The Left’s Hijab

IT’s now the official doctrine of US Democrats that vaccines don’t work but symbolise obedience to left-wing religiosity. Acting President, Joe Biden, has obviously been ordered by handlers to set an example for the ummah on mask-wearing – an irrational practice doubling as oral prophylaxis for the notorious tosser of word salads. His ‘Vice-President’ – granted, a giggly lightweight at the best of times – has showcased her personal dedication to the party’s holy garment:

 
Meanwhile, in Washington state, loopy governor Jay Inslee has introduced vaccination passports and apartheid for public gatherings. The vaccinated and unvaccinated will have separate entrances at stadiums, colleges and churches – and sit in distinct, cordoned sections. In other words, Inslee is saying that vaccinated people are a risk to the unvaccinated and vice-versa. Ergo: Inslee believes that coronavirus vaccines are medically useless but ideologically vital.

The truth is leftists are the anti-vaxxers. They resent that vaccines might allow the non-hysterical (or Republicans) to be publicly indistinguishable again. As masks become laughably indefensible, the new imperative will be signage and segregation. The parallels between this coronavirus Dixie and the Democrats’ historical reliance on hoods and Jim Crow are stunning.

This entry was posted in COVID-19. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to The Left’s Hijab

  1. Mother Lode says:

    Awww, for Democrats the sight of signs above doors ‘Whites’ and ‘Coloured’ would be as warm and snug as putting on a favourite old coat.

  2. Figures says:

    The truth is leftists are the anti-vaxxers.

    Well that’s literally the worst possible take.

    What you should be saying is “Apologies to all the anti-vaxers who have been correct ever since the first smallpox vaccine. Not only should the Right have been on their side all along on liberty grounds, but it should have been on their side all along on science grounds too”.

  3. Mother Lode says:

    Apologies to all the anti-vaxers who have been correct ever since the first smallpox vaccine.

    Why would anyone say anything so patently ridiculous.

  4. Riversutra says:

    We live in a world of Pygmies

  5. PB says:

    “Anti-vaxx” gets bandied around as part of the new pantheon of rapid-fire slogans designed to shut down all discussion (denier, ..phobe, hater whatever…), but there are plenty of people I know that are not “anti-vaxx” but are “anti-this vaxx” because they know it is not a typical vaccination of the kind we have a couple of generations experience with. That is the difference. It is a genetic experiment and it is still just that: an experiment. I would prefer to stay in the control group for a bit longer yet.

  6. Rex Anger says:

    @ Motherlode-

    Apologies to all the anti-vaxers who have been correct ever since the first smallpox vaccine.

    Why would anyone say anything so patently ridiculous.

    Because Chad ThunderBrain here is resolutely convinced (though he will not give his workings to go with his ‘proofs’) that all disease is solely the result of emotional trauma.

    As such, anyone who gets ill is a weak-willed squit who had a bad day, germs, virii and bacteria are all figments of humanity’s collective hysterical imagination and anyone who disagrees with him is not only wrong, but desperately so.

  7. Mother Lode says:

    So smallpox was a suite of symptoms associated with emotional states, and when they started with cowpox vaccinations…these emotional states went away? Coincidence?

  8. Figures says:

    So smallpox was a suite of symptoms associated with emotional states, and when they started with cowpox vaccinations…these emotional states went away?

    Nope. They remained just as frequent (possibly even more so). They just stopped being called smallpox. From then on, people who died of smallpox died of severe chickenpox or spurious cowpox or monkeypox or similar.

    Before the smallpox vaccine came along, chickenpox was, by definition, a mild version of smallpox. But then along came the smallpox vaccine and our erstwhile doctors decided that a disease that was, by definition, mild became a raging killer.

    You don’t have to believe me. Doctors are actually *instructed/encouraged* not to diagnose or test for particular conditions if the patient is vaccinated. Of course, they don’t need any encouragement – they believe the vaccine works so of course if they see the condition in a vaccinated patient they are strongly inclined to blame something else. Nonetheless, I can provide quotes from various health agencies encouraging/instructing from diagnosing conditions in vaccinated patients?

    Do you want me to provide them? Just make sure you have your rationalising and obtuseness hat on because you will be doing an awful lot of it.

  9. Rex Anger says:

    Doctors are actually *instructed/encouraged* not to diagnose or test for particular conditions if the patient is vaccinated. Of course, they don’t need any encouragement – they believe the vaccine works so of course if they see the condition in a vaccinated patient they are strongly inclined to blame something else. Nonetheless, I can provide quotes from various health agencies encouraging/instructing from diagnosing conditions in vaccinated patients?

    Do you want me to provide them? Just make sure you have your rationalising and obtuseness hat on because you will be doing an awful lot of it.

    Nice deflection and well-made strawman, Chad ThunderBrain.

    Your conceit remains, but you still have demonstrated no workings for your apparebt logical ‘proffs’ that all disease is down to emotional trauma.

    And anecdotes regarding rashes are non-empirical, nor readily repeatable.

  10. Figures says:

    (though he will not give his workings to go with his ‘proofs’)

    My proofs relate simply to the impossibility of both the germ theory and immunity to said germs. They are independent of the belief that disease is predominantly caused by emotional trauma.

    However, that disease is caused by emotional trauma is completely non-controversial. I have showed beyond reasonable doubt that such emotional trauma caused disease is vastly more prevalent than most people think (and I use that term loosely – indoctrinated is better).

    I’m not sure how much more working needs to be done for my proofs by the way.

    If positive feedbacks dominate negative feedbacks then you get a runaway effect with the slightest perturbation. Simple maths. The immune system is (or would be) a positive feedback in terms of dealing with replicating pathogens ergo there is at least one positive feedback and zero negative feedbacks in the germ theory/immunity model of disease. So the model is impossible (or at least, if it were true, then no organism could exist).

    There is your working. Happy to explain further for simple minded people of course.

