patrick.net

Aussie17's U-Turn Tracker™

When I worked in Pharma, we always gauged the sentiments towards our drugs by measuring the positions of KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders). Let’s just say that the more KOLs start making U-Turns, the more likely the "Safe and Effective" narrative will collapse. Secondly, I challenge anyone to create a list of anyone making a U-Turn in the opposite direction (i.e. from an anti-mRNA to pro-mRNA).

I will call myself a “U-Turner” as well. I used to sell vaccines in the several Big Pharmas. However, I didn’t get vaccinated with the experimental mRNA “vaccines”.

I’ve included video clips where possible because it’s fun to watch people make U-Turns in real time!

If there are any worthy U-Turns that I missed out, please comment below!

Aussie17 (Vaccine Pusher, Unvaxxed, U-Turn 2020) - (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr Aseem Malhotra (UK) (Vaxxed) (U-Turn Sep 2022) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr Kerryn Phelps (Australia) (Vaxxed) (U-Turn Dec 2022)

Prof Angus Dalgleish (UK) (Vaxxed) (U-Turn Nov 2022)

Dr John Campbell (UK) (Vaxxed) (U-Turn Dec 2022)

Ben Shapiro (Vaxxed) (U-Turn Dec 2022) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Robert Malone (Vaxxed, Vax injured) (U-Turn - 2021) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Steve Kirsch (Vaxxed, U-Turn - 2021) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr. Kári Stefánsson (Vaxxed, U-Turn - Sep 2022)

Prof Masanori Fukushima (Japan) (Vax status Unknown, called for mRNA suspensions, Nov 2022)

Prof Shmuel Shapira (Israel) (Vaxxed, U-turn 2021)

Dr Thiravat Hemachudha (Thailand) (Vax status Unknown)

Professor Abdullah Alabdulgader (Saudi Arabia) (Vax status Unknown)

Dr Joseph Fraiman (USA) (Vax status Unknown, called for mRNA suspensions, Jan 2023) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Professor Retsef Levi (USA) (Vax status Unknown, called for mRNA suspensions, Jan 2023)

Dr Drew (Vaxxed, U-Turn Feb 2022)

Scott Adams (Vaxxed, U-Turn Jan 2022) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Alan Dershowitz (Vaxxed)

Richard Dawkins (Vaxxed)

Mark Zuckerberg (Vaxxed)

Prof Gabriel Oon (Vaxxed with non-mRNA, called for suspensions of mRNA from Day 1)

Prof. Takayuki Miyazawa (Vaxxed, U-Turn - 2023)

Jessica Sutta (Vaxxed, Vax-Injured, U-Turn March 2023) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr. Anish Koka (Vaxxed, U-Turn Aug 2023) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr. Wafik El-Deiry (Vaxxed, U-Turn Aug 2023) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Dr Phillip J. Buckhaults (Vaxxed, U-Turn Aug 2023) (New page! Nov 15, 2023)

Megyn Kelly (Vaxxed, Vax-Injured)

Prof Scott Galloway (Vaxxed, U-Turn Oct 2023)

Prof. Dr. Pietro Vernazza (Vaxxed, U-Turn 2023)

Mr. Tan Kin Lian (Vaxxed, U-Turn Dec 2023) (New page! Dec 8, 2023)

The Unvaccinated Were Scapegoated for Failure of COVID Vaccines, Study Finds

Scapegoating and hate messaging were intentional and BROKE UP FAMILIES ...

The pandemic propaganda was strong!

The truth, of course, was that the Covid vaccine did not work and did not prevent any transmission, and after a month or two past vaccinations, it made the vaccinated MORE likely to be infected.

However, the impact of the media’s fear-mongering was all-encompassing. 35% of adults believed that half of Covid infections required hospitalization! ...

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, an outlet with a decidedly liberal audience,68 noted in March 2021: ‘Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.’69 However, this claim was not possible to make at that time,70 nor was it true. The original clinical trials did not test for effectiveness on transmission.71 ...

The authors of the Graso et al. study did not mention an important fact: fear and creating divisions and hatred towards the unvaccinated were completely intentional and had a purpose: to force vaccine refusers (who knew everything Maja Graso et al. described above, in 2021) to vaccinate through alienating their relatives and friends. ...

People would rather participate in self-inflicted genocide than question their doctor.

