27 Comments

I sent an email to your business a few weeks back and hoping to confirm you received it or bring your attention to it since I’m sure you are bombarded. This was very relevant… it was information from one of the larger state colleges. It was a detailed syllabus for “Immunology” class. It included links of research and papers to review. A fascinating look into the curriculum. 🤔

Please let me know if you received it or if I should share elsewhere. Thanks for all you do!

Expand full comment

At this point, knowing what we know, anyone who places confidence in the validity/credibility of the psychological/psychiatric community should have their head examined.

/by whom is another question

Expand full comment

Excellent comment!

Expand full comment

As far as I am concerned, they're in the same 'enemy behind the gates' category as Fauci, Birks, Walensky, Schwab, CDC, Pfizer, et al.

No quarter from me ever again.

Expand full comment

Examined by whom? Heh.

Expand full comment

But for the fact that input from this community was used to create global propaganda (or a PSYOP, if you like) promoting injections....

Expand full comment

And, for the most part, onboard with the whole progressive/woke agenda and the "transgender" movement, and the MAP-instead-of-pedophile support. Academia is rotten with this. They've made their political bed, undeniable now with the whole vax psyop. Let them lie in it. Time to acknowledge the tarnish and steer clear.

Expand full comment

🎯

Expand full comment

Head examined by whom? Probably by fact-checkers I guess

Expand full comment

Dr. Jack, you can’t be the only reasoning, card-carrying scientist out there calling attention to this “PR campaign” messaging by the public health authorities. The best messaging they can give is a genuine apology and act of humility to admit they screwed up, and then quickly adopt decentralized protocols that mitigate corruption and allow for multiple inputs (aka #PlanB) in order to move forward together with sanity. Good one today! Keep going, mate.

Expand full comment

Nope. This is bogus. It's not a weird "purity" fetish that makes people think twice about injecting themselves with an experimental and ineffective new technology. It's common sense. The whole purity/disgust thing is an attempt to frame v safety advocates and bodily autonomy advocates as somehow neo-Nazi. False. (Isn't it sad we have to have "bodily autonomy advocates" now?) Injecting anything pharma can dream up into your body with no questions asked--THAT's weird.

Expand full comment

This sounds similar to an effort that was made in around 2006 in the US to add a new category of mental illness to the psychology books. I don't know if this 'mental illness' was officially passed or given a formal name. It was essentially to describe people who cared about the purity of things coming into their body.

The surveys and pushing to have this psychological illness created was pushed by the genetic engineering lobby, when they were heavily pushing acceptance of GM foods (and prohibiting labels from stating 'non-GM' / 'GM'). Basically, eat our lab creations or be labeled insane.

From a medical treatment perspective, having a mentally insane mark like that would pave the way to deliver therapies against someone's will: for instance during a heavy schizophrenic incident, there are systems in place to give someone medicine to help them against their will. So you can imagine how this kind of profiling and label might be handy in a medical setting or in a social credit setting.

What this article doesn't mention, is that one of the highest non-uptake rates of vaccines was amongst PhDs: people who may have a pretty good understanding of how things work.

Expand full comment

Yes, good point that this was used re GM foods too--I had forgotten about that. And good point re PhDs. In 2021, I always thought a really effective video would be just one PhD after another explaining in plain language their reason for avoiding the jab.

Expand full comment
Sep 22, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

They are still missing it! So many of us are NOT all about individualism, especially women among those I know. We are connection and community-minded. And we RESPECT individual rights as well as support community connection and care. But this is not part of the male-led lexicon; women's views and ways are so rarely even acknowledged, let alone taken into account! Even My Body/ My Choice within feminism is about the rights of each and every member of the female community, individually and collectively, to individual sovereignty over her own body, and for women to sovereignty over our bodies. To reduce concern for sovereignty to "purity" is offensive!

Expand full comment
Sep 22, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

Individualism and personal sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. Neither are individualism and being community minded.

Expand full comment

Um, sorry. The 'right' to snuff out a life that is inconvenient for you (however much the life you are taking was a direct result of your own actions) and the right not to be injected with toxins are two completely different things. Nice try.

Expand full comment

Not true for me and my family. Our conscious decision to refuse all vaccines (and the Covid shots) is based entirely on the science, in this case the lack of any science that proves efficacy and safety.

Expand full comment

C19 shots are not vaccines. They do not decrease infection or transmission. According to the study of 2305 vials of C19 shots and boosters, from 12 different C19 shot and booster manufacterers, NO mRNA or DNA of anything non-human is contained in these vials, according to Dr Poornima Wagh's Internation Scientific group.

They DID find:

aluminum

tungsten

strontium

osmium

lead

nickel

sodium

SM102 (Moderna)

PEG (Pfizer)

hydrogel nanoparticles

The C19 shots and boosters are Chemical bioweapons of mass destruction that damage human cells, particularly lung cells, blood vessel cells, teproductive cells, and nervous tissues.

Expand full comment

You should not quote "Poornima Wagh". She is dubious at best.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/eric-coppolino-exposes-poornima-wagh

Expand full comment

"vaccine risk aware" - good reframing, I will use.

Expand full comment

When I came here to comment, Outlook flagged your site as unsafe to open. I continued anyway... ;-)

Your Nature link is broken. Can you please refresh it or provide the DOI or title/authors? Thanks.

Expand full comment

Steve Kirsch's is apparently also flagged as 'unsafe'.

Expand full comment

I find the terms used interesting. "Purity"?? Or lack thereof in the shots? LOL.

"Vaccine Risk Aware" I love. The mischief part of my brain is saying "I know something you don't. Na na na na na" in the most infantile, childish way possible. Love it.

Expand full comment

"...personal moral values, not classic "conservative" and "liberal" ideology, is associated with vaccine uptake. Association with "purity" implies "Vaccine Risk Aware" is a better label."

Maybe "...personal moral values" explain a "purity" association. Just as personal moral values explain political opinion.

I'm reminded of Jonathan Haidt's Disgust Scale.

Expand full comment