Now you may say, “Well, they’ve since heard medical authorities approving the vaccines, so that’s the difference.” If that were indeed the difference, then I guess by their own logic they owe Trump an apology. I haven’t seen any.
There’s a Twitter account that follows people like this and shows how readily they abandon one view for the opposite one, depending on what happens to be socially acceptable. A sample:
Siskind is a real treat. Even though the account that compiles items like the above does nothing but publish screenshots, she called on people to report it as a hub of “disinformation.”
How screenshots could be disinformation, I can’t imagine. I guess ol’ Amy was embarrassed being singled out as a hypocrite.
Here she is calling on people to report the account that noted her weird shift on vaccines:
Same goes for the travel bans under Trump and Biden. (The other day, Fauci could not explain why this travel ban had been implemented, given that there were zero Omicron cases in most of the African countries targeted.) I could reproduce hundreds of these, but here’s a sample:
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | November 18, 2021
In an historic interview for The HighWire, host Del Bigtree sits down with Vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., D.V.M., to hear Geert’s dire warning about mass Covid vaccination of children, and the catastrophe which may follow:
HealthImpactNews | December 3, 2021
Great video compilation proving that Fauci, Gates, the CDC have lied about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 shots, that are raking in $BILLIONS for Gates and Big Pharma:
RT | December 9, 2021
The US Food and Drug Administration is cooperating with a Freedom of Information Act request for clinical data associated with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, but may require 75 years to do so – even longer than a prior estimate.
The FDA has insisted it cannot commit to a faster release of the medical data associated with the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, according to a legal brief filed on Tuesday in response to the FOIA request. The agency reiterated that after processing 12,000 pages in about a two-month period, it will only be able to process 500 pages per month going forward. With tens of thousands of additional files up for review, plaintiffs fear the process may drag on two decades longer than the previous 55-year estimate.
Lawyer Aaron Siri sued the FDA on behalf of a group of doctors calling themselves Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, who had previously complained the FDA wasn’t supplying the data they had requested in a timely fashion. Having pointed out last month that the FDA had looked through Pfizer’s documents in a mere 108 days in order to license the vaccine, Siri questioned why the agency now required a whopping 20,000 days to make the same documents public.
Approximately 451,000 pages regarding the clinical trials for a vaccine millions of Americans are being mandated to take will remain floating in legal limbo for up to 75 years if the agency has its way, Siri warned. He called it “dystopian” for the government to pay Pfizer billions of dollars, shield it from lawsuits and require citizens to be injected with its product, only to refuse access to the documents used to grant its licensure in the first place.
The FDA has justified the unusual timetable by pointing out its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research – the body tasked with reviewing the records – only has 10 staffers, two of whom are “new.” The FDA also complained that stepping up the pace would divert “significant resources away from the processing of other FOIA requests that are also in litigation.”
By James Taylor | ClimateRealism | December 6, 2021
The New York Times published an article Friday titled, “A Slow-Motion Climate Disaster: The Spread of Barren Land.” The article claims global warming is causing drought in northeastern Brazil, turning the region into a desert. Objective satellite measurements of vegetation, however, show increasing vegetation in northeast Brazil and throughout Brazil as a whole, not the other way around. The Times article is merely another example of agenda-driven fake climate news.
In its subtitle, the article claims, “Brazil’s northeast, long a victim of droughts, is now effectively turning into desert. The cause? Climate change and the landowners who are most affected.” The article adds, “Climate change is intensifying droughts in Brazil’s northeast, leaving the land barren. The phenomenon, called desertification, is happening across the planet.”
NASA satellite instruments have precisely measured the amount of vegetation throughout the Earth since the early 1980s. NASA reported its findings in an article titled “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.” According to NASA, “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Most of the rest of the land shows little change one way or the other, while a very small amount of land shows a decline in vegetation.
As a whole, “The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States,” NASA reports.
In the chart below, provided by NASA, you can see that nearly all of Brazil, including nearly all of northeast Brazil, is enjoying a significant increase in vegetation. Only a few, very small areas of Brazil and northeast Brazil are seeing a decline in vegetation.