    My other proof *assumes* that a replicating pathogen is plausible (in other words it’s completely independent of the above proof). But the problem is that “infection” under the immunity model we all understand can only make sense if that infection is acute. Non-acute infection blows the entire concept of immunity out of the water. If we can harbour a virus in our bodies for days, weeks, months, years and still be susceptible to it (eg, what doctors tell us is true for hepatitis, polio, varicella, HPV (as well as herpes and HIV)) then the entire concept of immunity isn’t just the wrong answer, it’s the wrong question.

    To put it starkly – chronic infection (eg for hepatitis B) in a world of immunity requires us to believe that harbouring a virus simultaneously makes us both more susceptible and less susceptible. Obviously that’s a contradiction so we can safely say that immunity (even if you ignore the impossibility of a replicating pathogen) is impossible.

    You’re welcome Rex. And again, happy to get finger puppets out if there are any elements you don’t understand.

  11. Kneel says:

    “… for Democrats the sight of signs above doors ‘Whites’ and ‘Coloured’…”

    Already happening – different rooms for “Racial Sensitivity Training” for whites and BIPOC (in case you don’t know, that’s Black, Indigenous, People Of Colour).
    For University graduations, corporate training, Gov training…
    Jim Crow would be so proud of the Democrats – imagine getting Black people to support this, even demand it? Legends!

  12. Roger says:

    His ‘Vice-President’ – granted, a giggly lightweight at the best of times – has showcased her personal dedication to the party’s holy garment

    Giggly?

    Cackling is closer to the mark, I think.

  13. Rex Anger says:

    My proofs relate simply to the impossibility of both the germ theory and immunity to said germs. They are independent of the belief that disease is predominantly caused by emotional trauma.

    However, that disease is caused by emotional trauma is completely non-controversial. I have showed beyond reasonable doubt that such emotional trauma caused disease is vastly more prevalent than most people think (and I use that term loosely – indoctrinated is better).

    Incorrect. You have stated your opinion and some personal anecdotes, Chad ThunderBrain.

    That you do not understand homeostasis, nor the fact that human biology is not a perfectly enclosed or balanced system (hence issues with chronic illness) is not my fault, nor an indication of your belief vindication.

  14. m0nty says:

    If positive feedbacks dominate negative feedbacks then you get a runaway effect with the slightest perturbation. Simple maths. The immune system is (or would be) a positive feedback in terms of dealing with replicating pathogens ergo there is at least one positive feedback and zero negative feedbacks in the germ theory/immunity model of disease. So the model is impossible (or at least, if it were true, then no organism could exist).

    And thus, the number zero is a lie!

    This is the sort of nutjob your tirades against science have brought out, Lad. You stand arm in arm with Figures, shouting at the clouds, all vestiges of intellectual complexity cast aside.

  15. Rex Anger says:

    This is the sort of nutjob your tirades against science have brought out, Lad. You stand arm in arm with Figures, shouting at the clouds, all vestiges of intellectual complexity cast aside.

    m0nty, given that your entire act during this whole pandemic debacle has been based on political posturing and farting your virtue out for all to smell, you are the last person who should be making pronouncements about ‘nutjobs.’

    Chad ThunderBrain is just as ideological as you are. You, in fact, are arm-in-arm with him

  16. Figures says:

    That you do not understand homeostasis, nor the fact that human biology is not a perfectly enclosed or balanced system (hence issues with chronic illness) is not my fault, nor an indication of your belief vindication.

    Is that it? That’s your feeble counter argument? The relationship between, say, wolves and sheep isn’t perfectly enclosed, nonetheless you can describe their relationship as sustainable because increases in either populations are a negative feedback. The fact that there are lots of other relationships going on (eg between grass and sheep (also a negative feedback)) doesn’t affect our analysis in any way. Perfectly enclosed or not, if sheep and wolves were predominantly a positive feedback mechanism then changes in either population would lead to a runaway effect.

    Sorry champ. I’m smarter than you. And I’m right. Now, you do have monty on your side though so feel free to utilise his extraordinary intellect.

  17. Figures says:

    Nice deflection and well-made strawman, Chad ThunderBrain.

    ??? I was responding to Mother Lode who claimed that the supposed reduction in smallpox proved that disease couldn’t have been caused by emotional trauma. His conclusion may have been valid but his premise was wrong which is what I so kindly explained. He’s welcome.

    Your conceit remains, but you still have demonstrated no workings for your apparebt logical ‘proffs’ that all disease is down to emotional trauma.

    Except that a) as I say above I never claimed there was a logical proof for disease being caused by emotional trauma (now that’s a strawman); and b) I have shown my workings for the two proofs I do have.

    And anecdotes regarding rashes are non-empirical, nor readily repeatable.

    What exactly do you think there is about your beliefs that are repeatable? When we do high school science and the teacher says “gravity acceleration on earth is 9.8 metres per second” we followed up by doing experiments to prove such a number. When the great minds of Fauci and Gallo and Pasteur all said “germs cause disease” it was followed up by them saying “just trust us ok? You’re not smart enough to do the experiments that would determine if this is true”.

    Why do you care so much about scientific rigour when it comes to *my* beliefs on disease but you couldn’t care less about such rigour when it comes to your own? It’s alright – we both know the answer.

  18. Ozman says:

    Rex Anger says:
    May 7, 2021 at 1:03 pm

    Chad ThunderBrain is…ideological

    Methinks Figures is doing much quoting from “The Contagion Myth” written by Tom Cowan M.D. and Sally Fallon Morrell. If you buy a copy, you will find there are many research papers cited to back up their claims.

  19. Figures says:

    And thus, the number zero is a lie!

    This is the sort of nutjob your tirades against science have brought out, Lad. You stand arm in arm with Figures, shouting at the clouds, all vestiges of intellectual complexity cast aside.

    You had absolutely no idea whatsoever of what I just said did you?

    But you read somewhere on your “I fucking love whatever the government tells me is science” website that a really cool counterargument is “and thus the number zero is a lie!” so you repeated it and thought it made you clever. And cool.

