Yesterday while I was talking with @AVindman and @biannagolodryga about Alex’s new book, I was asked about my comment about COVID misinformation that all of you are sharing. Here was my answer: pic.twitter.com/8LKhPIJ1Eu
— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) August 11, 2021
“Screw your freedom. Because with freedom comes obligations and responsibilities. You cannot just say, ‘I have the right to X, Y and Z.’ When you affect other people, that is when it gets serious.”
Actor and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
‘You’re A Schmuck!’: Arnold Schwarzenegger Unloads On Anti-Maskers, Anti-Vaxxers (Huffington Post)
Sponsored Link
How classicly Austrian of him!
“ No one who speaks German can be an evil man. Parole granted.”
Well who could have guessed it???? A couple of puerile ad hominem attacks in response to an intelligent rebuke of their positions.
He’s right – you are schmucks.
Fair play Bodger (knock to the head? All OK over there?)
Ok fine…
“ No one who works in the pharmaceutical industry and posts on random Internet forums to convince people to use their newly developed product, can be an evil man. Parole granted.”
Yeah. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
All you have left is your ring.
Genius
Happipapi?
Ah lads, there’s no need to bring Sigur Rós songs into it..
Thrilled. And I have my liathroidi.
It’sot a Bodger post, this one is from Nick Kelly.
It’s not as simple as that Arnold. The argument is that we are not following the best scientific approach and our freedoms are being striped away by following the unscientific approach.
There’s plenty of experts and scientific studies showing masks and lockdowns don’t work. Even a basic comparison between countries shows this too.
Over 58,000 public health scientists and medical practitioners have signed the Great Barrington Declaration for example. A strategy to protect the people who are actually at risk from covid makes more sense, rather than a one size fits all approach.
The issue as I see it is that there are a group of people who argue against every single public health measure, be it masks, lockdowns, social distancing or vaccines. There’s a disparate set of reasoning behind those views from the extreme ‘we are ruled by lizard alien people’ or ‘the Illuminati’ to more reasonable reasoning around ‘we could do xyz better and safer in a different way.’
However, for the people that broadly trust in the scientists, their governments, health authorities etc, they see the previous group as effectively just anti everything. As Arnie says, we choose to put our trust in those people who have spent their lives studying and dealing with such issues rather than some self proclaimed expert on d’interweb. Your man Ivor Cummings is a case in point. This is a choice to follow the medical “establishment”, same as o would do if I got cancer or broke my arm. We also trust these people as when new data emerges – eg like blood clots from AZ – they will react and change as necessary.
Have they gotten everything right? No. Are politicians fully trustworthy? Definitely not. Is there a lot of people on all sides talking guff? For sure. But fundamentally I don’t believe that either our politicians or our medical establishment in Ireland is evil. I also don’t believe that our medical establishment is stupid. They have to recommend policy based on incomplete information and try to assess the pro’s and con’s. Same for politicians.
It’s great to think you know more based on your own internet research. However it’s unlikely if that’s your approach that you haven’t considered at least some unreliable information in coming to your conclusions. This is the disadvantage of being an amateur expert rather than being a professional researcher.
Conflating “lizard alien people” with opposing scientific studies and raw data is just a cheap way to try win an argument that is clearly lost. Suspected shills like David Icke do mislead a small minority but for most of us we know he’s a shill or a clown and we stick to the data and ignore him.
I cannot trust the government or the governments “experts” because they have far too many verified conflicts of interest, and they will not debate with the opposing scientists. According to their own leaked emails, they won’t even debate the engineer Ivor Cummins because they know it will be too difficult to win.
There’s no hard questions being asked by our journalists and it’s because funding will removed if they do or going against the narrative. If there was a full and open debate live on TV for everyone to see both sides scientific data then we would have an informed populace.
I wasn’t conflating David Ike with more reasonable views. I specifically said there’s a whole range and used him as an example of the extreme. I was acknowledging that it’s a spectrum and many views are on the reasonable end but sometimes it’s hard to distinguish where someone is coming from.
It’s your choice if you don’t trust them because if their real or perceived conflicts of interests. In my view it’s such an all encompassing topic that they will be found out if they have been lying to us for nefarious reasons. Time will tell.
Regarding Ivor Cummings, my understanding is that he’s a chemical engineer who has studied some nutrition topics etc on his own to manage his own health. Yet he’s seems to consider himself more expert than epidemiologists, biomedical researchers, vaccine researchers etc. If I was in a public health position I also wouldn’t agree to a debate with him. Same as I wouldn’t agree to a debate on the topic with a butcher, baker, soldier or candlemaker. It would give the impression that their views are as valid as the person who has studied and worked in the field all their lives and potentially legitimise what in the end are amateur opinions. As an example, how many peer reviewed papers has Ivor Cummings published on epidemiology, virology or vaccine efficacy?
I think these days everyone uses the internet to get some info and then considers themselves an expert. This is what drives people belief that they are right because theyve read x ,y or z. However in my view that can’t and doesn’t replace a full time professional who needs to publish reasoned views, have them reviewed by peers, and challenged and ultimately refuted if they’re wrong. That is science not conjecture.
The point which you’re missing is that they didn’t want to debate Ivor Cummins because they wouldn’t be able to win the debate. They would only consider it if the debate was rigged in their favour. Ivor would have beaten them and they would be exposed as liars or fools.
They also said it would be too hard to debate Prof. Sunetra Gupta or Prof. Carl Hennigan. These are their peers.
