Am I going crazy or are they pushing this vaccine stuff hard

Perhaps it’s just coincidental given the amount of vaccination stories coming out as of late, but it really does seem like they’re pushing this vaccine stuff HARD.  At the Golden Globes the other night they had doctors administer “flu shots”.  Of course, whoever the host was had to add this dig:

If you’re an anti-vaxxer, just put a napkin over your head and we’ll skip you.

BAHAHAHA!  So funny dude!

Curious tweet from Vanity Fair on the whole thing too:

Screen Shot 2019-01-08 at 8.57.01 PM.png

Why would that make you worry if they’re so safe?  Hmmmmm.  This whole thing is creepy and unsettling.  It’s clearly an effort to sway public opinion on the issue.  The mind control is real, folks.  You’re not imagining it.

Meanwhile, there may indeed be a link between vaccines and autism after all.  I still need to research this more before I have a firm opinion one way or another but it’s certainly raising more and more red flags…

The truth and free speech censorship

We discuss the importance of free speech a lot here.  There is a reason it was the first amendment ratified.  There has been a renewed effort to police, patrol, and prohibit free speech on the internet especially within the past few years.  It is something most people take for granted, as if there was no possible way that it could be taken away.

It should give one pause when specific topics or people are verboten to public discourse.  It is often said that “hate speech”, or the speech one disagrees with the most, needs to be vigorously protected the most in these battles.  And that is largely true.  Everyone should be open to the idea of seeing alternative viewpoints and hearing arguments s/he may have never considered before.  Those that think they are doing some greater good (or those using these idealistic people as puppets to further their nefarious agendas) by censoring speech cannot possibly know what is “good” for someone or what should or should not be read.  One’s opinions and ideas should speak for themselves and be subject to scrutiny.  If the idea is founded on truth it should stand up to the weight of critique.

There can be a variety of reasons why one may want to censor particular topics or speech outright.  The type of free speech censorship I want to talk about does not include obvious restrictions that should be put on children.  There are many topics that children should only learn about once they are of appropriate age.

Your “spidey-sense” should go off when certain topics are restricted or punishable by law if they are discussed.  It should raise one’s eyebrows when certain individuals or news outlets are banned or deplatformed en masse by the powers that be.

Ask yourself this: why would a specific topic or event be against the law if spoken out against?  The most obvious example of this is Holocaust denial, which is against the law in 17 countries.  You can literally go to jail if you deny the Holocaust.  Why?  The truth never needs to be covered up.  It can speak for itself.  YouTube has been particularly stringent on banning videos that question the exact details of the Holocaust as of late.  The Greatest Story Never Told used to be available on YouTube in its full form as well as partitioned out.  This is a movie about the life of Adolf Hitler and questions some of the events and the subsequent narrative of World War II and the Holocaust.  Nearly all of those videos have been removed.  Why?  Again, whether you agree or disagree with any of these topics we should all realize they should still be allowed to be shared and viewed.  Stupid ideas, ideas that are patently false, should be available for scrutiny.  They will make themselves look like jackasses if what they are saying is patently false.  That movie in particular does raise some very interesting questions and presents some compelling evidence that the official narrative may not be as true as we’re told (if at all).  It is not the responsibility of YouTube or the government to decide what is and is not the truth or what is best for us.  This level of censorship is on par with totalitarian regimes.  Do we really want to go down this road?

I did a cursory search this past week of many conspiracy theories that one hears about.  You used to be able to find countless videos on all of these topics.  Videos about Holocaust denial, Sandy Hook, Vegas, and the Parkland shooting conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to find now on YouTube.  Videos questioning the age of the pyramids and chem trails have been greatly reduced as well.  Many of these theories are patently ridiculous (looking at you, flat-earthers).  But you know what?  They should still be put up.  I’d be interested to hear their point of view and consider what they’re putting out there.  If it’s absurd they subject themselves to ridicule.  But maybe they’ll present different viewpoints or evidence not considered before.  And again, it’s not YouTube’s place to decide what is and is not acceptable for our viewing consumption.  The videos that were left on those topics were from YouTube approved sources like mainstream news outlets; hardly the institutions that will ever truly question the narrative.  Somewhat surprisingly, you can still find a decent amount of moon landing hoax conspiracy theory videos on YouTube…for now.  Not surprisingly, users exposing the pedophelia epidemic in DC and Hollywood like David Seaman and Jamie Dlux are banned outright or given strikes (and likely soon to be banned).