    I mean, at least Rex understands what I’m saying – he’s just too indoctrinated to accept it. You just have no idea.

  20. Rex Anger says:

    Sorry champ. I’m smarter than you. And I’m right.

    Well, that covers everything, doesn’t it Chad ThunderBrain?

    I’ll stick to what I have learned, proven and know from working in the field of medicine and human physiology and you try to stay haughty so you don’t develop tinea or any pus under your blackheads…

    (Hint- Pissing on it is emotionally traumatic. Stay strong, Chad…)

  21. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    kiss with masks on despite being vaccinated

    Thus this fascist idiocy becomes more ridiculous and infuriating by the day.

    To paraphrase the late Kathy Shaidle, these people are too stupid to be telling others how to live their lives. Not to mention the fact that they should not be in such positions (even if they did obtain them via massive electoral fraud).

  22. m0nty says:

    When the great minds of Fauci and Gallo and Pasteur all said “germs cause disease” it was followed up by them saying “just trust us ok? You’re not smart enough to do the experiments that would determine if this is true”.

    As I said in the other thread Figures, you’re just a moron. Don’t get the vapours about being made fun of though, you might get sick from the miasma!

  23. m0nty says:

    You’re going to fit in at the Cat just fine, Figures. Aggro arrogance combined with studied ignorance is the norm here among the natives. Not normally pushing 19th century notions of medicine, mind you, but since their economic understanding comes from the same era you won’t seem out of place.

  24. Rex Anger says:

    I never claimed there was a logical proof for disease being caused by emotional trauma (now that’s a strawman); and b) I have shown my workings for the two proofs I do have.

    Chad ThunderBrain, are you declaring that your proofs are merely rhetorical?

    If so, how can they then be proofs?

    If we follow the definition of a ‘proof’ as: 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
    b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

    (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof),

    How can you not have used logic?

    If, as Ozman suggests, you are merely quoting “The Contagion Myth” written by Tom Cowan M.D. and Sally Fallon Morrell, might that prima facie not suggest that you are as equally indoctrinated?

    And merely you deem yourself right because you have some anecdotal experience that seems to back the authors’ assertions, and you applied the logical fallacy of a minority opinion always being correct if it is laughed at or not widely accepted on its immediately visible merits withour deeper examination?

    I am wont to quote the Humungous from Mad Max 2 far too often on the Cat, but here I go again:

    “None of us is without sin.”

  25. Rex Anger says:

    You’re going to fit in at the Cat just fine, Figures. Aggro arrogance combined with studied ignorance is the norm here among the natives.

    “I’m totally not projecting here. Honest…” Says m0nty.

  26. Figures says:

    I’ll stick to what I have learned, proven and know from working in the field of medicine and human physiology and you try to stay haughty so you don’t develop tinea or any pus under your blackheads…

    Mate, I haven’t got anything out of this debate. At no point did I feel like saying “thank you for regaling me with your remarkable insights – all of which I have heard a thousand times before”.

    I’ve given you astonishing insights – you’ve chosen to dismiss them which is stupid but up to you. You’ve given me absolutely nothing – Monty would have given me an equally interesting perspective.

    So you don’t need to announce your exit as though I’m going to miss anything.

  27. m0nty says:

    I’ve given you astonishing insights

    Aaaaaahahahaha!

  28. Rex Anger says:

    I’ve given you astonishing insights – you’ve chosen to dismiss them which is stupid but up to you. You’ve given me absolutely nothing – Monty would have given me an equally interesting perspective.

    What astonishing insights? Your son developed eczema due to stress? And that somehow equates to every diease known to man (and proven to spread dangerously in populations without efforts to deploy good hygiene, etc…) is because people get shocked, hurt or develop the sads?

    Did Florence Nightingale in the Crimea and the medical staff of the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in London significantly reduce nosocomial infections and deaths among their patients by a) Washing their Hands before and after poking around in said patients’ internal workings, or b) Telling them to harden up?

    (And they didn’t have the easy conspiratorial out of 5G Electromagbetic Radiation or high-stress, antiseptic lives to blame, either.)

  29. Rex Anger says:

    Did Florence Nightingale in the Crimea and the medical staff of the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in London significantly reduce nosocomial infections and deaths among their patients by a) Washing their Hands before and after poking around in said patients’ internal workings, or b) Telling them to harden up?

    Answer for the Audience: A. Though this was initially met with derision by physicians, despite the early evidence. And some 200 years later, hand-washing is still a basic measure that Hospital staff (and we general population alike) struggle to maintain and enforce.

  30. Rex Anger says:

    Mate, I haven’t got anything out of this debate. At no point did I feel like saying “thank you for regaling me with your remarkable insights – all of which I have heard a thousand times before”.

    Because you had already chosen which ‘indoctrination’ you would follow, Chad Thunderbrain.

    Now harden up before you get too upset with me and catch your death of AIDS…

  31. Figures says:

    Chad ThunderBrain, are you declaring that your proofs are merely rhetorical?

    If so, how can they then be proofs?

    Maybe you need to brush up on basic English comprehension Rex. I didn’t say my proofs weren’t sound – they absolutely are – they just don’t apply to what causes diseases (they merely apply to what doesn’t (ie germs)).

    If, as Ozman suggests, you are merely quoting “The Contagion Myth” written by Tom Cowan M.D. and Sally Fallon Morrell, might that prima facie not suggest that you are as equally indoctrinated?

    Firstly, no.

    Secondly, I’ve never read this book.

    Thirdly, whilst I have heard of Cowan I haven’t heard of Morrell and my decision to reject germ theory stemmed from my observation that people seemed to survive visiting (and even being) doctors just fine (I didn’t even know about people who opposed vaccination before I rejected germ theory). I looked at the germ theory using logic and found that it was impossible. At that point, I had no idea what did in fact cause disease but I had already built, from the ground up (using logic), what a theory of disease *needed* to explain.

    Emotional trauma fit that. Like a glove.

    Fourthly, no.

