Category Archives: Critique

UPDATED (10/20): Dr. Peter McCullough: Ethicist, Scholar, Clinician, Healer, Damns The Medical Majority For Moronity And Malpractice

Argument, COVID-19, Criminal Injustice, Critique, Ethics, Healthcare

Has CNN’s Sanje Gupta, M.D., Anthony Fauci, or all the other medical frauds parading their manifest ignorance on television ever wept over a “medical protocol” whereby elderly Covid-19 patients were sent home to wait until they could no longer breath?

46.21 minutes into his address to the organization of the great Dr. Jane Orient (fellow columnist at WND), Peter McCullough—not one of whose Covid patients has gone untreated—weeps for these patients abandoned by their doctors to die. Of course medicine MUST be used off-label. It always has been. G-d bless this man. He is one of a kind.

Nuremberg trials for the rest, one and all.

Dr. McCullough is an ethicist, scholar, clinician, healer, all rolled into one—and perhaps the most brilliant, humane voice of reason regrading the COVID-19 vaccine and Covid-19, in general.

He confirms what most of the thinking unvaccinated know: No regular, longitudinal, scientific safety reviews are being presented to the public on the mRNA jabs.

McCullough presents comprehensive data to support the existence of a “tight temporal relationship” between adverse reactions and the mRNA jab. Causality on this front has been established, he argues. Vaccine failure, moreover, is not honestly reported in the USA (although Israel is doing so splendidly, while it oddly continues to force the failed vaccine on its populace).

I am seldom able to sit through more than a couple of minutes of your average YouTube/Rumble fare. McCullough, however, mesmerizes with his intellectual heft, reservoir of knowledge and humanity. (He doesn’t use his notes.)

Dr. Peter McCullough ‘Therapeutic Nihilism And Untested Novel Therapies’ | AAPS

UPDATED (10/20): It looks like some inquisitive minds—absent from TV’s medical menagerie of mainstream morons—are looking into “the harmful actions of the spike protein.” Facebook, having banned so many thinkers (check), will likely ban this journal article:

Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: There is more than meets the eye.”

UPDATED (9/28): NEW COLUMN: No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple

Argument, Asia, Critique, Foreign Policy, Islam, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, War

NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

And excerpt:

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson appears in thrall to Lara Logan’s political observations—to her “philosophical” meditations, too. Alas, Logan is no Roger Scruton.

You might have heard Logan claim, recently and repetitively, that everything in the world is simple. “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on Fox News.

Applied to the fiasco in Afghanistan, Logan’s Theory of Simple is that, considering that America is omnipotent, whatever occurs under its watch is always and everywhere planned and preventable.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker, whom we all love to bits, giggles in delight.

“They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated,” lectured Logan. “Because if you complicate it, it is a tactic in information warfare called ‘ambiguity increasing.’”

“So now we’re talking about all the corruption and this and that,” she further vaporized. “But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Logan likely recently discovered Occam’s Razor and is promiscuously applying this principle to anything and everything, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor posits that, “the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex,” provided “simple” is “based on as much evidence as possible.”

A nifty principle—and certainly not a philosophy—Occam’s Razor was not meant to apply to everything under the sun.

Misapplied by Logan, why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan—that the United States threw the game—is hardly the simplest explanation, despite her assertion to the contrary.

The simplest explanation to the US defeat in Afghanistan, based on as much information as is possible to gather, is that, wait for this: America was defeated fair and square. As this columnist had argued, the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, in a mission impossible in the first place.

… READ ON. NEW COLUMN, “No, Lara Logan, Only Simpletons Think Afghanistan Is Simple,” is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, CNSNews and American Greatness.

UPDATED (9/28): Afghans have hereditary disorders due to marriage between relatives.

 

UPDATED II (10/11): NEW PODCAST: The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere

Argument, Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Europe, Nationalism, Neoconservatism

NEW ON PODCAST: “The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere”:

https://tinyurl.com/4znm4wbz

Hard Truth examines the wishy-washy work of anti-Trump, pro-censorship softie Douglas Murray, darling of Conservatism Inc, and finds there is not much there. Little Lord Fauntleroy is intellectually naked.