The Times is right that where farmers or ranchers are deliberately removing rainforest and replacing it with farms or rangeland, vegetation declines. But that is not due to climate change, and those are about the only places in Brazil where vegetation is not increasing as the Earth modestly warms.
The simple, undeniable truth is that vegetation is increasing virtually everywhere in Brazil. The New York Times, in order to promote a fictitious climate crisis, is telling provably wrong lies to sell newspapers and to sell alarm.
Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all
By Anthony Watts | Watts Up With That? | December 9, 2021
People send me stuff.
As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.
Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.
In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
It is none of those.
Here is the court filing:
By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | December 9, 2021
The insanity in higher education continues.
Bowdoin College and Syracuse University are just two of the institutions of higher education now telling students to get boosted or get lost. Here’s Bowdoin’s email from yesterday [all-caps in original]: “effective January 21, 2022, Bowdoin is requiring all students, faculty, and staff to receive a COVID-19 booster shot within thirty (30) days of becoming eligible.”
Keep in mind:
1: The risk of severe disease or death from Covid to healthy college-age adults is too low to measure accurately. The data from Europe suggests that a healthy 18 year-old has a risk of death lower than 1 in 1 million.
2: The risk of dangerous heart inflammation is NOT too low to measure. A new study from Hong Kong found that for 1 out of 2,300 12-17 year-old boys who received both Pfizer doses suffered acute myocarditis or pericarditis.
Most of the risk came after the second dose. The risk is very similar in college-age men.
3: Many colleges and universities had widespread Covid outbreaks this fall despite mandatory vaccinations. Because vaccines work!
4: Many students received their vaccines less than six months ago. Do these colleges intend to require new vaccine doses – with a risk of myocarditis that may well RISE with each dose – before every semester?
Judges have now stepped in against federal mandates. But so far they have deferred to colleges, despite the patent insanity of requiring healthy young people to be “protected” against a disease that is no risk to them with a vaccine that is.
Will they keep doing so?
BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | DECEMBER 8, 2021
The decision by parents to vaccinate their child against Covid is really a question of risk management. Parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a less dangerous illness for children than influenza. It has shown to be so and quite stably near 20 months now.
Children do not readily acquire this pathogen, spread to other children, spread to adults, take it home, get severely ill, or die from it. It is that simple. We know children tend not to transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children.
Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is clear science on this. Overwhelming data shows that the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of severe disease or death in children and adolescents is very low (statistically zero).
Swedish data by Ludvigsson reported on the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age who attended school with largely no lockdowns or masks. They found zero (0) deaths. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.”
A recent German study (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.
Governments and public health officials have driven this pandemic of fear and propaganda. But parents willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position might ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?
And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? The children should live normally, free, and if exposed to SARS-CoV-2 we can rest assured that in the vast majority of cases, they will have no to only mild symptoms while at the same time developing naturally acquired immunity, and harmlessly; an immunity that is definitely superior to that which might be caused by a vaccine.
The innate immunity in children that they come with and which works to protect them will work here and has worked here wonderfully (innate antibodies and NK cells, as well as other components of the innate immune compartment). This approach would also accelerate the development of the much needed herd immunity about which much has been written.
In addition to concerns related to immediate or long-term sequelae of the new mRNA vaccines in children, there is clear data suggesting that the vaccines might not be as effective against infection and spread as initially reported.
We also have reports of the vaccinal antibodies functioning to suppress the innate antibodies (potentially devastating for children who depend on these as their first line of defense) and outcompeting them given the vaccine antibodies are specific and have high affinity for their antigen, while innate are non-specific and with low-affinity. This is a huge problem, especially if the vaccinal immunity outcompetes the naturally acquired immunity antibodies, etc.
So why are we rushing to vaccinate our children? Drs. Fauci of NIAID, Walensky of CDC, and Francis Collins of NIH are reckless here with the vaccine developers e.g. Pfizer and Moderna, for they know these vaccines lack the proper safety testing and we do not know what will happen to children long-term.