    Fifthly. You’re both stupid and desperate.

    Sixthly, agreeing with other people or learning from them when they say things that are consistent with observations or logically sensible doesn’t make you indoctrinated. Believing in something *because* someone said so makes you indoctrinated.

    Seventhly, how about you stop making a fool of yourself? Just once.

    and you applied the logical fallacy of a minority opinion always being correct if it is laughed at or not widely accepted on its immediately visible merits withour deeper examination?

    I guess that rules out seven. What an idiotic claim. I’m right on germ theory because it is logically impossible. Just as I’m right about the square of the hypotenuse being equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. One is a very popular belief, the other very unpopular. Both are correct with 100% certainty because both have a (well multiple) logical proofs in their favour.

  32. Figures says:

    Did Florence Nightingale in the Crimea and the medical staff of the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in London significantly reduce nosocomial infections and deaths among their patients by a) Washing their Hands before and after poking around in said patients’ internal workings, or b) Telling them to harden up?

    That’s quite amusing given that Nightingale spent the vast majority of her life opposing germ theory (some claim she eventually accepted it but even if true, it had no bearing on her work).

    It’s a good idea to wash your hands when you are dealing with open wounds or women giving birth because of the risk of sepsis. The blood is not actually purely sterile but it is very close and has an extremely low tolerance for anything from the outside.

    This is why vaccinations – which are typically low dose poisons – can be so dangerous (yes I know they are typically injected IM but it soon travels into the blood).

    So thanks Rex. You brought up a very wise and great lady who was against germ theory and gave further evidence against the use of vaccines.

    Just so you know though, I really don’t need your help.

  33. Rex Anger says:

    So thanks Rex. You brought up a very wise and great lady who was against germ theory and gave further evidence against the use of vaccines.

    Just so you know though, I really don’t need your help.

    Clever inversion, Chad Thunderbrain.

    But your attempt to use the limited medical and immunolgical understanding at the time (US Civil War- massive, pus-producing infections seen as a sign of healing to be let alone, rather than minimised to give the soldoer’s immune system the optimum opportunity to do its job) still does not prove your conceit.

    Now stay hard- Or you’ll get Double-AIDS

  34. Figures says:

    As I said in the other thread Figures, you’re just a moron.

    And it was such a brilliant insult you thought you had better say it twice.

    Not normally pushing 19th century notions of medicine, mind you, but since their economic understanding comes from the same era you won’t seem out of place.

    I understand that concepts like time and logic and math and everything are foreign to leftists Monty but I think you will find that vaccination started all the way back in the 18th century and was very common by the early 19th century.

    So yes, I agree that 19th century medicine was shocking. It just hasn’t improved. Well some forms have (eg emergency medicine, plastic surgery, orthopedics) but disease based medicine is still a catastrophe and still based on the same faulty model that had hegemony in the 19th century.

  35. rickw says:

    Most people would only kiss Kamala with a mask on.

    Except Arky.

  36. Figures says:

    But your attempt to use the limited medical and immunolgical understanding at the time

    Ummm, you do realise that it was *you* that brought it up don’t you?

    Here, I’ll help you out because you clearly can’t remember all the way back to a few minutes ago:

    Did Florence Nightingale in the Crimea and the medical staff of the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in London significantly reduce nosocomial infections and deaths among their patients

    Which is it Rex? Is it ok to use (the exact same) anecdote from the 19th century to prove our narrative or not? Or is it only ok if it helps your case and not ok if it helps mine?

    Are you trying to take the “completely lacking in any kind of self-awareness prize” from Monty?

    Now stay hard- Or you’ll get Double-AIDS

    Yep. Just like Monty. You said something completely inane but you think you’ve actually said something really clever and so you keep on repeating it.

  37. Rex Anger says:

    Which is it Rex? Is it ok to use (the exact same) anecdote from the 19th century to prove our narrative or not? Or is it only ok if it helps your case and not ok if it helps mine?

    Are you trying to take the “completely lacking in any kind of self-awareness prize” from Monty?

    No. Not in the slightest.

    Your conceit is that emotional trauma causes all disease.

    Whether or not germ theory or the limited historical understanding of same (or its fashionability among practitioners of the day, all of whom only worked to what they knew) is of secondary importance and grows out of the first.

  38. Rex Anger says:

    Besides, if you know in your heart that I am wrong beyond all inducible doubt, Chad Thunderbrain,

    Why persist in saying so?

    If I am so ‘indoctrinated’ in your eyes that I cannot see your logic, why do you feel a need to prove it to yourself by arguing me to a standstill?

    You would not keep trying to get the last word in, otherwise.
    Try flinging a zinger and move on.

  39. Mother Lode says:

    Did Florence Nightingale in the Crimea

    There is the evidence that people who were shot tended to malinger a lot – lying down on the ground moaning and such.

    It seems equally likely at least that they died from the ‘shot’ mindset as by a bullet penetrating their bodies.

    And the guys who were standing near the places where cannon fire were the worst of the lot. Even flinging bits of their bodies all over the place in a with shameful disregard for soldierly discipline.

  40. Rex Anger says:

    @ Mother Lode-

    Yep. Utterly disgusting.

    Had they been told to harden up more often and more severely, the casualty rate would have been 0%.

    Damned malingerers and their ‘secondary infections…’

  41. Figures says:

    Rex, I debate anybody because there are people who can change their minds who will read such debates. I’ve persuaded thousands. Possibly tens of thousands.

    Whether or not I can persuade you is irrelevant. Anybody willing to think about this issue can judge for themselves who has provided the most insights and they’re the ones that matter here.

  42. Rex Anger says:

    Rex, I debate anybody because there are people who can change their minds who will read such debates. I’ve persuaded thousands. Possibly tens of thousands.

    Whether or not I can persuade you is irrelevant. Anybody willing to think about this issue can judge for themselves who has provided the most insights and they’re the ones that matter here.

    Chad Thunderbrain also writes for an audience…

    …And that audience had damn well better harden up before the mind-sickness gets them.