It gets worse.  This isn’t restricted just to historical or current events.  Questioning the validity of some scientific claims is now punishable too.  In Australia, you can now be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for speaking about the dangers of vaccines.  Why?  Isn’t that mildly suspicious?  If vaccines are so safe for us why should it be against the law to question their validity?  Especially in light of the fact that more than 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced by their peers.  We should be questioning scientific data and results more than ever now.  How long will it be before it’s against the law to question our contribution to climate change?

Whatever dark forces are conspiring to keep these topics off limits are doing themselves a disservice in that they are showing their hand and creating smoke in areas they wanted to be ignored altogether.  I, like most people, never really questioned the details of the Holocaust too much before hearing about those laws.  Similarly, in my recent posts about vaccine skepticism it was more of a curiosity for me.  Laws like this only make me more skeptical.

The truth does not need laws to protect it.  It can speak for itself.  Let people question the Holocaust or vaccines all they want.  If the evidence is ironclad that the events went down as said, or that a particular vaccine is safe for public consumption, then they do not need laws to prohibit speaking against them.  Prohibition only raises more questions.

Do not be afraid to pursue the truth.  It will never lead you astray.  Do not be afraid of what you will find.  Often times it is very ugly or depressing.  Often times the coverup is worse than the truth itself.  It is when we willingly turn away or hide it completely that we end up lying to ourselves, and when you can lie to yourself you open the door to darker evils.

Italian Group finds some vaccines don’t contain the active ingredients the vaccine claims it has

Interesting story from the science journal Nature:

Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine-safety investigation

The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines.
Some scientists in Italy are up in arms over a donation from the organization that oversees the nation’s professional biology qualification to an advocacy group that opposes the country’s policy of mandatory childhood vaccination.

The news comes as Italian politicians debate whether to continue with the mandatory vaccination policy, which was introduced in 2017 and requires parents to provide proof of ten routine vaccinations when enrolling their children in nurseries and preschools.

The group, Corvelva, announced that it had received €10,000 (US$11,350) from the Italian National Order of Biologists (ONB) on 26 October and says that it plans to use the money for research that investigates the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.

Corvelva says that the research it proposes is necessary because previous studies it has funded, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicate that some vaccines contain impurities, or lack the active ingredients they claim to contain.

ONB president Vincenzo D’Anna told Nature in an e-mail interview that there is a need for truly independent vaccine research because, in his opinion, work conducted in public laboratories and at universities is usually influenced or funded by companies that produce vaccines.

This is an interesting article for two reasons.  One highlights one of the many problems in the science community these days, and the other a worrying piece of information hidden in there, lost in the gobbledegook.

If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance when reading that article title you are not alone.  Scientists are protesting funding for an investigation into the safety of vaccines.  That should give one pause.  And it’s fascinating that the article is focused on this bit of information, the fact that some scientists are outraged that this group, which is against mandatory vaccination, would be receiving funds to investigate the safety of vaccines.  A lot of people picture scientists as these puritanical beings striving only for the truth, constantly modifying their hypotheses as new information becomes available and scrapping ideas and methods that are disproven.  In reality, many are egotistical and have so much pride that they may “juke” the numbers or knowingly omit information that may hurt their research.  And this makes sense when you consider many scientists are funded by large corporations or governments hoping for specific end results or have put in years or decades into a specific topic.  Sometimes if they don’t reach those conclusions the funding dries up…and with it jobs and resources.  Of course, this shouldn’t be the way things are done.

So it should make one wonder what the true motivation of these scientists are when they are adamantly against a group receiving funding to investigate the safety of vaccines.  Is it possible big pharma has a LOT of money to be made with these vaccinations?  For sure.  Is there something more sinister going on?  That’s yet to be found out.  But the fact that these scientists are against this kind of research is very telling.  You’d hope that scientists would be all for vigorously testing and retesting data and hypotheses.  Especially when it comes to the health of the general public.  All too frequently this “the science is settled” crap, whether it’s vaccines, or climate change, or whatever, is BS.  It is not as nearly settled as one thinks.  And even if the facts are well established, it doesn’t mean that every single vaccine is safe and works for every single situation out there.