The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere” is on YouTube, too.  https://youtu.be/BkeI-azpd1c

 

Murray has his fan boys. They refuse to address our substantive arguments, but, rather, engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics (like David and I) were free to engage in critique. Now, if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

UPDATE II (8/13): Check out the noisy letter exchanges for this YouTube. My replies:

In reply to more ad hominem, jealousy:

How do you explain, then, the praise David and I offered for Mark Steyn who, unlike Murray, is intellectually substantial. Why not address our substantive arguments, rather than engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics engaged in critique. Now if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

To the “Murray is fighting our fight” nonsense:

On my side of the pond, Katie Hopkins and Trump are considered hardcore, effective conservatives. Tellingly, Douglas Murray HATES THEM. He says so! If anything, he’s an ineffectual effete who waters down The Struggle. How does that help us? (He’s a neoconservative; wrote a book about how great that philosophical blight is.) David and myself have done a public service. But nobody likes hard truth; people prefer being fans of the latest popular TV ponce.

To the, “Oh, you just don’t like the lovely boy” argument:

Wrong. Murray’s actions and empty words are what cause disdain. Our arguments were clear. Clear examples were read out from Murray’s own text. Address those. He intimates, for example, that he’s happy that highly effective conservatives have been banned (N. Fuentes and K. Hopkins). He never once shows, moreover, a feel for unfettered free speech. On my side of the pond, you are no conservative without that understanding. In a post I penned about him, Murray fortifies his lack of strong opposition to Tech censorship by saying NOT that he abhors Big Tech’s tyranny, but, to quote his vague dissembling, “Big Tech are not up to the task.” The premise of that idiotic quip is that there is a censor out there that IS UP TO THE TASK. Wrong. I’m debating with you in good faith. rise to that challenge and do the same.

UPDATE II (10/11/021):

Dissidents had been fighting authoritarianism when Douglas Murray was still in short pants. Wishy-washy and anti-Trump, Murray, who penned a book FOR Neoconservatism and has been establishment Con. Inc. forever, had, on October 8, condemned the Alt Right on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

NYC EMT & Fire Department Union Boss Presents Cogent, Comprehensive, Factual, Rational Argument Against Vaccines For Members

Argument, COVID-19, Critique, Ethics, Healthcare, Intelligence, Judaism & Jews, Labor, Race, Reason

I believe uber-progressive anchor Alex Witt, of MSNBC, likely went easy on Oren Barzilay because she must have believed the president of Emergency Medical Services Local 2507 of District Council 37 (President of Uniform EMTs, Paramedics & Inspectors – New York City Fire Department) to be a working-class man of an acceptably exotic ethnicity.

To me of course, the name screamed Israeli. As did the clear, comprehensive argument style, and cogent replies to everyone of the woman’s arguments for vaccine mandates.

Barzilay argued against mandates for his members. These are arguments that not one of the dimwits usually entertained on the idiot’s lantern (the TV) has proven able to rattle off.

In arguing against the mandates, Barzilay told Witt:

        1. No conclusive evidence exists to show the vaccines are not harmful. On the contrary, the CDC website reports over 12,000 deaths from these vaccines and thousands injured, or having sustained some medical issues.
        2. The vaccines are not FDA approved and clinical trials have been limited and of short duration; no longitudinal data.
        3. In reply to Witt’s idiot question—which nobody in American media seems capable of refuting, and it is, “Have you and family not received the mumps, measles, polio vaccinations, and once the vaccines move from Emergency Authorization to FDA approved status, will you instruct your guys to take it?”—Barzilay did not miss a beat. He returned to Witt’s first point, emphasizing that older vaccines (I’ve recently gotten two Shingles shots) have over a decade of data behind them. The COVID vaccines went to market and into arms after 6 months of production, and even less time devoted to data collection and analysis.
        4. He is not telling his people not to get vaccinated; all Barzilay is insisting on is choice for his members, as to what they place in their bodies until the data are in.
        5. He wants to know (asking in a cynical, rhetorical manner) if the City will cover the expenses of those who have an adverse reaction. That’s unknown, argued Barzilay. I would argue one better: When admitted into hospital following vaccination, with a plethora of symptoms, you are more often than not subjected to batteries of tests that always appear aimed at ruling-out correlation with vaccination, instead of treating what could be dangerous symptoms.
          In the zeal to avoid implicating the vaccine in a reaction—individuals who suffer a reaction in proximity to vaccination might not even receive antidotes as soon as they need them. The aim of untrustworthy medical personnel seems to be to exonerate the vaccinators rather than assume a reaction and prevent a patient from dying.
          Essentially, medical personal have lost our trust that indeed they can spring into action, in the event we suffer adverse reactions to their ill-researched vaccines.
        6. Oren disputes that all his members are, as Witt assumed, grateful for the vaccines, since some have died following vaccination. He cannot definitively prove causation, but they died shortly thereafter. Two of Oren’s Local members died within 4 days of receiving the vaccine.

       

    1. RELATED READING: “Could Vaccine Resisters Be WACO’d?”