This really is about risk management decisions we as free people (as parents) are presumably allowed to make in the USA. This is not only about science. Remember also, children cannot give proper informed consent e.g. an 8-month-old, a one-year-old.
This is a very important ethical matter. The death rate in children e.g. under 12, is as close to zero as we can get. None of the lockdown and school closure policies worked and all have failed with crushing harms on populations.
We have masked our children, closed schools, locked them down, driven surges in suicides in adults as well as our children due to these policies, and now we seek to vaccinate children with a vaccine for which we have no data on the long-term harms. Is there any wonder why there is a loss of trust and why parents might be reluctant to comply with every edict being issued by governments concerning health?
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology.
By Dr Daniel Niemiec | Vaccine Choice Australia | December 8, 2021
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have provisionally approved the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5-11 years. The roll out will begin on 10 January 2022.
Let’s take a look at the facts.
According to the Department of Health, at the time of writing, there have been 64,388 cases of COVID-19 in those aged 0-19. Tragically, three children have lost their lives.
However, on closer examination, the three children who passed away did so with COVID-19, not from COVID-19. This is an important distinction.
According to a report in The Age, a “child aged under 10 years, who died with COVID-19, also had other serious comorbidities”.
The article also states that a “15-year-old Melbourne girl who health authorities said had a “a number of health conditions” also died with the virus”.
A report in The Guardian claimed that a “teenager from south-west Sydney died in August after contracting pneumococcal meningitis, and while he was also Covid-positive it was not the reason for his hospitalisation or death”.
It is clear that all three deaths were due to other causes, and not from COVID-19. Yet, they are listed as COVID-19 deaths on the Department of Health website.
University of Sydney infectious diseases paediatrician Robert Booy said that the “risk of deaths associated with COVID-19 in children and teenagers were extremely low compared even with vaccinated adults… Of the 25 deaths in COVID-positive children and teens up to the age of 16 recorded in Britain until March this year, half of them were in children who had a major medical problem… For example, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or severe heart and lung disease.”
A study conducted in Germany and published on the preprint server MedRxiv found that “SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of a severe disease course or death in children and adolescents is low”.
“The lowest risk was observed in children aged 5-11 without comorbidities. In this group, the ICU admission rate was 0.2 per 10,000 and case fatality could not be calculated, due to an absence of cases.”
Another study conducted in Sweden and published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated a “low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic”.
Children are not at risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is completely unwarranted and unnecessary.
The Australian Product Information for the Pfizer vaccine shows that the Phase 2/3 trial (Study C4591007) included 2,268 children aged 5-11, of which 2,158 were followed up for at least two months after the second dose.
Of these 2,268 children, 3 in the vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group developed COVID-19, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 90.7%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. This is known as relative risk reduction.
On closer inspection, 19 children out of 2,268 developed COVID-19, which equates to 0.8% of the total number of participants. The absolute risk reduction of the COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 5-11 is 1.9%. This is the actual efficacy of the vaccine, and is a more accurate measure of an individual’s overall risk.
Not only is the vaccine unwarranted given the mild nature of SARS-CoV-2 in children, it is also ineffective at preventing mild to moderate disease.
However, the most disturbing statement in the Australian Product Information is this:
“THE SAFETY EVALUATION IN STUDY C4591007 IS ONGOING.”
A vaccine, which is still in the clinical trial phase until July 2024, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH), and which uses technology that has never been used on a mass population previously, is being injected into children with unknown longer-term safety.
This is completely unforgiveable. This defies all reason and logic. The vaccine should never have been provisionally approved for children aged 5-11 based on this data.
According to the Australian Product Information, “the most frequent adverse reactions in children 5 to <12 years of age that received 2 doses included injection site pain (>80%), fatigue (>50%), headache (>30%), injection site redness and swelling (>20%), myalgia and chills (>10%)”.
