Without getting into the article he's talking about, a word on Vinay Prasad: he's very much a lefty. In some videos, which are starting to age now, he's not in the least shy about parading his leftist bona fides. In one discussion with a dissident doctor, Prasad bemoaned the fact that vaccine mandates for children would disproportionately harm children of colour, by excluding them from school since their vaxx uptake rates were low - BEFORE it occurred to him to bring up the idea that it might disproportionately harm those mostly white kids who actually got vaccinated.
In the early months of this, his ideological marriage to the idea of science being benevolent caused him IMO to be extremely mealy-mouthed in criticising the vaccine rollout, where even when something unmistakably angry seemed to be going on behind his eyes and in his tone of voice, he still wouldn't bring himself to say anything close to 'this is doing more harm overall' or 'stop all mrna vaccinations'. He would merely criticise it being over-emphasised for certain demographics.
You can see something of a hint of his over-emphasis on the 'form' of science even in this video. where he talks as if the cancer link to mrna is unproven but I would say the probative evidence of a link between cancer rates and covid jabs IS there - McCullough & Co's paper provides a mechanism, coquin de chien provides an analysis of cancer death upticks (as well as a photo of a woman with two little strawberry sized tumours sprouting from the site of each jab), and I've read claims of cancer incidence rates jumping by hundreds of percent (forgot the sources on that one right now soz). If you were to say to me that this doesn't constitute evidence, under the model of your 'science', then I would simply have to say that your science is fucking useless. Prasad skates over this particular talking point while babbling about the kind of science that would constitute best practice in this area, because he is singularly morally angry about the scale of the damage wrought upon our youth by vaccine-induced myocarditis - which is what's good about him.
He has for most of this year been the best source (for the layman) of info and news about myocarditis in young people. He's inserted himself into the wider argument to back up Rogan with evidence (which Rogan strangely misplaced on the live podcast) when the latter brought the idea into the normie consciousness. Prasad has, as I mentioned, has clearly just been angry, in spite of any facade of mealy-mouthed professional restraint, that the scientific and medical establishments have been able to get away with all of this. The anger has caused him to turn his meticulous data-based mindset towards some of the other false idols of the covid narrative, such as masks and lockdowns, and he uses that mindset to skewer the blatant hypocrisy and the selective reporting of publications such as The Atlantic, in the above vid. It leads him to ask very piercing questions such as what the fallout will be for humanity's view of scientific institutions in the coming years. He knows that the scientific class he's part of has collectively shot itself in the head.
I suspect if Vinay Prasad hadn't gotten so angry, he wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. The completely dispassionate, supposedly objective version of Vinay Prasad would still be stuck complaining about the lack of evidence of good risk-ratios for kids or whatever, until he finally performed a risk-reward calculation on the benefit of his speaking up, and would fall silent. To me it's just an interesting little parable, that shows no matter how pure and finely tuned your tool is - the tool being your scientific approach - the mind which uses it has to have a moral or ideological foundation. The establishment have their ideology - every lie we tell is good, it furthers science - and so without cultivating your own drive, then it is naive to go up against the monolith and think you can win just because 'I'm doing the REAL science!' The more powerful science proceeds from passions and beliefs derived elsewhere. Where's the scientific paper that told Prasad he needs to fight the corner of kids so much?
Anyway the Atlantic article in question:
It's well worth a read IMO. It's hilarious. This establishment scientismo shill is absolutely riddled with cancer. The subtext is that he is 100% certain, correctly, that it was caused by the jabs. Yet most of the article is a narrative which documents his mental acrobatics in trying to reconcile it as a wild coincidence, then when he's clearly not able to do that, he spends ages and ages worrying about what the EVIL ANTIVAXXERS will do with the info that vaccines can cause cancer.
Eventually he determines that he's going to be a hero and speak up anyway. Just as soon as he gets his cancer under control. Oh and he has to get the wording right. Wouldn't want to rush things. Wouldn't want the possibility that the billions of administered covid jabs are causing cancer to allow sceptics of our scientific monolith to score a point over us. You have to keep sight of what's important!
Really it's an accidental masterpiece and is a beautiful indictment of the science-subscribed mind. Every paragraph has some gem, eg. random pick:
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot...
