Slow slide into Communism

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/6635715/over-40s-tax-how-would-social-care-premium-work-retired-people-pay/
No, all adults should pay it.
All adults are aging.
Not fair. Not equal.

40 is the weirdest cut-off.
Young Communists should pay too!*

Most on meds are young people on psych meds!

(Who wants to tell Gen Y they won’t retire and it isn’t a legal right?)*

If only we had a glorious National Health system!

Right?

A National Insurance system?

Single insurance, much cheaper, like quality-topping France, would be such a burden compared to all these taxes, right?

And the admin cash, lost forever.

Why don’t they force you to pick a position on the wings in your census and that corresponds to how much tax you have to pay (and it’s public info).

The calculation is simple – do you believe you could invest in yourself better than the Government?

Morally flawless, easy to implement and no excess admin.

Medicine might need to acknowledge sex

https://www.insidescience.org/news/why-it-could-be-time-sex-specific-drugs

Did the completely dimorphic species profile not clue you in?

We already KNOW most medical findings don’t apply to women or older men – since younger men typically go up for clinical trials.

Sex, age and race. You can’t deny them without killing people.

I’d like to say this feels Victorian but the Victorians were actually ahead of our own time.
What’s our excuse?

Most medicine is Victorian in origin.

Link: Anti-vaccination is reasonable

https://aeon.co/essays/anti-vaccination-might-be-rational-but-is-it-reasonable

Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.

There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.

The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.

The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?

And there is no rationally valid answer to this.

Doctors make mistakes.

It all comes down to emotional appeal.

The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.

Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?

There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.

For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.

Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!

As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.

Technically, we can all get it.

This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?

If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job). 

Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.

It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.

Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.

Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.

Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.

  • Vaccines wear off. Needing replacement of a different composition and batch to the original.
  • Vaccines shed. Endangering those around you, especially those with compromised immunity.
  • Vaccines interact. Nobody knows how, the studies don’t look for it, but the schedule list gets longer and longer. Kids like cocktail shakers.
  • Vaccine adjuvants (deliberately included with the intention of distressing the body) like mercury (still in some vaccines) and aluminium may/probably caused the recent spike in autoimmune disorders and definitely brain damage (can we say special school) and probably caused the rise in retardation diagnoses. Not to mention how this combines with environmental pollutants like endocrine disruptors.
  • Vaccine failure happens.
  • Different demographics, different responses (most test patients are young adult male, without getting into race and drug abuse histories).
  • Vaccines in children (developing bodies) will work differently than those in adults (studied).
  • Vaccine studies constantly self-correct and it is invisible in wider public health studies. You will never see vaccinations accounted for as a factor. It is never controlled for as a variable. The information simply isn’t taken! Like the 50:50 thing!

None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.

The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.

There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.

And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?

Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?

‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.

In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’

Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.

“A lot of what is published is incorrect” ~ The Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”— chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—ouched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations…..

Oh, I have stories about Chatham House.

deanwinchester supernatural wink flirty hey hello nice

Equal ≠ Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain

http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_%E2%89%A0_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/

…The answer to the first question is that the biomedical community has long operated on what is increasingly being viewed as a false assumption: that biological sex matters little, if at all, in most areas of medicine…

Technically, feminism has encouraged doctors to kill people.

I’ll quote the Darwinian part since some pricks people keep getting this finer point wrong confused;

What Darwin Actually Said
We should have expected all along that the brains of men and women are a complex mix of similarities and differences, at least if we believed in evolution as Charles Darwin described it. Darwin did not believe that evolution proceeded by natural selection. In fact, he was completely clear that, in his view, evolution by natural selection alone must fail. He knew that natural selection alone failed to explain far too many phenomena (most famously the male peacock’s tail). What Darwin actually said was that evolution proceeded largely through two distinct mechanisms: natural selection and sexual selection. The former acted on the basis of whether an organism survived; the latter acted on whether it made a baby. In his second book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin developed this idea (first presented in the original edition of The Origin of Species) and made explicit his view that the beneficial effects of sexual selection must at times outweigh the negative effects of natural selection (again, think of the male peacock’s tail)….

I've been waiting ages to use this one, it's so apt to academics

Good rule of thumb: Darwin is always right.

I’ll be posting at least one study on this again today. Probably two.

 

The Magic White Man

– swooping in at our own expense to “save the world” as if that’s noble instead of giving the enemy tribe the weapons to kill you with. Oh, pathological altruism...
http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-magic-white-man.html

…The post below this one? The one about the illegal immigrant criminal Third Worlder who tattooed his eyes and went blind, and then showed up begging the white man to fix his eyes? What does he think we are? Magicians? Jesus? We make the blind see? We can do anything? Criminal attack us and we forgive and wave our wands – poof! I can see!

I’ve written about this before – the Magic White Man. A lot of this has to do with the hate and envy of white men, who created nearly everything in the world, contrary to the protestations of others.

I sometimes wonder what it’s like to belong to all those groups who can’t do much of anything, when they look at the history of white European Christian culture, and what it has produced. They must be eaten alive with envy and hate. And with envy you attack and denigrate…. [until the next ‘disaster’]

superman drinking give up nope

I’ve run across those who hope for the elimination of white people. What do they think is going to happen? That all the wealth created by us will just stay there for them to enjoy? No, it’ll disappear, and they’ll be shocked beyond belief.

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

They’ll die. They are dependents, like children. As parasites, without a host, they will die.

If you want the fruit, you’ve gotta tend the tree.
If you want White Culture, Technology and Money, you’d better keep the golden geese alive.

Some year ago I read an article about some blacks in south Africa, who tried to farm. It didn’t work out at all, so they demanded white farmers help them farm. Not show them how to do it, but do the farming.

Ah, slavery. Counter Narrative, we never hear about it in MSM.
Now there’s a genocide of whites ongoing in Africa. Something like 7/8 on this special scale, so expect them to have another ‘food shortage’ soon. It’s like the people who live in the desert and wonder where the water is.
In nature, stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” ~ Robert Heinlein

Soon, I expect the blacks in south Africa and “Zimbabwe” to beg the white man to move back, after everything collapses to 2000 BC….

China is moving in. Party time. We don’t owe them jack. Let the East handle them. They bought a lemon.