People would rather participate in self-inflicted genocide than step out of their comfort zone and challenge power.

People would rather participate in self-inflicted genocide than acknowledge that “the experts” are either corrupt or not very smart.

People would rather participate in self-inflicted genocide than realize that the ruling class despises them.

People would rather participate in self-inflicted genocide than admit that the world is an uncertain place and no one is really sure what comes after.

Yes, there are some freedom fighters. 3% of parents don’t vaccinate their kids. 10% of us fight like hell to stop the iatrogenocide. Robert Kennedy, Jr. polls in the mid-20s. About half of all parents question some aspect of the childhood vaccine schedule. 90% of Americans are avoiding the latest “booster”.

But if we are going to survive we absolutely need to look this horror in the face. The problem is not just Operation Warp Speed, the childhood schedule, or the 1986 Act. The problem is that civil society in the United States has gone stark raving mad under the sway of Pharma and will do anything to avoid reality because they don’t like how it makes them feel.

The film is set in the residential neighborhood on the other side of the wall from the Auschwitz Concentration and Extermination Camp during the years 1942 and 1943 — at the height of the industrialized mass murder carried out by the Nazis. But the film never directly shows what is happening inside the death camp. Instead, the film is about how the family of the camp commandant, Rudolf Höss, ignores the genocide that is happening all around them. ...

Many Holocaust films turn the Nazis into monsters — a cartoonish “other”. While indeed there were some monsters, Hannah Arendt teaches us that the genocide was run by the bureaucrats. Seeing the banality of evil depicted in this film — the camp commandant making sure his kids are ready for school and kissing his wife before going off to work — is far more scary because it points to the darkness that resides in the hearts of all people (even though it is not always expressed).

This is a theme I keep coming back to. As I’ve written before, I think it is a mistake to see the Nazis as singular in their atrocities. Yes, they had a particular zeal for their industrialized murderousness. But under the right conditions, lots of people are willing to participate in great evil.

Every day for the last four years New York has been the center of the American iatrogenocide:

New York city is the headquarters for Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance — the fake nonprofit that Tony Fauci used to send money to Wuhan to develop SARS-CoV-2 in violation of the U.S. ban on gain-of-function research.

Upon hearing of Covid, the New York State Department of Health gave itself permission to set up quarantine camps to detain anyone for any reason without due process of law. Think about that — the first instinct of the public health authorities in the state with the largest Jewish population was, “How can we set up the legal framework for quarantine camps.”

New York hospitals implemented the murderous protocols of immediately ventilating patients thus killing 80% to 90% of the people in their care rather than treating them with ivermectin or two dozen other off-the-shelf medicines that work.

New York implemented Vaccine Jim Crow that blocked the unvaccinated, including 75% of the city’s Black population, from eating indoors at restaurants.

And New York embraced the deadly Covid shots at a higher rate than the rest of the country and now they are dealing with the consequences — an increase in all-cause mortality and a rise in chronic health conditions.

So I think my hunch was correct — a movie about an entire society that ignored the genocide all around them hit a bit too close to home for Manohla Dargis and her bosses at the NY Times who have spent the last four years ignoring the genocide all around them.

Since vaccines frequently fail to live up to their promises, it becomes quite difficult to sell them on their own merits. This in turn is why for almost a century, every authority has simply repeated the mantra “safe and effective” irrespective of the evidence arguing against that contention and simultaneously blacklisted any criticism of a vaccine from being allowed to enter the public discourse.

One of the classic marketing gimmicks used to sell vaccines once the initial public enthusiasm for them wanes is to say vaccinating in necessary not only to protect the vaccinated person from a disease, but also to prevent the disease’s transmission. This in turn justifies pressuring those who do not want to vaccinate into vaccinating for the “greater good.”

If you take a step back, this doesn’t make any sense since if the vaccine “works” it shouldn’t matter to the vaccinated if other people are unvaccinated, whereas if the vaccine doesn’t “work” then there’s no reason to make people vaccinate in the first place. However, due to how effectively this scheme has been marketed (and the fact that it excellently plays into the human desire to not admit one was wrong), vaccine promoters never notice that glaring logical inconsistency and instead get very pushy in demanding those around them vaccinate as well.