The following adverse reactions from post-market experience were derived from spontaneous reports and the “frequencies could not be determined and are thus considered as not known” :
The New England Journal of Medicine summarises the safety and efficacy in children aged 5-11 as follows:
“Limitations of the study include the lack of longer-term follow-up to assess the duration of immune responses, efficacy, and safety. However, longer-term follow-up from this study, which will continue for 2 years, should provide clarification. This study was also not powered to detect potential rare side effects of BNT162b2 in 5-to-11-year-olds.”
What dystopian nightmare are we living in?
Let that sink in.
The longer-term follow-up “should provide clarification” and the study was “not powered to detect potential rare side effects”.
What if the longer-term follow up provides clarification that the vaccine is unsafe for use in children? It will be too late. The damage will have already been done.
We have seen from post-market assessment that serious adverse reactions are occurring in children aged 12-17, especially myocarditis and pericarditis.
According to the TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report, there have been 137 cases of suspected myocarditis and 109 cases of suspected pericarditis in those aged 12-17 following vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine.
“We have observed a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals for Comirnaty (Pfizer). The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety at the World Health Organization has recently stated that current evidence suggests a likely causal association between myocarditis and the mRNA vaccines.”
A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases demonstrated a “significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose”.
“The overall incidence of acute myocarditis/pericarditis was 18.52… per 100,000 persons vaccinated.”
In other words, 1 in every 5,400 children. The clinical trial for those aged 5-11 only had 2,268 participants. This sample size is not large enough to detect an adverse event such as myocarditis or pericarditis.
Another pre-print study in MedRxiv concluded that “post-vaccination CAE (cardiac adverse event) rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalisation rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalisation incidence.”
Why are we putting children at risk of a serious heart condition, along with other severe side effects, for a virus that they have almost no chance of dying from?
And finally, this article in the British Medical Journal.
“The number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 – considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid – would be extraordinarily high”.
“Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events.”
“There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against covid-19 – the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown.”
Enough is enough. It’s time to stand up.
We need to protect our children, for they are our future.
By Richie Allen | December 9, 2021
Yesterday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that his government would move to Plan B covid measures as a precaution against the emergence of the omicron variant. He was lying. What else is new, I hear you say.
In my opinion there is no omicron variant. It is a fantasy. Johnson’s government moved to Plan B for one reason only, to turn the jabbed against the unjabbed.
In recent weeks, regular listeners to my radio show will have heard me play dozens of soundbites from UK TV and radio news shows, where the public is invited to call in and opine on what should be done about the anti-vaxxers.
I said that we were being primed or conditioned for a day of reckoning next year, when the government will announce “enough is enough, we can’t keep shutting down society, we must mandate the jabs.”
Nothing that has happened since, has changed my mind. UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid said this morning that mandatory jabs will not be pursued by his government. He said that such a thing would be “unethical.” He was lying too.
Today, the public are quite rightly enraged at the announcement of new covid measures and the prospect that they will be tightened further still on December 18th.
However, the great majority of people are not demanding an end to this charade at once. No, they’re raging at the Tories for holding Christmas party’s last year while they were locked down and obeying the rules.
And predictably, they’re turning their ire on the unjabbed.
Take a look at this outtake from this morning’s Jeremy Vine Show on Channel 5. The guests call for the unjabbed to be blamed for the tyrannical covid restrictions. They even suggest that we should be exiled.
Instead of challenging them, the impotent host egged them on.
We’re in the fight of our lives now.
By Julia | TCW Defending Freedom | December 9, 2021
COMPARED with Australia’s other police-run fiefdoms, South Australia has generally stayed under the Covid madness radar. No public police thuggery and rubber bullets in the back, no beating up grandmothers and pregnant women, no Daniel Andrews, no dictatorial legislation, no forced Covid camps, no rounding up of Aboriginal community members (so far). There has been Covid farce, however – a mind-boggling absence of perspective and proportionality reflective of the manic, embedded zero-Covid ideology experienced in other Australasian jurisdictions.