HE STILL MIGHT GET JABBED AGAIN!! lmao. ....lmao
Without getting into the article he's talking about, a word on Vinay Prasad: he's very much a lefty. In some videos, which are starting to age now, he's not in the least shy about parading his leftist bona fides. In one discussion with a dissident doctor, Prasad bemoaned the fact that vaccine mandates for children would disproportionately harm children of colour, by excluding them from school since their vaxx uptake rates were low - BEFORE it occurred to him to bring up the idea that it might disproportionately harm those mostly white kids who actually got vaccinated.
In the early months of this, his ideological marriage to the idea of science being benevolent caused him IMO to be extremely mealy-mouthed in criticising the vaccine rollout, where even when something unmistakably angry seemed to be going on behind his eyes and in his tone of voice, he still wouldn't bring himself to say anything close to 'this is doing more harm overall' or 'stop all mrna vaccinations'. He would merely criticise it being over-emphasised for certain demographics.
You can see something of a hint of his over-emphasis on the 'form' of science even in this video. where he talks as if the cancer link to mrna is unproven but I would say the probative evidence of a link between cancer rates and covid jabs IS there - McCullough & Co's paper provides a mechanism, coquin de chien provides an analysis of cancer death upticks (as well as a photo of a woman with two little strawberry sized tumours sprouting from the site of each jab), and I've read claims of cancer incidence rates jumping by hundreds of percent (forgot the sources on that one right now soz). If you were to say to me that this doesn't constitute evidence, under the model of your 'science', then I would simply have to say that your science is fucking useless. Prasad skates over this particular talking point while babbling about the kind of science that would constitute best practice in this area, because he is singularly morally angry about the scale of the damage wrought upon our youth by vaccine-induced myocarditis - which is what's good about him.
He has for most of this year been the best source (for the layman) of info and news about myocarditis in young people. He's inserted himself into the wider argument to back up Rogan with evidence (which Rogan strangely misplaced on the live podcast) when the latter brought the idea into the normie consciousness. Prasad has, as I mentioned, has clearly just been angry, in spite of any facade of mealy-mouthed professional restraint, that the scientific and medical establishments have been able to get away with all of this. The anger has caused him to turn his meticulous data-based mindset towards some of the other false idols of the covid narrative, such as masks and lockdowns, and he uses that mindset to skewer the blatant hypocrisy and the selective reporting of publications such as The Atlantic, in the above vid. It leads him to ask very piercing questions such as what the fallout will be for humanity's view of scientific institutions in the coming years. He knows that the scientific class he's part of has collectively shot itself in the head.
I suspect if Vinay Prasad hadn't gotten so angry, he wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. The completely dispassionate, supposedly objective version of Vinay Prasad would still be stuck complaining about the lack of evidence of good risk-ratios for kids or whatever, until he finally performed a risk-reward calculation on the benefit of his speaking up, and would fall silent. To me it's just an interesting little parable, that shows no matter how pure and finely tuned your tool is - the tool being your scientific approach - the mind which uses it has to have a moral or ideological foundation. The establishment have their ideology - every lie we tell is good, it furthers science - and so without cultivating your own drive, then it is naive to go up against the monolith and think you can win just because 'I'm doing the REAL science!' The more powerful science proceeds from passions and beliefs derived elsewhere. Where's the scientific paper that told Prasad he needs to fight the corner of kids so much?
Anyway the Atlantic article in question:
It's well worth a read IMO. It's hilarious. This establishment scientismo shill is absolutely riddled with cancer. The subtext is that he is 100% certain, correctly, that it was caused by the jabs. Yet most of the article is a narrative which documents his mental acrobatics in trying to reconcile it as a wild coincidence. When he's clearly not able to do that, he spends ages and ages worrying about what the EVIL ANTIVAXXERS will do with the info that vaccines can cause cancer.
Eventually he determines that he's going to be a hero and speak up anyway. Just as soon as he gets his cancer under control. Oh and he has to get the wording right. Wouldn't want to rush things. Wouldn't want the possibility that the billions of administered covid jabs are causing cancer to allow sceptics of our scientific monolith to score a point over us. You have to keep sight of what's important!