  43. Mother Lode says:

    I will bet that Figures debates people all the time, but has somehow never had to re-consider his position, and ultimately must abandon his efforts because the other person is so close-minded.

    What else can you do with someone who just won’t see?

  44. Rex Anger says:

    What else can you do with someone who just won’t see?

    Tell them to harden up? 🤔

  45. Figures says:

    And that audience had damn well better harden up before the mind-sickness gets them

    Sorry I’m lost here.

    Are you saying that emotional trauma *never* causes disease – and that the very idea that it does is laughable?

    No. That’s not what you’re saying is it Rex? You know perfectly well trauma leads to disease. PTSD for starters – it’s not controversial. But you have precisely zero arguments.

    Look of what I’ve done. I have come up with two independent proofs that the germ theory is impossible. I’ve then elucidated a theory of disease which makes perfect sense and you already agree with in principle.

    And you know all this is true. You also know just how not only stupid but immoral this makes you. You’ve poisoned your children (assuming you have any) with vaccines. And now you’re being told that these poisons were completely worthless and you have no idea how to refute this argument. Of course you don’t. They’re logical proofs FFS. You can’t shrug them off. You desperately want to, but you can’t.

    So what to do eh Rex? You have absolutely nothing.

    Zero. Sweet FA to come back to me with. Deep down you know you’re wrong and you know you’ve been played for a sucker all your life with an obviously wrong theory.

    But you can’t admit that. Not to me. Not to yourself.

    So all you can do is say “hurdehurhur this guy believes that traumas cause disease – that’s, ummm, very silly and we should all laugh at him”.

    But you *already* accept that trauma causes diseases Rex. If I’m crazy for believing in it then you are just as crazy.

    So that’s it. That’s where you are. Your best argument is to say that I’m crazy for believing in a principle that you yourself wholeheartedly agree with.

    Imagine just how emasculated you must feel right now? I wouldn’t worry though. You’re nowhere near the first person I’ve demolished on this issue. And many have vastly more of your precious scientific qualifications than you do.

  46. Mother Lode says:

    Are you saying that emotional trauma *never* causes disease

    Yes. Never. Always never.

    /sarc

  47. Rex Anger says:

    Are you saying that emotional trauma *never* causes disease – and that the very idea that it does is laughable?
    Nope. That’s not even your conceit. It’s not even my counter-argument. That’s entirely your strawman.

    No. That’s not what you’re saying is it Rex? You know perfectly well trauma leads to disease. PTSD for starters – it’s not controversial. ut you have precisely zero arguments.

    Nope. PTSD is an injury at best. And like all injuries, management is key. We are simply in a strange time and place where a pronounced inability to function and poor quality of life because of unmanaged or undermanaged injury is deemed socially desirable and even honorable.

    They’re logical proofs FFS
    Hang on- You only just said upthread that calling your proofs ‘logical’ was a strawman…

    But you *already* accept that trauma causes diseases Rex. If I’m crazy for believing in it then you are just as crazy.
    Nope. Not done that.

    Trauma causes injury. Injury is different from disease.

    I’ve then elucidated a theory of disease which makes perfect sense and you already agree with in principle..Your best argument is to say that I’m crazy for believing in a principle that you yourself wholeheartedly agree with.

    Nope. Not done that either. That’s all your projection….

    You’ve poisoned your children (assuming you have any) with vaccines. And now you’re being told that these poisons were completely worthless…
    …And this is your personal opinion, laced with the logical fallacy of a specific group vaccines desperately being spruiked despite their increasibgly obvious ineffectiveness and adverse reaction rate, with your general ideological perception that all vaccones are useless and lethal.

    …and you have no idea how to refute this argument. Of course you don’t.

    And you know all this is true. You also know just how not only stupid but immoral this makes you… You can’t shrug them off. You desperately want to, but you can’t.

    So what to do eh Rex? You have absolutely nothing.

    Zero. Sweet FA to come back to me with. Deep down you know you’re wrong and you know you’ve been played for a sucker all your life with an obviously wrong theory.

    But you can’t admit that. Not to me. Not to yourself.

    This does not sound like the terribly thought out and self-assured Chad ThunderBrain I’ve come to know these last few months.

    More like a stroppy ideologue whose smug rhetoric suddenly got outdone by someone with a little more education than most, who was also willing to throw a little extra reasoning in. Instead of just resorting straight to insults and giving you an easy and ego-affirming win. You could have just flung a zinger and gone on, confident in your perceptions. Instead, you are howling your insecurities at me, as if that will make things better.

    It’s your life and your thoughts on how the world works, Figures. If you need converts, you need to self-reflect a little…

    Imagine just how emasculated you must feel right now? I wouldn’t worry though. You’re nowhere near the first person I’ve demolished on this issue. And many have vastly more of your precious scientific qualifications than you do.

    OK, Chad…

    Projecting much?

  48. Rex Anger says:

    (For the Reader, this quotation below was Figures’:)

    You’ve poisoned your children (assuming you have any) with vaccines. And now you’re being told that these poisons were completely worthless…

  49. m0nty says:

    Thirdly, whilst I have heard of Cowan I haven’t heard of Morrell and my decision to reject germ theory stemmed from my observation that people seemed to survive visiting (and even being) doctors just fine (I didn’t even know about people who opposed vaccination before I rejected germ theory). I looked at the germ theory using logic and found that it was impossible. At that point, I had no idea what did in fact cause disease but I had already built, from the ground up (using logic), what a theory of disease *needed* to explain.

    Emotional trauma fit that. Like a glove.

    Look out brethren, there is a genius walking among us. Who needs books, libraries or education when you can figure everything in the world out yourself using logic.

    Sadly, this looms as a classic and painful case of projection.

    Tell us Figures, where on the doll did the bad man touch you and make you feel sick?

  50. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    The ancient child molestor and cackles what a ferkin pair ?

  51. Figures says:

    Nope. That’s not even your conceit. It’s not even my counter-argument. That’s entirely your strawman.

