Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf
Mark had an excellent interview with Naomi Wolf. You can see it here.
Mark made a comment I’ve thought about a lot recently: that politicians no longer seem to come from the countries or cities they supposedly represent. Trudeau, Macron, Cameron, etc., seem to represent a slick, bloodless, globalist empire.
The mayors of the 1960s-70s may have been uncouth and corrupt, but they loved their cities. Now they’re eager to lock down their cities and institute vaccine mandates. Perhaps it’s the corrupting effect of Big Pharma which has billions of dollars to buy off politicians and media.Published in General
It is Davos. It is WEF. It is the same for CEOs. No longer to these people think of themselves as citizens.
These leaders in this movie are the most realistic thing about it.
Pity this part is fantasy. Language.
Only 12 minutes in and already I can feel a revulsion to the events she is retelling.
Naomi has been such an impressive free thinker.
Now that so many people on the right are beginning to question the “official narratives” which always strive to divide (“wear that lapel pin or consider yourself a Saddam lover!”) a whole new audience is discovering her too.
It is a tremendous shame that tens of thousands of Americans had to realize that their family members were medically kidnapped, with many such relatives becoming fatalities because of deliberate “kill the elderly” programs, and still other families had to witness vax injuries and vax deaths, before the official COVID narrative has been widely examined in a very needed critical manner.
I respect lefties who are free thinkers, and who stand up against the part of the left that is ruining their brand. I respect lefties who are able to distinguish between truth and fiction, and who don’t try to force people into accepting their ideas when those people aren’t convinced by their arguments (or when the left resorts to name-calling) . . .
Wolf commented that all the synagogues in her area of NY are still closed (she is Jewish). She finally gave up trying to find a Jewish service she could attend in person and tried a Catholic church. She went to one that was open but was disappointed to find that non-vaccinated worshipers were separated from vaccinated ones.
I watched and I was impressed by Wolf.
That is so weird. It’s every bit as crazy as some of the anti-vax fabulism that gets passed around over here.
Makes one wonder if there is any point in our continuing to maintain an educational system.
I would add the Political talking head class and DC/NY media to this.
Another interesting comment she made is that the EU parliament is completely opaque in it’s activities. An EU citizen has no access to information on what will be voted on until it is implemented. There is no way for citizens to let representatives know what they think is important. There is NO lobbying.
We tend to look down on lobbyists unless they represent us. But we can hire lobbyists, or lobby ourselves for something we want the government to do, or not do. According to Wolf, this process simply doesn’t exist in the EU.
Care to elaborate?
Right now it is fairly obvious that we are operating with a number of very defective institutional umbrellas beyond the educational system. I will list healthcare and banking, and much of what is wrong in those fields is very related to government so I guess we should include that. There are others but these affect nearly everyone.
Naomi apologizes for her failing to be open to conservatives until recently:
A lengthy narrative was recently posted to the effect that it was a mistake to try for vaccines rather than therapies for covid, and that mRNA vaccines are really therapies rather than vaccines, therefore they are too dangerous.
How is that fabululist (taking the leap from using the term as a genre of literature)? Sounds rather like an opinion.
Every time I listen to her I feel she is going further down the rabbit hole. But as I watch events develop I seem to follow her into the hole, if still a little bit behind.
It’s an incoherent, self-contradictory opinion.
Since I did not see, nor did you link to the post you mentioned, the opinion that failure to pursue therapies in favor of vaccines that were not modeled on traditional vaccines but modeled on therapies for diseases such as advanced cancers and as such might be viewed as dangerous, is incoherent, self-contradictory and fabulist. Got it.
In what way were the covid vaccines modeled on therapies for cancers? That’s a completely new one on me. The fact that you use the term “modeled” sounds fishy, but maybe there is some basis for it.
The mRNA vaccines are not the first vaccine that is based on a portion of the virus instead of the whole thing, so they aren’t so different from traditional vaccines in that way. All vaccines are based on injections of an antigen that is “close enough” to the virus so that a person’s immune system, in responding to it, will also provide protection against the virus. It’s not only in horseshoes that points are scored for being close. Our immune systems are amazing in the way that close enough provides projection not only against the exact antigen, but to those that are close. It started with Edward Jenner’s observation that cowpox was close enough to smallpox so that an immune system response against cowpox provided protection against smallpox, too. Since then we’ve found many and varied ways to use “weakened” or “disabled” viruses that are close enough to the real thing to provide protection against the real thing. Using just the spike of a coronavirus is just a further extension of what we’ve been doing since we started making vaccines. So I suppose you could say that the mRNA viruses are modeled on what we’ve been doing all along in the development of vaccines, but I don’t know if that’s what you meant.
The delivery method is new, but again it’s just a matter of getting our body to do a subset of what happens in an actual infection.
If there are advanced cancer therapies that work that way, it’s not something I happen to know about.
(If I come across the link I’ll post it. Ricochet’s search function is wretched. )
I didn’t have to search for it. It came up in my notifications!
Its commonly referred to as immunotherapy.
Cancer immunotherapy mRNA based dendritic cell vaccines, 2015 Abstract.