First, there was the pizza outbreak in November 2020. After a man with Covid-19 lied about his link to an Adelaide pizza parlour, the whole State entered a lockdown slated for six days which ended abruptly after three, due to lack of interest from the virus.
Then there was the ‘don’t touch the football’ affair, when Australian Rules fans were warned to duck if the ball came towards the crowd.
The latest is the case of a South Australian Senator, Alex Antic, a vigorous opponent of vaccine mandates and lockdowns, who was carted off to quarantine in a ‘medi-hotel’ after returning from Parliament in Canberra. (Antic is a conservative Liberal in a State run by so-called ‘moderates’ aka Leftists who should be in another party.)
This is in the State that has experienced four Covid deaths. Four. And 952 ‘cases’. South Australia has no crisis whatsoever, certainly none that can justify the establishment of a mini-police state. But the State is run not by a Premier but by an unelected police commissioner and an unelected chief health officer.
Which brings us to the persecution of Dr Bruce Paix, a doctor of 32 years in South Australia who is now unemployed due to ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Dr Paix has been issuing exemptions for mask/vaccines and is a staunch critic of the Covid vaccine and lockdowns. He contacted a member of Parliament, who happens to be South Australia’s acting attorney general, about matters Covid. This politician, one Josh Teague, or someone in his office, it would seem, notified the police. As a result Dr Paix was visited by officers and told that he should stop contacting the MP to voice concerns about Covid management policies.
He was advised to ‘tone down his emails’ and ‘be careful what he writes’, as his communications were ‘drawing attention to him’. Soft, friendly police power. In reality, an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Dr Paix is responsible for a string of Covid crimes – he is unvaxxed, he strays off message, he speaks out, and, worst of all, he is willing to grant exemptions from the jab. His offence in this case seems to have been his act of approaching his elected representative to seek a meeting to protest against a government policy, and his act of letter writing.
Seven officials raided the surgery of another such dissenting doctor, Mark Hobart, in Melbourne last month and seized confidential patient files, an appointment book, and other documents after he refused to hand them over. Inevitably, Hobart is described as ‘controversial’, such is the embedded state of Covid ideology across the legacy media.
Such doctors are quickly swooped on and threatened with being de-registered. The Victorian state government even changed the rules about exemptions to close off what it sees as ‘loopholes’. Patients were apparently ‘doctor shopping’ to find a practitioner who would give them a medical exemption from the vaccine.
A spokesman for the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Medical Board of Australia has made their message clear: that vaccination is a non-negotiable part of the public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic and that advising against it ‘undermines the national immunisation campaign’.
They said the consequences for doctors of not complying would include having their registrations suspended.
The Australian Covid State has relied massively on third party collaboration for maintaining fear and hysteria and for enforcing Covid mandates. The corporate media and the churches are but two of the most egregious examples. Arguably the role of the medical establishment and behaviour of supine, self-regarding doctors is way more appalling than that of all the other ‘just-following-orders’ functionaries of Covid totalitarianism. They are guilty of
· Bullying patients to get the jab, whatever their medical circumstances;
· Collaborating with government in refusing exemptions to patients who palpably deserve them;
· Propagating lies about Covid and about those who question the official Covid narrative;
· Not speaking up and out against ‘medical tyranny’ in Australia;
· Getting into bed with Big Pharma;
· Making a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘first, do no harm’ by cheering on the vaccination of healthy youth, some of whom they know will die from the vaccines.
Dr Bruce Paix and Dr Mark Hobart have found themselves at the sharp end of the medical wars over Covid. They are enemies of the Covid State, hunted down like the Aborigines of the past – and under Covid Law are once again.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | November 5, 2013
Groupthink: A pattern of thought charaterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.
Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets, by Roland Benabou, published in the Review of Economic Studies. Benabou also has a talk (ppt slides) on this subject.
First, a definition of groupthink (from the ppt slides):
Janis (1972)’s eight symptoms [of groupthink]:
Sound like any groups that we know? … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 