If these “experts” can’t debate their peers because they know they will lose, then their arguments are flawed, and they know it. And yet they still get a full platform on our media, in their own words, to “LOOK FOR WAYS TO INCREASE INSECURITY, ANXIETY AND UNCERTAINTY”.
Sten, you are, perhaps, not looking in the right place. As you bring up the question of cancer, did you ever question why, the fact that breast cancer in women is most prevalent and years of goodwill from survivors/families/friends collecting money for cancer research on Daffodil Day (as useless as the naive hand clapping for the front line workers back in March 2020) there has never been a vaccine produced to cure it or, any big breakthroughs. Chemo/radiation therapy and doctors visits is where the money is made.
It’s a money making business they are in – and the love of money is the root of all evil – prove me wrong!
Amazing that you mention breast cancer as someone really close to me had it this last year. She had chemo, radiation therapy and surgery. She’s recovering now and will live a long life hopefully due to the treatment.
You should take a look into the evolution of the prognosis over the last few years for women diagnosed with different stages of breast cancer. What’ll you find is that the survival rates and life expectancy afterwards has increased dramatically over the last ten years. This is due the advances in medical technology, drugs and processes.
What shocked me when I started to look online to find out more about breast cancer after hearing the diagnosis, is the amount of clearly deranged people providing their view on how cancer patients should go about treatment. This quickly led me to the view to trust in the experts, being the doctors and nurses at the hospital. These are self evidently good, intelligent (& sane) people. I’m glad we did now.
No. Poorly informed and naive people such as yourself simply do not understand basic concepts such as “follow the money” and conflict of interest. You trust authority implicitly, as a child does, despite having numerous examples of those very same voices of authority being negligent, incompetent or downright criminal.
You also seem to believe that there is no such thing as agendas being pursued at any level of society globally, despite the overt and public statements of numerous such agendas by their proponents. As an example, to people like you the very mention of the words “The Great Reset” is simply a nutty conspiracy theory, completely ignoring the fact it is a real publicly declared global agenda being pursued by some of the most powerful financial interests in the world. Until RTE and the Irish Time start telling you about the Great Reset, you’ll happily ignore it as crazy talk. You never question authority despite history being replete with examples of the abuse of authority, the harm caused by authority. Indeed, almost all of the worst crimes against humanity of the past 100 years were acts by a State with State authority, led by State approved “experts”, and always with the argument of being for the “greater good”, which of course the State and it’s “experts” decide for everybody. But, they’re experts people like you say. Experts aren’t humans with human flaws, or human career and wealth ambitions. No, they are like a special priest class, infallible in their pronouncements and beyond moral reproach. Like the RC priests, your priest class are not so pure either.
In a country that allowed the church rape its children, the State lock up young women in torture homes to be used as slave labour, their children taken from them for good, you think our problem is the people who challenge authority, question the State and its servants? Perhaps the problem is people like you and your consistent unquestioning obedience to authority, too terrified to face a reality where those in power are not some benign force for the good of all. There were people who called out the church for years. They were silenced by your kind. There were people who called out people like Jimmy Saville over the decades. It was your kind who sneered and scoffed at them, refusing to believe you live in a world where such evil can and does exist.
Where did you “follow the money” to?
You seem to know a lot about me
It might surprise to learn that my professional life requires me to remain sceptical of all information provided and to form my own independent view. It requires me to regularly challenge the status quo within the organisation. My job is to challenge the yes men (and women)
In any case, can you set out your position E’Matty? I mean please state what you think is really happening and why? I would love to debate it with you but I don’t know what your beliefs or opinions are, just that you think I am wrong.
Thats fair enough in a situation where vaccines protect “the herd” – but with these vaccines for SARS-COV-2 that is not the case. You can still contract and spread covid even while vaccinated, so even vaccinated people can be said to be “interfering” with the rights of others to be healthy.
Maybe there is another solution to this, and it could get weird, but remember the treatment they pulled off in the amazon with a strain of mosquitos that were killing people after they were bitten, they genetically created a breed of mosquito that did not have this ability and introduced that into the population, eventually taking over from the more dangerous mosquito.
So if they engineered a new corona virus that was much less contagious, or generally weaker, then introduced that into populations, then if it was possible to make that virus the dominant one, it could solve our problems. Of course this is just a theory, and a virus expert could just say no, that can’t be done. Also engineering another virus could be another disaster. I’m hungry.
But its not a vaccine for SARS-COV-2, otherwise it would be called SARS-COV-2 vaccine.
It is an experimental gene therapy to prevent serious symptoms of the disease known as CoVid-19, hence the name ‘COVid-19 vaccine’.
Wither it provides some protection against SARS-COV-2 remains to be seen, but it certainly does not provide full inoculation.
Probably enough with the name calling and aggression now. Andrew.
That is exactly what it is- no claims have ever been made by the manufacturers that it will prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A lot of inferences, particularly in the media- but no claims.
It is designed to reduce or prevent serious CoVid-19 symptoms- why is that so hard to understand?
It is so hard to understand because it’s completely wrong.
So you are saying it is not designed to reduce or prevent serious CoVid-19 symptoms????
@ Andrew – “It is so hard to understand because it’s completely wrong” explain why it is wrong then?
Arnie is spot on. The unclean are holding society back and have no excuse causing serious illness and death
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU
Get vaccinated losers.
Can’t tell if this is parody or not.
Help…
It’s not a parody.