2016 Abstract mRna cancer vaccines.
I think Doug’s post was very good, not at all fabulist.
That’s cool! In this as well as all vaccines, we’re trying to get the immune system to go after cells that are reproducing in our bodies that shouldn’t be doing that. In this immunotherapy, though, we’re not only providing the body with samples of the bad guys, but with a lot of the missing immune machinery, too. There is lots of cross-over in the technology, I would expect.
But the development of the mRNA vaccines is a lot simpler, in that they are providing just samples of the antigen and letting our existing immune systems do their thing. They’re not tinkering with the machinery of the immune system other than providing it with something to respond to.
So in that respect, the mRNA vaccines are “modeled after” traditional vaccines rather than immunotherapy techniques.
But in their use of mRNA, I guess you could say they are “modeled after” immunotherapy techniques.
But “modeled after” is not a very explanatory way to describe either of these relationships. And it’s not an either/or thing.
There were some good and important points in it, and they are rendered completely useless by the false information interwoven with the good points.
I have been pointing out that there are scientists and medical workers on the left who have some of the same concerns we should have over unnecessary and harmful mandates, and the corruption of the Biden administration in the way it is aligning itself with big pharmaceutical companies that have a conflict of interest.
But is there any interest among Ricochet people in learning about this, and maybe working together to fix some of these problems so the same things never happen again? No, there is absolutely no interest in that over here. Well, maybe just a smidgeon of interest in what Vinnay Prasad says, and after that nothing. Zilch. My hypothesis is that people here are too wedded to their precious narratives, such as the one posted by Doug, with its good and fabulous elements intertwined. If it’s a choice between effective reform and hugging their narrative, they are going to continue to hug the narrative.
If you are referring to my post, I stated not only what you just described, but also that since the actual cheap, safe, effective remedies did exist, it was illegal for Fauci to initially pretend that they did not exist and push for the vaccines.
What should have happened is that someone in Congress or Pres Trump should have made a stink about this and had the Summer 2020 push for the COV vaccines be immediately rescinded. (Which is what the regulations Congress had created were for – such a rescinding.)
Also it is most likely Fauci was behind the arrangement such that a “reputable” study showing that HCQ was dangerous was immediately published in an important science journal. Then he saw to it that hospital administrators would know about the study and could call their medical staffs attention to it so that doctors were willing to switch from HCQ to remdesivir.
Within two months this study was retracted. For one thing, the dosing of those individuals in the clinical trials was almost double the acceptable dose any thinking doctor would ever use. Because of that, heart attacks occurred. (A criminal outcome – as anyone devising such a set up was guilty of attempted murder either to earn money Big Pharma was giving them or to earn brownie points with Fauci to get access to the funding he doles out.)
But retractions rarely garner the attention a leading story initially does.
Like Kurt Vonnegut used to say “And so it goes.”
You would deny the covid vaccines to people? How can you complain about efforts to keep people from using HCQ, etc, when you are willing to deny them vaccines that actually have been shown to keep people alive and out of hospitals?
Where did @caroljoy say anything about denying vaccines to people? In another comment?
Are you referring to her comment about rescinding the push for COV vaccines? How can that be interpreted as denying people vaccines?
I think it’s a question of implication. In order for the vaccine to be approved for emergency use, the law requires there be no other appropriate/effective treatments available. So if they lie about the other treatments, in order to justify using the vaccines, that may mean people can’t get anything BUT the vaccine. If some people want to be able to use the other options, that kinda means “denying” the vaccine since it wouldn’t be available until after full FDA testing that might take years.
But that’s not any kind of natural process, it’s just the way the laws are screwed up.
At this point I am completely confused about what is true regarding the vaccine other than it doesn’t prevent Covid as a “vaccine” traditionally is supposed to do. Happily I don’t know of any harm that the two Moderna jabs I got have done. But I don’t expect it to protect me. And based on the reporting of adverse events I won’t be getting any more.
The jab is operating under an EUA which by definition means all recipients are part of an experiment. As such there should be a transparent effort to track outcomes. It appears the government is not wanting those outcomes to be clearly known. And that is concerning. That, and the government clearly wanted to wipe out a control group by everyone getting the jab. Which would have been fine for something rigorously tested and reported. But we don’t have that. And the bad outcomes could have multiple causes that are difficult to parse without a rigorous data collection protocol: Is it something about the individual? Is it something about the mechanism? Is there something about the dosing? Is it something about contamination of product?
With all these questions there is a growing cadre of vaccine “skeptics”. Not deniers of vaccination as a medical technique, but of the vaccine trial and approval process currently being followed. This needs to be addressed and corrected. And it starts with informed consent, not mandates.
Just where I am but I never got the jabs for Covid but I’ve never been anti-vaccination.
But this does not mean I automatically think those who are anti-vacs are wrong either.
I assumed she was talking about stopping the fast-track effort to develop the vaccines and make them available. She’s referring to summer 2020 when the vaccines were not yet available, not to a later time when people started mandating them.
Where does it appear that way?
The fact that they were given only emergency authorization is reason enough not to mandate them. Additional good reasons not to mandate them came along in due time, but Biden’s government didn’t respond to the science as it became known.