Really it's an accidental masterpiece and is a beautiful indictment of the science-subscribed mind. Every paragraph has some gem, eg. random pick:
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot...
HE STILL MIGHT GET JABBED AGAIN!! lmao. ....lmao
Without getting into the article he's talking about, a word on Vinay Prasad: he's very much a lefty. In some videos, which are starting to age now, he's not in the least shy about parading his leftist bona fides. In one discussion with a dissident doctor, Prasad bemoaned the fact that vaccine mandates for children would disproportionately harm children of colour, by excluding them from school since their vaxx uptake rates were low - BEFORE it occurred to him to bring up the idea that it might disproportionately harm those mostly white kids who actually got vaccinated.
In the early months of this, his ideological marriage to the idea of science being benevolent caused him IMO to be extremely mealy-mouthed in criticising the vaccine rollout, where even when something unmistakably angry seemed to be going on behind his eyes and in his tone of voice, he still wouldn't bring himself to say anything close to 'this is doing more harm overall' or 'stop all mrna vaccinations'. He would merely criticise it being over-emphasised for certain demographics.
You can see something of a hint of his over-emphasis on the 'form' of science even in this video. where he talks as if the cancer link to mrna is unproven but I would say the probative evidence of a link between cancer rates and covid jabs IS there - McCullough & Co's paper provides a mechanism, coquin de chien provides an analysis of cancer death upticks (as well as a photo of a woman with two little strawberry sized tumours sprouting from the site of each jab), and I've read claims of cancer incidence rates jumping by hundreds of percent (forgot the sources on that one right now soz). If you were to say to me that this doesn't constitute evidence, under the model of your 'science', then I would simply have to say that your science is fucking useless. Prasad skates over this particular talking point while babbling about the kind of science that would constitute best practice in this area, because he is singularly morally angry about the scale of the damage wrought upon our youth by vaccine-induced myocarditis - which is what's good about him.
He has for most of this year been the best source (for the layman) of info and news about myocarditis in young people. He's inserted himself into the wider argument to back up Rogan with evidence (which Rogan strangely misplaced on the live podcast) when the latter brought the idea into the normie consciousness. Prasad has, as I mentioned, has clearly just been angry, in spite of any facade of mealy-mouthed professional restraint, that the scientific and medical establishments have been able to get away with all of this. The anger has caused him to turn his meticulous data-based mindset towards some of the other false idols of the covid narrative, such as masks and lockdowns, and he uses that mindset to skewer the blatant hypocrisy and the selective reporting of publications such as The Atlantic, in the above vid.
I suspect if Vinay Prasad hadn't gotten so angry, he wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. The completely dispassionate, supposedly objective version of Vinay Prasad would still be stuck complaining about the lack of evidence of good risk-ratios for kids or whatever, until he finally performed a risk-reward calculation on the benefit of his speaking up, and would fall silent. To me it's just an interesting little parable, that shows no matter how pure and finely tuned your tool is - the tool being your scientific approach - the mind which uses it has to have a moral or ideological foundation. The establishment have their ideology - every lie we tell is good, it furthers science - and so without cultivating your own drive, then it is naive to go up against the monolith and think you can win just because 'I'm doing the REAL science!' The more powerful science proceeds from passions and beliefs derived elsewhere. Where's the scientific paper that told Prasad he needs to fight the corner of kids so much?
Anyway the Atlantic article in question:
It's well worth a read IMO. It's hilarious. This establishment scientismo shill is absolutely riddled with cancer. The subtext is that he is 100% certain, correctly, that it was caused by the jabs. Yet most of the article is a narrative which documents his mental acrobatics in trying to reconcile it as a wild coincidence. When he's clearly not able to do that, he spends ages and ages worrying about what the EVIL ANTIVAXXERS will do with the info that vaccines can cause cancer.
Eventually he determines that he's going to be a hero and speak up anyway. Just as soon as he gets his cancer under control. Oh and he has to get the wording right. Wouldn't want to rush things. Wouldn't want the possibility that the billions of administered covid jabs are causing cancer to allow sceptics of our scientific monolith to score a point over us. You have to keep sight of what's important!
Really it's an accidental masterpiece and is a beautiful indictment of the science-subscribed mind. Every paragraph has some gem, eg. random pick:
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot...
