Excellent! It's a puzzle, since as we all know there were so many red flags from the beginning.
How to explain the reactions of your former colleague, and that of Dr Aseem Malhotra? (Of course, I do thank God for Dr Malhotra and for the courage he is showing)
What I have noticed is that each of us who saw red flags came from a different perspective. For example, some perspectives grew from the experience of the conspiracy to invade Iraq on the excuse of WMDs. People like Dr Aseem Malhotra had seen the weird academic cruscade against dietary fats (I heard about this from Dr Ron Rosedale in 2007). Mine was a project management perspective: what endpoint did they have in mind when they locked down to 'eliminate' such a contagious virus, after it had already escaped from Wuhan, other than continual lockdown until the end of time? I found that bizarre and suspicious.
And we know our perspectives are built gradually, requiring a number of prompts (some say about 5) before each of us is ready to accept a new idea or see a red flag. So, another prompt for Dr Malhotra would have been the death of his father.
But inhibiting us from seeing red flags is our drive for trust and harmony. This holds us to trust authority. And many in the population have not yet reached our threshold number of prompts required to lose that trust.
Now, much of the authority that promoted the covid response was from the medical establishment. So, I suspect that people like Dr Malhotra and your ex colleague, schooled in medicine, will have had a bigger inhibition. They will in fact have started from well BEHIND the line. So, rather than the apparent advantage of being able to read the science, the medically trained may have been held more strongly to trust medical authority.
Malhotra is playing the Scott Adams card: all the smart people like me believed the 'experts' while everyone who decided against taking an experimental injection of a completely novel technology was just acting on some kind of gut feeling. Not only is this complete rubbish, it's utterly insulting to all those of use who were delving into the medical literature and poring through the regulatory submissions, and speaking up about all the red flags that we discovered in that process.
Again, so well written and accurate investigative information.
The ‘friend/colleague’ I’m not sure about but it seems very strange she/he should only now think to chastise/critique your stance. Better off without them.
Malhotra, despite the accolades, I find disingenuous.
I find it was unconscionable to recommend any product with so little data to support it, much less an experimental tech that had never before been used in humans. The lack of any significant safety data was enough to say no. Too many ordinary folks—not just doctors—came to this conclusion and abstained. A large number of folks looked at the data critically, but qualified doctors did not? That’s bad medicine and poor professional conduct. At the very least, recommending experimental jabs is reckless endangerment. At worst, it’s manslaughter. This doesn’t become gray just because we’re in a struggle, in my opinion.
You know, when a crime is committed—like reckless endangerment or manslaughter—the kind of contrition that feels authentic is when someone turns themselves in. It’s the willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions, however damaging they may be, that signifies to others and themselves that they have faced the true nature of their actions.
Still waiting for that.
Malhotra’s tweet that you share speaks to the arrogance that lubricated his recommendation of the jabs early on.
Excellent! It's a puzzle, since as we all know there were so many red flags from the beginning.
How to explain the reactions of your former colleague, and that of Dr Aseem Malhotra? (Of course, I do thank God for Dr Malhotra and for the courage he is showing)
What I have noticed is that each of us who saw red flags came from a different perspective. For example, some perspectives grew from the experience of the conspiracy to invade Iraq on the excuse of WMDs. People like Dr Aseem Malhotra had seen the weird academic cruscade against dietary fats (I heard about this from Dr Ron Rosedale in 2007). Mine was a project management perspective: what endpoint did they have in mind when they locked down to 'eliminate' such a contagious virus, after it had already escaped from Wuhan, other than continual lockdown until the end of time? I found that bizarre and suspicious.
And we know our perspectives are built gradually, requiring a number of prompts (some say about 5) before each of us is ready to accept a new idea or see a red flag. So, another prompt for Dr Malhotra would have been the death of his father.
But inhibiting us from seeing red flags is our drive for trust and harmony. This holds us to trust authority. And many in the population have not yet reached our threshold number of prompts required to lose that trust.
Now, much of the authority that promoted the covid response was from the medical establishment. So, I suspect that people like Dr Malhotra and your ex colleague, schooled in medicine, will have had a bigger inhibition. They will in fact have started from well BEHIND the line. So, rather than the apparent advantage of being able to read the science, the medically trained may have been held more strongly to trust medical authority.
Malhotra is playing the Scott Adams card: all the smart people like me believed the 'experts' while everyone who decided against taking an experimental injection of a completely novel technology was just acting on some kind of gut feeling. Not only is this complete rubbish, it's utterly insulting to all those of use who were delving into the medical literature and poring through the regulatory submissions, and speaking up about all the red flags that we discovered in that process.
Again, so well written and accurate investigative information.
The ‘friend/colleague’ I’m not sure about but it seems very strange she/he should only now think to chastise/critique your stance. Better off without them.
I appreciate this.
Malhotra, despite the accolades, I find disingenuous.
I find it was unconscionable to recommend any product with so little data to support it, much less an experimental tech that had never before been used in humans. The lack of any significant safety data was enough to say no. Too many ordinary folks—not just doctors—came to this conclusion and abstained. A large number of folks looked at the data critically, but qualified doctors did not? That’s bad medicine and poor professional conduct. At the very least, recommending experimental jabs is reckless endangerment. At worst, it’s manslaughter. This doesn’t become gray just because we’re in a struggle, in my opinion.
You know, when a crime is committed—like reckless endangerment or manslaughter—the kind of contrition that feels authentic is when someone turns themselves in. It’s the willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions, however damaging they may be, that signifies to others and themselves that they have faced the true nature of their actions.
Still waiting for that.
Malhotra’s tweet that you share speaks to the arrogance that lubricated his recommendation of the jabs early on.