    Then why the inane “hurdehurhur you’ll get AIDS by not being hard” jokes? Are you now admitting those were all stupid.

    Maybe you’re starting to grow as a person Rex.

    Hang on- You only just said upthread that calling your proofs ‘logical’ was a strawman…

    Please provide the quote of me saying that my proofs weren’t logical. If you can’t then please do the right thing and admit that you’re a pathological liar.

    Trauma causes injury. Injury is different from disease.

    You do know about a thing called context don’t you?

    Clearly I was referring to emotional trauma.

    Splitting hairs is an excellent sign that you’re being demolished.

    And this is your personal opinion,

    You don’t agree? Fine. Take the entire infant vaccine schedule adjusted for your body weight. We’ll see at the end how poisonous it is.

    Nope. PTSD is an injury at best. And like all injuries, management is key.

    ??? What is it at worst? Now you’re just devolving into out and out incoherency.

    What does the opossum do when it feels trapped? Every biologist on the planet would say it goes into paralysis. You (presumably) say it doesn’t. That’s fine – I have no issues if you want to disagree with biologists – but why do you think they’re wrong?

    got outdone by someone with a little more education than most,

    Ummm yeah. You’ve really taught me a lot.

    No seriously well done. Kudos. I’ve never had anyone a) act obtuse; b) lie; c) create strawmen; d) tell me that I must be wrong because EDUCATION!!!; e) pretend to find the principles of my beliefs crazy even though they themselves agree with said principles; f) require a thousand times more rigour from my beliefs than you’ve ever applied to your own.

    Oh no. Wait. That’s exactly what all indoctrinated people do.

    No seriously champ. You don’t actually believe you’ve taught me anything interesting do you?

    You’ve spent lots of time looking at my proofs to see if there was a *single* flaw with either and the only one you thought you found was to say “but it’s an open system” which only applied to one of them and I demolished it anyway.

    So that’s what’s been keeping you awake at night recently Rex.

    Your “insights” that have been troubling me? Sorry. They don’t exist.

  52. Rex Anger says:

    Then why the inane “hurdehurhur you’ll get AIDS by not being hard” jokes? Are you now admitting those were all stupid.

    Because your conceit that all disease is emotion trauma.

    If we follow your ‘logic,’ if you harden up and do not get traumatised, you can’t get sick.

    Correct?

  53. Rex Anger says:

    No seriously well done. Kudos. I’ve never had anyone a) act obtuse; b) lie; c) create strawmen; d) tell me that I must be wrong because EDUCATION!!!; e) pretend to find the principles of my beliefs crazy even though they themselves agree with said principles; f) require a thousand times more rigour from my beliefs than you’ve ever applied to your own.

    Welp, a flow comes smarming onto a blog, proclaiming gnosis on a world-changing level, but refusing to demonstrate his case and then calling everyone who disagrees with him (especislly those who engage him) as being stupid, deliberately blind and/or a cultist, effectively demands to not be taken seriously.

    No seriously champ. You don’t actually believe you’ve taught me anything interesting do you?

    Not my intent. Unsure why you thought it was, especially given you have no interest in anything anyone might say to challenge your perceptions.

  54. Rex Anger says:

    You’ve spent lots of time looking at my proofs to see if there was a *single* flaw with either and the only one you thought you found was to say “but it’s an open system” which only applied to one of them and I demolished it anyway.

    You demolished nothing. Ideology and rhetoric are not ‘proofs,’ and ‘logic’ alone in the form of merely looking at or thinking about something and forming a conclusion without treating it as a hypothesis and comprehensively testing it to lrove its accuracy, remains an opinion.

    So that’s what’s been keeping you awake at night recently Rex.

    Your “insights” that have been troubling me? Sorry. They don’t exist.

  55. Rex Anger says:

    So that’s what’s been keeping you awake at night recently Rex.

    Your projection alone. Though I doike looking back to see how you react.

    Your “insights” that have been troubling me? Sorry. They don’t exist.

    So why the frequent word walls and denunciations? Is it really so awful that I still refuse to accept your opinion on the nature of disease, that you feel a compulsive urge to denounce me to satisfy yourself that you are right?

    If you had already decided there was nothing more to be had, why not (as I have said at least 3 times now), throw a dismissive zinger and move on?

  56. Rex Anger says:

    Nope. PTSD is an injury at best. And like all injuries, management is key.

    ??? What is it at worst?

    A serious injury that catastrophically impedes the sufferer’s quality of life. Who is splitting hairs now?

    Now you’re just devolving into out and out incoherency.

    Nope. That’s entirely your own projections again.

  57. Tel says:

    If positive feedbacks dominate negative feedbacks then you get a runaway effect with the slightest perturbation. Simple maths.

    Only if the system is linear.

    There was this guy called Thomas Malthus that because people could produce more people (positive feedback) then inevitably all of England would be overrun by those Irish Catholics with big families, then everyone would starve soon after.

    Not only was Malthus wrong, but Benjamin Gompertz explained why Malthus was wrong … and now Gompertz is largely forgotten while Malthus and his wrongology is known everywhere.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Gompertz

    Not discouraging anyone from studying simple maths, but sometimes you need to take the next step to slightly more complex maths.

  58. Rex Anger says:

    What does the opossum do when it feels trapped? Every biologist on the planet would say it goes into paralysis. You (presumably) say it doesn’t

    Wrong. An animal that has developed by natural selection a catatonic paralysis reaction to exrteme stress as a defensive mechanism (already dead = probably off or sick, and thus unpalateable or an untenable disease risk = bad eating for a would-be predator), does not mean that emotional trauma causes disease.

    That’s fine – I have no issues if you want to disagree with biologists – but why do you think they’re wrong?

    Because it appears that I have a better understanding of natural selection than you by your choice of example.

    If your conceit is true, then any animal that goes catatonic as a defense measure and subsequentky sicken from the emotional trauma sustained, is very unlikely to pass on its genes. It will eliminate itself and its progeny over several generations.