HE STILL MIGHT GET JABBED AGAIN!! lmao. ....lmao
Without getting into the article he's talking about, a word on Vinay Prasad: he's very much a lefty. In some videos, which are starting to age now, he's not in the least shy about parading his leftist bona fides. In one discussion with a dissident doctor, Prasad bemoaned the fact that vaccine mandates for children would disproportionately harm children of colour, by excluding them from school since their vaxx uptake rates were low - BEFORE it occurred to him to bring up the idea that it might disproportionately harm those mostly white kids who actually got vaccinated.
In the early months of this, his ideological marriage to the idea of science being benevolent caused him IMO to be extremely mealy-mouthed in criticising the vaccine rollout, where even when something unmistakably angry seemed to be going on behind his eyes and in his tone of voice, he still wouldn't bring himself to say anything close to 'this is doing more harm overall' or 'stop all mrna vaccinations'. He would merely criticise it being over-emphasised for certain demographics.
You can see something of a hint of his over-emphasis on the 'form' of science even in this video. where he talks as if the cancer link to mrna is unproven but I would say the probative evidence of a link between cancer rates and covid jabs IS there - McCullough & Co's paper provides a mechanism, coquin de chien provides an analysis of cancer death upticks (as well as a photo of a woman with two little strawberry sized tumours sprouting from the site of each jab), and I've read claims of cancer incidence rates jumping by hundreds of percent (forgot the sources on that one right now soz). If you were to say to me that this doesn't constitute evidence, under the model of your 'science', then I would simply have to say that your science is fucking useless. Prasad skates over this particular talking point while babbling about the kind of science that would constitute best practice in this area, because he is singularly morally angry about the scale of the damage wrought upon our youth by vaccine-induced myocarditis - which is what's good about him.
He has for most of this year been the best source (for the layman) of info and news about myocarditis in young people. He's inserted himself into the wider argument to back up Rogan with evidence (which Rogan strangely misplaced on the live podcast) when the latter brought the idea into the normie consciousness. Prasad has, as I mentioned, has clearly just been angry, in spite of any facade of mealy-mouthed professional restraint, that the scientific and medical establishments have been able to get away with all of this. The anger has caused him to turn his meticulous data-based mindset towards some of the other false idols of the covid narrative, such as masks and lockdowns, and he uses that mindset to skewer the blatant hypocrisy and the selective reporting of publications such as The Atlantic, in the above vid.
I suspect if Vinay Prasad hadn't gotten so angry, he wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. The completely dispassionate, supposedly objective version of Vinay Prasad would still be stuck complaining about the lack of evidence of good risk-ratios for kids or whatever, until he finally performed a risk-reward calculation on the benefit of his speaking up, and would fall silent. To me it's just an interesting little parable, that shows no matter how pure and finely tuned your tool is - the tool being your scientific approach - the mind which uses it has to have a moral or ideological foundation. The establishment have their ideology - every lie we tell is good, it furthers science - and so without cultivating your own drive, then it is naive to go up against the monolith and think you can win just because 'I'm doing the REAL science!' The more powerful science proceeds from passions and beliefs derived elsewhere. Where's the scientific paper that told Prasad he needs to fight the corner of kids so much?
Anyway the Atlantic article in question:
It's well worth a read IMO. It's hilarious. This establishment scientismo shill is absolutely riddled with cancer. The subtext is that he is 100% certain it was caused by the jabs. Yet most of the article is a narrative which documents his mental acrobatics in trying to reconcile it as a wild coincidence. When he's clearly not able to do that, he spends ages and ages worrying about what the EVIL ANTIVAXXERS will do with the info that vaccines can cause cancer.
Eventually he determines that he's going to be a hero and speak up anyway. Just as soon as he gets his cancer under control. Oh and he has to get the wording right. Wouldn't want to rush things. Wouldn't want the possibility that the billions of administered covid jabs are causing cancer to allow sceptics of our scientific monolith to score a point over us. You have to keep sight of what's important!
Really it's an accidental masterpiece and is a beautiful indictment of the science-subscribed mind. Every paragraph has some gem, eg. random pick:
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot...