The particularly tragic thing about this is that vaccination sometimes makes individuals more likely to transmit an infection (e.g., with COVID-19) . ...

So, given how successful this non-sensical and cruel sales campaign has been, once the COVID vaccine fervor started (especially given how politically polarized the country already was) I felt it was inevitable that once the initial enthusiasm for the vaccines wore off and people stopped wanting to vaccinate, this sales tactic would be weaponized against the general public—even if there was absolutely no evidence the vaccines stopped COVID transmission.

That then ended up being exactly what happened, and a series of more aggressive mandates were put into place (e.g., you can’t go to a bar or concert, you can’t go fly to another country, you can’t go to school, you can hold a job) to pressure people into vaccinating. In parallel to this, the vaccinated were encouraged to hold more and more negative attitudes towards the unvaccinated and want to shun them from society.

For example, as an early 2022 Rasmussen survey of 1016 likely voters showed, much of the country was whipped into a hysteria where they supported blatantly immoral and unconstitutional tactics being used against those who did not vaccinate. ...

However, now that most of the public has realized how much they were lied to throughout COVID-19 (e.g., I’ve heard many stories of previously nasty relatives apologizing for their conduct), I feel very hopeful this Christmas will be the time where many of those critical bridges can be repaired.

It’s tempting to just focus on Covidians’ unquestioning devotion to the vaccines, and of course how they’re mad at us anti-vaxxers. Set that aside for a moment and consider how far they’ve come: They no longer believe the CDC or FDA. Neither do we.

There’s so much gaslighting, it’s not just that they don’t trust the government. They also no longer believe doctors, either. They know from their own personal experience with their friends and relatives that something is happening, even if the doctors claim everything is normal.

Like us, Covidians have even started mocking how suddenly baffled the doctors have become, despite pretending they knew everything there was to know about covid during the pandemic.

This morning I stumbled over a perfect example for yesterday’s Substack about meeting Covidians halfway. I found yet another goofy Covidian (a healthcare professional) oddly fretting that we anti-vaxxers will somehow blame Covidians for all the excess deaths and injuries not for the vaccines but because of their masking and isolating and trying not to catch covid (granted, the logic is pretty fuzzy):




And then in the replies, I noticed a persuasive comment that could help Covidians connect that final dot to the jabs:




Thanks to Matt for illustrating an effective style of argumentation, and hence persuasion. It worked well because Matt first showed sympathy for the Covidian theory that the virus never goes away and is deadly by conceding that “both are a problem.” Matt’s concession created rapport, which allowed him to gently introduce the possibility that the jabs could also be involved, harmonizing the two positions so they aren’t mutually exclusive.

I said Matt introduced the jabs as a possible cause “gently” because he avoided confrontational language like “it’s obvious, dummy,” or “wake up, the shots kill,” but instead made the minimal truthful argument they are the riskiest approved shots. And then — again, not in a confrontational way — he informatively offered a supporting fact in neutral language (Europe banned shots for healthy young people).

I call this method of argumentation “agree and extend.” It is a good tactic even outside the pandemic context. It’s especially useful for moving people toward your position by degrees. It works when nothing significant is lost by conceding the other person’s initial, erroneous position. That initial concession can then be used as a springboard to the desired point. Because the other person is psychologically primed to agree with whatever you say next — since they just gained an ally and want to keep you on their side — they are more likely to seriously consider your very next argument and are incentivized to make concessions of their own.

Surprisingly, an initial concession may still be available even when the other person’s beliefs seem impossibly wrong, by using tools like limited scope agreement. For example, what if the other person claims the jabs are saving lives? You could still concede a subset of their argument: many lives have been saved, and then add and many people have also been injured or killed by the shots. The trick is avoiding the temptation to directly challenge the error (the jabs haven’t saved anybody!). Also, this technique is obviously unsatisfying if you would have to lie even to make a limited concession.

There are other problems with the defective jabs like they make nonsense proteins, are contaminated with E. coli, and including SV40 promoter genes — but we don’t need those to increase the anti-vaccine coalition. Covidians already believe the virus is causing excess death and disability. If they could be persuaded that the spike protein part of the virus is the culprit, then it’s just one tiny step to the vaccines, which after all is where most of the spike protein comes from.

In other words, if the spike protein is harmful in a reservoir, then it’s also harmful when it comes from a shot, right?