    Natural selection would instead favour Fight or Flight. And Opossums would thus either bite you to shreds, or be extremely fast runners who would still bite you to shreds if you denied them an avenue of escape.

    And none would necessarily sicken from being pursued.

  59. Rex Anger says:

    Not only was Malthus wrong, but Benjamin Gompertz explained why Malthus was wrong … and now Gompertz is largely forgotten while Malthus and his wrongology is known everywhere.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Gompertz

    Not discouraging anyone from studying simple maths, but sometimes you need to take the next step to slightly more complex maths.

    The People With The Agendas have clearly preferred Malthus’ doomsaying over Gompertz’ logic and optimism every time since the 1700s, Tel? 😉

    Unsurprising. Perceptive fear is a remarkably effective tool of manipulation where power over an audience otherwise ignorant of the acts surrounding said targeted perception…

  60. Rex Anger says:

    Typo Correction:

    Perceptive fear is a remarkably effective tool of manipulation where power over an audience otherwise ignorant of the acts surrounding said targeted perception, is desired…

  61. Figures says:

    If we follow your ‘logic,’ if you harden up and do not get traumatised, you can’t get sick.

    Amazing. That is actually correct. Of course it’s simply not possible to avoid being blind sided by, for example, a loved one dying but yes, finding ways to reduce (or cope with) stress will reduce the occurrence of disease.

    It’s important to realise though that disease comes after the stress/trauma is resolved. Happens all the time. Colleagues working on a massive project finally finish it and then most come down with “flu” for a week.

    How often do people get sick on holiday? A lot. A hell of a lot. It’s not the holiday it’s the stress/trauma that preceded it. The body is simply taking the opportunity to heal.

    All this is 100% consistent with observable reality.

    does not mean that emotional trauma causes disease.

    So we never call people who come down with paralysis (other than by accident or stroke) as suffering from a disease (eg MS, polio, GBS)?

    Interesting.

    You should keep on tying yourself up in knots.

    as a defensive mechanism

    This is hilarious. You should have spent less time being a smartarse and more time trying to understand the concept. That speaks very poorly of your character.

    Being sick *is* a defence mechanism. Or, more commonly, it’s the body healing (rebalancing) from the physiological changes that occurred during the defence mechanism.

    MS is not a life sentence. Doctors will tell you it is because they don’t understand it. You’ll be given a cocktail of drugs that prohibit your mind from properly recovering from it.

    Lung cancer occurs because the mind thinks it requires hyperactive lung cells (in response to a fear of death trauma). We heal through what we call TB – night sweats, coughing up blood. But a doctor will say “you smoke and you’re coughing up blood, ergo you’ve got lung cancer and you should make sure your will is in order”.

    What happens? We go back to the fear of dying. We then get scared of the treatments we will have to endure which causes other cancers (eg bone (fear of being worthless) or liver (fear of starvation)). So doctors say “hmmm, looks like your cancer has spread [doctors don’t understand geometry very well] so your chances are even more grim.”

    Liver cancer occurs because hyperactive liver cells increase metabolism – a survival mechanism just like lung cancer. Just like paralysis (eg polio).

    In most cases we only recognize the healing phase because that’s when the pain occurs. But the physiological changes that come before it are what helps us resolve the trauma.

    Note that our sub conscious minds don’t realise we live in a world of hospitals and streaming tv so most of these physiological changes are actually useless to us but, in the days of yore, were critical to our survival.

    Our sub-conscious mind responds to a fatal prognosis the same as it does to being chased by a lion (lung cancer) even though you can’t outrun the doctor’s stupidity.

  62. Figures says:

    Only if the system is linear.

    Nope.

    Your comparison is bizarre actually. Malthus recognized that there was a negative feedback with population and food. In fact that was his entire concern. His error was in the carrying capacity of earth before those constraints became non-binding. There were other variables too like people choosing to have less kids but I dare say you won’t be incorporating such in your virus model of disease.

    Now, you only have one option. Show me the negative feedback in the pathogen/immune model.

    There isn’t one. So the model is worthless.

  63. Rex Anger says:

    Figure, you are convinced you have gnosis that renders over 2000 years of empirical and improving understanding of human physiology and biology obsolete.

    Were you entirely certain this was the case, surely you would wish to comprehensively test and demonstrate your ‘proofs’ under the widest variety of conditions, both to demonstrate their validity and enhance your hypothesis.

    Yet all you have done instead, is denounce anyone who expresses any doubt to you, while holding up multiple anecdotal examples of illness/stress correlations as causation. And opossums going limp to not get eaten. And a few inventions regarding both cancer and conflations of diseases that present similar surface symptoms (Tuberculosis- TB- Is not lung cancer…).

    The endocrine effects of chronic stress, i.e. cortisol (partially metabolised adrenaline left circulating in the bloodstream), have been long known to be an immune downregulator. Long before the mechanics were understood, and cortisol even identified.

    Your position is thus not scientific (despite attempts your efforts to appeal to it as authority in the opossim example), but religious.

    I already have one of those, and it informs both my theoretical and practical understanding of the human body and how it works. As well as my sense of joy and fascination with how well is keeps working in the face of everything that can conceivably go wrong with it.

    I do not find your gnosis sufficiently compelling to change my mind. Either my religious or scientific and medical understanding.

    I hope and pray you finally come to the answers you seek. But they are not in your gnosticism here.

  64. Figures says:

    Sorry. I have two proofs.

    You haven’t touched on one. Literally said nothing about it.

    Your only attempt against the other one was to say “ummm, it’s complicated”.

    I’m right. You’re wrong.

    It’s really that simple.

  65. Rex Anger says:

    You haven’t touched on one. Literally said nothing about it.

    Which one was that?

    The immine system you choose to have no understanding of, because your entire conceit would fall over if you chose to accept that it does not ‘run away’ in all but the most limited of instances?

    Your only attempt against the other one was to say “ummm, it’s complicated”.