Which brings us to the second point, really the one that should be more worrying.  So they’ve tested some vaccines that have contained impurities or don’t even contain the active ingredients they purport to contain?  If they don’t contain the active ingredients (I’m assuming the antigen but I’m using their wording) then what exactly does it contain?  What exactly is its purpose?

I really don’t want to become one of those anti-vaccination people.  I really don’t.  But if we’ve learned anything from the past few years it’s to question EVERYTHING that the government or big corporations say and put out.  The narrative is very rarely, if ever, the full truth (or may not contain any truth at all).  I posted this and this last year, where institutions have pushed vaccinations without permission and some test results and side effects from the HPV vaccine.  I used to write off the stuff about vaccines causing autism or other effects but we really can’t do that anymore.  We cannot take any of it for granted.  There are dark forces at work at the highest levels of a lot of these institutions that have objectives other than your general safety in mind when they peddle these vaccines to us.  Mandatory vaccines sure would be a good way to spread something to a large amount of people if one really wanted to, no?

Stay tuned with follow ups on this story as more information comes out.

Critics slam new test that can predict risk of low IQ in embryos

The mob has found a new issue to scream about, this time with embryo testing.  Via Daily Mail:

IVF clinics may soon use a controversial screening technique to get rid of embryos which are likely to grow up with low IQs.

A company in the US offering tests which can pick out ‘mental disabilities’ – and, in theory, predict intelligence – has confirmed it is in talks with fertility clinics.

The news has stoked fears about a rise in designer babies, which could be created by parents wanting to erase undesirable traits from their children.

Experts say it is ‘repugnant’ to think about terminating embryos because they are expected to have lower than average intelligence.

And further down:

Campaigners against screening for Down’s syndrome already argue an inclusive society should not be trying to erase people with disabilities.

Lynn Murray, spokesperson for Don’t Screen Us Out, told the New Scientist: ‘If we consider inclusion and diversity to be a measure of societal progress, then IQ screening proposals are unethical. There must be wide consultation.’

Sorry Ms. Murray, but I reject your underlying assumption that societal progress is measured by inclusion and diversity.

IQ-Bell-Curve

I guess this is supposed to be some kind of ethical dilemma but I’m really not seeing it.  What parent wouldn’t want their children to have every possible advantage in life to succeed?  Nobody is saying that we want to kill off mentally challenged people.  This isn’t even abortion.  It’s pre-selecting the best embryos that have the lowest risk for mental retardation.  Period.

People often times place some kind of ethical or moral superiority on something just because it is a tough situation.  Poverty, for example.  Being poor is not a virtue.  Being rich does not make you inherently evil.  The same goes with something like this.  I have all the admiration in the world for parents who have mentally challenged children.  It surely must be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  But that doesn’t mean that you’re doing something inherently virtuous if you had the ability to greatly lower the risk of mental retardation and chose not to.  That is not virtuous in any way.

If anything, one could look at it as a selfish act.  Like it or not the reality is mentally challenged individuals are a huge financial burden not only to the family but also on society.  One that we wholeheartedly support for those now.  But couldn’t one make a moral argument to try and weed out mental retardation both for the family and also to society at large?  Going further, might it not be what’s best for the individual and the nation to have the best and brightest constituency possible?  Or at the very least one that tries to raise the lowest levels of IQ in the nation?  Read The Bell Curve, probably the best (and most easily readable) book on the topic of IQ in American society.  IQ is the best predictor we have for success.

It doesn’t seem that unrealistic to think it may be a necessary requirement just to keep up with other countries.  It’s not a stretch to think that China could one day require IVF for all births, with each embryo being selected for the highest intelligence, athleticism, or whatever trait they’re looking for possible.  Think Gattaca.  Over time that would make a mighty formidable Chinese population.  One that would have a distinct advantage over other nations that did not do this.  It’s an interesting thought experiment at least.

Fix your posture

Bad posture can be the result of bad habits (texting, for example) or just as readily from a poor mindset.  The kicker is that regardless of where it began, one can propagate the other.

The effects of bad posture run deeper than just poor aesthetics.  It was shown from a study in 2010 that men who stand in a collapsed position for 2 minutes had a decrease in testosterone and increase in cortisol, compared to a “power posture” which had the opposite effect of increased testosterone and decreased cortisol levels (Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368).  This also implies you can have a “fake it til you make it” attitude towards fixing or improving your posture.  Consciously working on fixing it will have the benefits heretofore mentioned.