HE STILL MIGHT GET JABBED AGAIN!! lmao. ....lmao
Without getting into the article he's talking about, a word on Vinay Prasad: he's very much a lefty. In some videos, which are starting to age now, he's not in the least shy about parading his leftist bona fides. In one discussion with a dissident doctor, Prasad bemoaned the fact that vaccine mandates for children would disproportionately harm children of colour, by excluding them, since their vaxx uptake rates were low - BEFORE it occurred to him to bring up the idea that it might disproportionately harm those mostly white kids who actually got vaccinated.
In the early months of this, his ideological marriage to the idea of science being benevolent caused him IMO to be extremely mealy-mouthed in criticising the vaccine rollout, where even when something unmistakably angry seemed to be going on behind his eyes and in his tone of voice, he still wouldn't bring himself to say anything close to 'this is doing more harm overall' or 'stop all mrna vaccinations'. He would merely criticise it being over-emphasised for certain demographics.
You can see something of a hint of his over-emphasis on the 'form' of science even in this video. where he talks as if the cancer link to mrna is unproven but I would say the probative evidence of a link between cancer rates and covid jabs IS there - McCullough & Co's paper provides a mechanism, coquin de chien provides an analysis of cancer death upticks (as well as a photo of a woman with two little strawberry sized tumours sprouting from the site of each jab), and I've read claims of cancer incidence rates jumping by hundreds of percent (forgot the sources on that one right now soz). If you were to say to me that this doesn't constitute evidence, under the model of your 'science', then I would simply have to say that your science is fucking useless. Prasad skates over this particular talking point while babbling about the kind of science that would constitute best practice in this area, because he is singularly morally angry about the scale of the damage wrought upon our youth by vaccine-induced myocarditis - which is what's good about him.
He has for most of this year been the best source (for the layman) of info and news about myocarditis in young people. He's inserted himself into the wider argument to back up Rogan with evidence (which Rogan strangely misplaced on the live podcast) when the latter brought the idea into the normie consciousness. Prasad has, as I mentioned, has clearly just been angry, in spite of any facade of mealy-mouthed professional restraint, that the scientific and medical establishments have been able to get away with all of this. The anger has caused him to turn his meticulous data-based mindset towards some of the other false idols of the covid narrative, such as masks and lockdowns, and he uses that mindset to skewer the blatant hypocrisy and the selective reporting of publications such as The Atlantic, in the above vid.
I suspect if Vinay Prasad hadn't gotten so angry, he wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. The completely dispassionate, supposedly objective version of Vinay Prasad would still be stuck complaining about the lack of evidence of good risk-ratios for kids or whatever, until he finally performed a risk-reward calculation on the benefit of his speaking up, and would fall silent. To me it's just an interesting little parable, that shows no matter how pure and finely tuned your tool is - the tool being your scientific approach - the mind which uses it has to have a moral or ideological foundation. The establishment have their ideology - every lie we tell is good, it furthers science - and so without cultivating your own drive, then it is naive to go up against the monolith and think you can win just because 'I'm doing the REAL science!' The more powerful science proceeds from passions and beliefs derived elsewhere. Where's the scientific paper that told Prasad he needs to fight the corner of kids so much?
Anyway the Atlantic article in question:
It's well worth a read IMO. It's hilarious. This establishment scientismo shill is absolutely riddled with cancer. The subtext is that he is 100% certain it was caused by the jabs. Yet most of the article is a narrative which documents his mental acrobatics in trying to reconcile it as a wild coincidence. When he's clearly not able to do that, he spends ages and ages worrying about what the EVIL ANTIVAXXERS will do with the info that vaccines can cause cancer.
Eventually he determines that he's going to be a hero and speak up anyway. Just as soon as he gets his cancer under control. Oh and he has to get the wording right. Wouldn't want to rush things. Wouldn't want the possibility that the billions of administered covid jabs are causing cancer to allow sceptics of our scientific monolith to score a point over us. You have to keep sight of what's important!
Really it's an accidental masterpiece and is a beautiful indictment of the science-subscribed mind. Every paragraph has some gem, eg. random pick:
While Michel remains unsure about his fourth shot...
HE STILL MIGHT GET JABBED AGAIN!! lmao. ....lmao