    It is. But since you want to deal in simplifications, and your gnosticism is based on same, why bother?

    I’m right. You’re wrong.

    It’s really that simple.

    Hence why I called your opinion a religious one.

  66. Figures says:

    Why do you keep responding unless it’s specifically to refute my two proofs?

    Hence why I called your opinion a religious one.

    I’d say the same thing if you claimed 2+2=5. Is maths a religion too? Or are you just grasping at straws?

  67. Rex Anger says:

    Why do you keep responding unless it’s specifically to refute my two proofs?

    I’d say the same thing if you claimed 2+2=5. Is maths a religion too? Or are you just grasping at straws?

    No.

    Your attempts at defence of your ‘proofs’ and increasingly hysterical denunciations of all naysayers have taken on the appearance of religious dogma, meaning a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma). As such there never can or will be any refutation- Your articles of faith are unquestionable, and you will die (or even ensure others die) by them if necessary. So be it.

    The refutation of your own proofs lies within the human body itself. Within your own, even. Specifically the very complicated and 99+% effective immune system you have written off, since you do not clearly understand the positive and negative feedback systems it uses to ensure that the threats and damage foreign materials and pathogens cause are minimised.

    Immune systems do not ‘run away,’ Chad Thunderbrain. Else there would have been no progenitor Thunderbrains to beget you. Or any other human beings on this planet. Your biologists would agree to that- Natural Selection does not favour crippled beings with malfunctions of that nature.

    It is all significantly more complicated than sitting amongst the coughers and sneezeweasels in a doctor’s surgery for 10 minutes and then deciding that because you didn’t keel over, immune systems and germs are all bollocks…

    With this understanding in mind, I am now attempting to determine, Chad Thunderbrain, whether you are yet another obtuse Grigory-sock with a new act, an actual troll in your own right, or if your delusion is real.

  68. Figures says:

    99+% effective immune system you have written off, since you do not clearly understand the positive and negative feedback systems it uses to ensure that the threats and damage foreign materials and pathogens cause are minimised.

    The immune system – such as it is posited to be – is a *positive* feedback mechanism because our immune cells are increasingly exhausted by fighting off the ever increasing pathogens.

    You’re welcome to enunciate a different mechanism if you like – it won’t make any sense but you can still do so. But if you can’t then I’m right. And you can’t. So I’m right. QED

    It is all significantly more complicated than sitting amongst the coughers and sneezeweasels in a doctor’s surgery for 10 minutes and then deciding that because you didn’t keel over, immune systems and germs are all bollocks…

    Actually it isn’t. If aliens came to visit this planet they would be mesmerized at people’s acceptance of contagion despite the longevity of doctors. It’s absolutely catastrophic to the notion of germ theory. Of course, I have two logical proofs (by the way, I notice you never provided those quotes of me saying my proofs weren’t logical – nor did you admit that you’re a pathological liar (you should remedy that)) which destroy it anyway, but just a simple observation of walking into a doctor office and surviving (and doing this *repeatedly* (I know you love that word) with billions of people over and over) is devastating to germ theory. Completely demolishes it. Once you observe people surviving a trip to the doctor office you have two choices and two choices only – accept that germ theory is a lie or wallow in cognitive dissonance.

    And this may come as a shock to you but saying “duuh it’s complicated” or even the ever more sophisticated “duuh it’s significantly more complicated” doesn’t help you in the slightest.

    By the way, you’ve failed miserably on the negative feedback proof and made yourself look more and more stupid, so when are you going to try your hand at the chronic infection proof? It’s scary to think that you (presumably) went after the negative feedback proof as the easiest to dismiss – so we can only wonder how badly your “refutation” of the chronic infection proof will go. Still, it’ll give me some laughs. I can only assume your main line of argument will be “duuuh it’s super-duper with a triple twist and pike complicated”.

  69. Figures says:

    Having said all that I do admire your Zapp Brannigan (or Monty) levels of self-awareness.

    You believe that the fact that people have believed in contagion for 2000 years is somehow proof that it must be true (you allude to a plethora of “empirical understanding” but for some reason you never bother providing even a small sample of the basis for this empirical understanding). In short, you believe in contagion/germ theory because it’s been around a long time and widely believed. Pretty much the definition of religious thinking.

    But here’s the kicker. When someone dares question this 2000 year old dogma you say that that person must be making a religious argument!

    When you thought up the whole “me making a religious argument” I bet you thought that you would hit that bullseye and the dominoes would all fall like a house of cards!

    Checkmate!

  70. Rex Anger says:

    When you thought up the whole “me making a religious argument” I bet you thought that you would hit that bullseye and the dominoes would all fall like a house of cards!

    Checkmate!

    Welp, 2 whole wordwalls of sound and fury signifying nothing, would suggest that my assessment of your carry-on was bang on the money, Chad Thunderbrain.

    I told you upthread, I already have a religious position on the workings of the human body, health and diseases. Inspired by the Creator of same.

    I reiterate that I do not find your gnosticism* sufficiently compelling to change my mind. Either my religious or scientific and medical understanding.

    And I am sorry that you do not like that.

    * I’ve used the word several times, so I had best define it for you.
    GnosisEsoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosis).
    Gnosticism– The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosticism).

  71. Rex Anger says:

    By the way, you’ve failed miserably on the negative feedback proof and made yourself look more and more stupid, so when are you going to try your hand at the chronic infection proof? It’s scary to think that you (presumably) went after the negative feedback proof as the easiest to dismiss – so we can only wonder how badly your “refutation” of the chronic infection proof will go. Still, it’ll give me some laughs. I can only assume your main line of argument will be “duuuh it’s super-duper with a triple twist and pike complicated”.

    Read a physiology textbook, you lazy fool. In fact, here is Immunology 101 for normies via the internet: https://www.britannica.com/science/immune-system

    Why would I waste time and pixels trying to correct your hyper-simplified (to the point of painful ignorance) understanding of the human body, when it has become an article of your faith?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.