People look at you differently when you walk tall versus walk hunched over and closed in.  You give off a different aura.  And there really is a positive feedback loop between good posture and confidence.  Mike Cernovich talks about this at length in his fantastic book Gorilla Mindset, using the example of a gorilla for his purpose.  Your mood most certainly changes for the better as you improve your posture, and the way you carry yourself has great importance.

It’s not necessary to know the minutiae of every biological process to benefit from it.  The takeaway is bad posture looks terrible, induces bad biological processes, and projects weakness.  Good posture literally improves your health, on top of looking more aesthetically pleasing and projecting confidence and strength.  Check out the video above for a few short exercises that work your C5-C8 vertebral bodies to improve the poor posture many people are developing from hunching over from texting.

Teenage boys in England to be vaccinated for HPV

The vaccine will now be offered to 12-13 year old boys too.  Via The Guardian:

Boys aged 12 and 13 in England are to be vaccinated against the cancer-causing human papilloma virus (HPV), the government has said.

The decision, announced on Tuesday, comes after the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommended last week that the HPV vaccination, which protects girls against cervical cancer, should be extended to boys. It followed growing calls for the inoculation programme to be expanded.

HPV has emerged as the leading cause of throat cancers and is linked to 5% of all cancers worldwide, including some that affect only men.

And a bit further down:

Girls are offered the vaccine from the age of 12 or 13, although there is an opportunity to be given the vaccine up to the age of 18. A vaccination programme was recently introduced for men who have sex with other men.

Dr Mary Ramsay, the head of immunisations at Public Health England, said: “Almost all women under 25 have had the HPV vaccine and we’re confident that we will see a similarly high uptake in boys.

I’m not anti-vaccination by any means but I have a hard time with this.  We probably over vaccinate in general, and a lot of the long term consequences are either unknown or deliberately buried.  Is it really worth the unknowns of doing this long term?  I was reminded of a post by Vox Day highlighting an article of how declining birth rates are tied to women who have taken the HPV vaccination.  Given that this has been standard practice in England for girls since 2008-2009 it’ll be interesting to keep an eye on fertility rates there over the next generation to see if they continue to decline.  This could be one of many contributing factors.

TFREnglandAndWales

There are reasonable and pragmatic vaccinations and ones that are just overkill.  These days people freak out if you show any skepticism of vaccines.  It’s not that black and white.  Yes, some are vitally important and necessary.  Why some people cannot see that some may be overkill and/or more harm than good is beyond me.  For one of the least prevalent and least deadly types of cancer it’s at least worth speculating whether the prevention has worse long term consequences than having done nothing at all.  But hey, we all need to do our part to help out big pharma, amirite?

Show restraint with respect to imbibing alcohol

I have a hard time believing this is true, but according to a new study that is out as reported by the Daily Mail drinking four drinks in one session could permanently alter your sleep genes.  From the article:

For the study, the scientists exposed mice to levels of binge drinking seen in humans, using 200 proof ethyl alcohol, diluted to 20 percent in tap water.

In the following four hours, the mice experienced a significant increase in non-rapid eye movement sleep, or a dreamless sleep.

However, during periods when the lab rodents should have been asleep, they were awake.

The animals showed neither an increase in adenosine, a chemical that promotes sleep, nor the urge to sleep.

The team discovered that binge drinking reduced the expression of the gene that controls sleep, known as ENT1.

Gene expression is the process by which the information contained within a gene becomes a useful product, meaning that the gene that controls sleep had become less effective following alcohol consumption.

‘What we have shown is a particular gene – which is very important for sleep regulation – is altered by just one session of binge drinking.’

He said: ‘We were not expecting this. We thought it would be affected after multiple sessions of binge drinking, not one.

‘That tells you that as soon as you consume four drinks, it can alter your genes.’

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, binge drinking is a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration to 0.08 grams percent or above.

Regardless if it’s true for one binge session or not, really anything over 3 drinks in a session is probably not ideal to do on a regular basis, if ever.  My quality sleep suffers with anything over 3.  As men of the West we have to take care of ourselves.  Exercise, diet, and quality sleep are three non-negotiable items if we’re to defend and preserve the West.

%d bloggers like this: