It Happened! It Finally Happened! An Open-Minded Pro-Vaxxer Asked a Question! + Updates Galore, Including Twitter Locking My Account!
MAA, you worked so hard; sadly, “B” never intended to open his mind, despite his boasting that he was “open-minded.” This whole exercise was the archetypal dance of the “Why don’t you, Yes, But…” psychological game of control. In its essence it is thus: Why don’t you persuade me; You haven’t persuaded me. Who does all the work? You do. Who has control? They do. You danced—hard—B wasn’t ever going to listen, not really. He just wanted to see you dance harder and harder. You fell for it; don’t feel too bad, they are masters of manipulation. The thing is, B will discover the truth one day—right at the moment he keels over from a heart attack or a stroke.
Well that was an extraordinary compilation of information as only you, could do. I often feel after reading something from you that I wish I could compel others to read it as well. You're not just incredibly well informed, you're patient and kind. I will return to this piece, I'm sure, over and over again, for the links and as an example of how to exchange with the 'other side'. Just excellent. Thank you Margaret Anna. So glad I came across your work. Cheers.
Even though Mr. "Open"minded B came to the conversation without intention of truly opening his mind, you brought the proof that others can use when they have dialogue and debate with truly open-minded people.
Mr. B reminds me a tad of my son, or at least the position my son would take were we to actually have this conversation. Very early, within a couple of months, of the start of the faux pandemic it became painfully clear that he and his father and I were of opposite opinions and beliefs. I can't tell you how disappointed that made me; sad for him and his family and even feeling guilty wondering where we had gone wrong. He's a PHD, with a STEM degree no less, and there in I believe is truly the problem. He isn't a hard-leftist by any stretch, but he's certainly been brainwashed and bamboozled by too many years within the propaganda and indoctrination system of education.
We have maintained a good relationship in spite of this, but I can only hope he isn't so far gone that he isn't awakening little by little to the truth. I know both he and his wife have been vaccinated - not sure about the boosters because frankly I don't want to know - just as I don't want to know if they have made the terrible decision to vaccinate my two precious grandchildren. Writing the foregoing, I realize I may be judged as cowardly or a bad parent for not making every effort possible to change his mind instead of quietly, with a broken heart, accepting that he has the means, the ability and the brains to make up his own mind, and pressure from me won't change it. I've had the "temerity" to pass along information that I hoped might provide an intelligent, reasoned and factual position on this subject, but such has been met with silence. He may never see the light, but if he does my heart will rejoice in gladness.
What a brilliant piece Margaret. I will re-read it and absorb all the info. I wish I could donate but I lost my job, (Over 50 in Italy - aka Draghistan), and I am surviving on very little. But I follow your articles and I think you are inspiring. Let us hope, one day, that this utter madness will end. In the meantime, keep up the good work 👋👋👋
The case is simple - per CDC, the vaccines neither prevent infection nor stop transmission. That's the minimum expectation for alleged vaccines, if they don't do those things, they're either not vaccines in the first place, or they're defective for their stated purpose - they have no efficacy. And they have much higher risk than any other vaccine on the market for the past 50 years. So if B does any sort of risk-benefit analysis, the alleged vaccines fail straight off.
Actually, he looks like a concern troll, they're just out to get you to waste your time trying to convince them. However, the effort can be used to get you to get your thoughts together and make a concise and cogent presentation by which others may benefit.
Echoing other commenters, I do not believe B was engaging from any sort of authentically open minded position. I think you could have homed in more on the tells in his first message. He includes some beliefs that are mere observations of fact, akin to “catches arrest the motion of balls” and two which are unprovable assertions on hypotheticals, akin to “Our Team won because of Y” and “If X, Our Team would have Y’d.” - “But I’m convinced that the imperfect vaccines are amazing and literally help save us from societal collapse. I’m over 50 and have taken all four shots as recommended... I thin[k] everyone should take the vaccine and if more of us had we might actually be out of the pandemic.”
And that’s where you can really stop everything. B, with these two assertions, is issuing himself permission to ignore any scale of devastation from the injections, especially among children and teens who have been subjected to this experimental product in an act of sacrifice for the sake of his own fears. I would guess that a year ago B was in the John Podhoretz, “just take it, they are perfectly safe” camp, had already successfully cajoled pre-adult family to take the shot before the Save the World podcast opened up debate on the safety issue, and has merely been digging his heels into the ground since then. He is a parasite washing his hands of blood. There’s no honesty here, only shame dressed as moral righteousness, pinned on a biological fantasy. You can confront this in live dialogue, especially attacking the fantasy about societal collapse, but in text format it’s a bit useless.
