22 Comments

It disturbs me how much of Australia’s medical workforce have little to no critical thinking skills.

Expand full comment

It's truly frightening. I think that medical education selects for hoop-jumpers in the first place, rather than critical thinkers, and those who slip through that selection process are probably more inclined to leave the profession prematurely - especially when subjected to a psyop like the scamdemic.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. And even when discussing with doctors, they act in the same way as the AI you described: they practice their special listening techniques rather than actually engaging in the conversation honestly. The empathy is simply a tool to get them closer to convincing you. I’ve seen them admit as much online, with frustration that it didn’t work on me!

Expand full comment

It's disturbing to see pretend empathy weaponised in this way. This is a total perversion of the doctor-patient relationship.

Expand full comment

Agreed!

Expand full comment

I can just see the steam coming out of your ears, cartoon-style, as you heroically wade through utter tosh like this.

The truly scary thing is just how genuine, self-righteous and sincere these people are that they are the Guardians of Truth fending off the Misinformation-Spreaders and that this justifies whatever weapons they can deploy. Frightening stuff.

Expand full comment

I have been known to utter the occasional unladylike word as I read this giant pile of steaming compost.

And yes, these people really do believe they're our saviours. Madhava Setty's account of the World Vaccine Congress https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/from-the-belly-of-the-beast is an eye-opener. That C.S. Lewis quote which has had a real work-out in the past 3 years comes to mind once again: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

Expand full comment

Baffling!

Expand full comment

Vaccines are probably one of the greatest swindles of all time, hence the need to convince healthy people to inject themselves with them.

Expand full comment

It's good to see some healthy scepticism finally surfacing, including among doctors like Peter McCullough who were totally on the vaccine train before the scamdemic.

Expand full comment

I truly despise when they start their speeches with: “I’m not anti-vaccine, I took all my shots!” 🤤🥴🤪

Expand full comment

McCullough used to say this, but lately he's writing and speaking about how dangerous the childhood shots are. Malhotra is still stuck in the 'vaccines are good, just not these ones' paradigm.

Expand full comment

Maybe there should just be a rule that people are only allowed to have ONE paper published in any scientific journal per year...and when they have 5 papers under their belts, they're allowed to write up to TWO papers per year....and when they have 15 papers under their belts, they can write THREE papers per year...etc etc.

Do you think that sort of limitation would make people spend more time creating a few good papers...or would we still get shitty papers, just less of them?! :-D

I'm just not sure how we can all avoid these crappy papers, of which there are a multitude, other than learn good critical thinking skills oneself (but how can newbies learn this in 'Universities' these days...OMG!).

I love reading so many papers, though. There are plenty of great ones; even the anecdotal evidence is compelling sometimes, and you've got to start somewhere. I am SO glad I got to figure out what a 'good' paper was all those years ago (when Universities actually taught you useful skills!). I'm lucky in that I actually have critical thinking skills, and it's always fun (?) tearing apart a paper sometimes, asking all sorts of Qs the authors didn't (!) - and other times just lapping up a great paper. I've even enjoyed writing a handful of pre-case reports myself.

But if journals are going to keep publishing rubbish papers, and students aren't being taught what 'good' papers are in the first place, then good papers are very likely to become a dying breed. Perhaps that's the end point? Keep everyone in the dark, bleating?

Baaaa...

Expand full comment

Mathew Crawford and Kevin McKernan have been tossing around ideas about how the blockchain could be used to restore high quality research, through incentivising genuine peer review (which is currently complete bollocks) and making the journals (which are bought and paid for by Big Pharma) essentially obsolete. https://rumble.com/v206wg6-rte-discussions-18-decentralized-peer-review-a-cryptocurrency-application-w.html

Expand full comment

Another great contribution Robyn. The references are great , especially Matthew Crawford.

And the tragedy in Thailand , with the accompanying data, is truly impact evidence. As was talked about in your article, ' patterns ' , these though are verifiable and measured.

Myself, I am a very old lawman, trained in method, and given a vast life experience of human behaviour.

and the effects of deception.

I see, the dependence on the digital and the mechanisms of innovation in an attempt to copy and assimilate data, characteristics of data, and applying interpretations, as touted , efficiency of purpose,

which as you allude to in the article, can be manipulated, to create falseity, but more replacing human

interfaces, with information and storytelling characteristics, the more things change, the more they

stay the same. The intrinsic weakness, is the same the intent to decieve , does the Ai have a predilection

to deception, any assumption to the ability of a singularity based on the human condition is pure

Science fiction. The seed of these frightful machinations, to which legend and superpowers are

assigned , is the deception. The human , makes the rules, creates the means and uses all the tools

of invention to carry them out. The " Ghost in the Machine" is its creator, " man made" :

The weaponization, the implied cruelty, the " full system dominance " is the domain of Man:

The machine only superimposes his will. With direct implications of fear, and what have you got to

Stop it. The Roman played this game, with imposing structures, massive displays of technology and

wonders, who could come against, people such as these:?

This is the same Cardinal, the same identity of authority, the assumption of the fiction , but like the

Yellow brick road, the frailty of the grandiose is , that it is human, with the same primal instincts,

printed in the mitochondria of our ancestral Mothers, and the same sins that played out then are

the same as they are now.

We have evolved the machinations of the material entity, but at the cost of our spiritual consciousness,

The will to destroy each other and to control and dominate, have cycled our minds in perpetuity,

there is nothing new here, nothing new under the sun as you know..

The love you show, and those who risk themselves for us , selflessly is where we need to be, for this

I thank you.

Expand full comment

Jessica Rose recently shared this presentation by James Lindsay: https://youtu.be/P0M7tE3T42w. I think it speaks to the source of the spiritual battle that you allude to. Thank you, as always, for reading my work.

Expand full comment

Why don't chatbots succeed in convincing people of something?

Because they are a "bot", and programed to say what was written into them.

Expand full comment

Exactly, and we know who's programming them!

Expand full comment

The political affiliation of the state governor was not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 death rates, but worse COVID-19 outcomes were associated with the proportion of a state's voters who voted for the 2020 Republican presidential candidate. Link, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00461-0/fulltext, you can revew this paper for your next dark age part

Expand full comment

Unvaccinated in the U.S. were more likely Republican, and got measurably worse health care (https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-09-20-lawsuits-hospitals-targeted-unvaccinated-remdesivir-respirator-death.html), while Republican voting areas had allegedly a much higher incidence of Hotlots - (batches of the vaccine which caused more injuries than average). This 'fact check' on Hotlots from Jan'22 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/craig-paardekoopers-shady-site-shows-covid-anti-vaxxers-will-believe-anything) is actually an incredibly revealing reference in hindsight, if you compare it with the evidence from the Twitter Files, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, etc.

Murdering those who disagree with you is indeed Dark Ages, but not really a problem with a specific paper......

Expand full comment

Very good points. Also Republican voters tend to be older and have poorer health than Democrat voters, so right off the bat they're going to have worse outcomes whether for "covid" or anything else.

Expand full comment

Oooh, our friends at the IHME, at it again. Thanks for the article.

Expand full comment