As a US expat retired in Ecuador, after reading this I had to go to my medicine cabinet, pull out the boxes of both Ivermectin and HCQ, stare at them and I started weeping for B. They are OTC here, each cost less than $6. I have both because I have followed the latest research by molecular biologists and not social media pundits, which showed how host cell infection had changed with the inevitable immune pressure being put on the virus due to these non-sterilizing vaccines. Thanks to the vaccinated contributing to the immune pressure, that made HCQ more efficacious, so IVM went to the back and HCQ was brought to the front, should I start feeling symptoms. However if I ever I do feel symptoms (haven't gotten covid yet, I take anti-viral prophylactics), I gargle with cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwashes or nasal lavage with a povidone iodine solution because I know infection occurs in the nasopharyngeal cavities, not in my deltoid. I guess I prefer pre-2020 practices of medicine. Silly me.
The hardest course I ever took was Quantitative Methods 101. Okay so I understood at last decision trees Monte carlo simulations, queuing theory, but didn't really appreciate what I had learned until I went back to school again, and had a LIBRARY professor teach me how to read scientific studies, and how to lie with statistics. I am forgetting most now, even have to look up the P value, but I would like all people to take both these courses...and of course they won't.
Why can't someone like Margaret Anna Alice or one of the other brilliant minds here on substack, outine a simple 11th grade level course (what is a p value, what is sample size, etc.) on how to read a scientific study CRITICALLY.
I swear there are a lot of people like B out there, but the one thing stopping them from looking at any further information is their inability to read and critically look at a few variables in any scientific study to see if it is crap or not. And lets not forget the conclusions that rarely match the data.
I absolutely suck at math. But I remember enough to follow a paper, and look at a few critical items and say "this is crap" or not. I'd do it myself but barely understood it at the time, let alone explain it to anyone else. Best I can do is follow along someone else's critique.
"B" is a typical CD indoctrinated fool. He never intended to follow your thought pattern. He was looking for "gotcha" moments. The only way these type *may* change their minds is if they get a serious reaction they can not dismiss as caused by their recent jab. The only light I see at the end of the tunnel is that these jabs are a part of the planetary drive to reduce population. And phools like "B" will be the first to go. Thinning the Herd is Nature's way to a better tomorrow.
I think B is is connected (or wants to be) to the old media. His counter "arguments" are exactly in the style of the old media - generalized conclusions stated as fact, substantiated by a few name drops as "proof" of an informed position. He did not link a single study to support his position or links from the people he named that were pertinent to make his case - he gave you nothing. He didn't even share how he came to his decision to take the boosters. But he unwittingly gave US something: the result of his pretending to be open minded resulted in a massive data dump all in one place that we can send off to people with or without open minds.
In addition to his sharing why he decided to inject himself with something that can't be un-injected, I would have been curious to know what his thoughts are on protecting us from speech that would result in vaccine hesitation.
As Alex Berenson pointed out on his lawsuit against Twitter, if you were a maker or actor in violent or pornographic films with posts that violate norms of human decency as well as age limits, Twitter would have no problem with such posts. It's only because of the pressure of governments and threats that they have bowed to that accounts are shut down on mere questions of vaccine efficacy.
Add to your ivermectin debate Alexandros Marinos.
Bret did a great interview with him where he goes over the incredible number of ways they rigged that trial and even after all that, the benefit of IVM fell just short of statistical significance.
I'm a little confused: B says he wants a conversation and a debate, yet when you give him facts to defend your position (which is what debating is, if I'm not mistaken), he just tosses it away and says that evidence is not what he is looking for. Sadly, I think he was a troll. Just because he framed his "question" in nice, polite language, does not mean that he meant what he said on the surface. You could not have given him any MORE facts to support your conclusions about the vaccine. You know how you know he's lying? Because at the end of the day, NO ONE can deny that not enough time has passed to prove vaccine safety. And in the vaccine world, they are prima facie dangerous until proven otherwise. And he couldn't even bring himself to say THAT.
Someone with four jabs doesn't arrive at your Substack by accident.
B is worried. B should be worried.
And in fact, B may be fine. Most people who rode in Exploding Gas Tank Pintos didn't blow up.
And aaaaaaalllllllll that Trump/Trans/BLM/ stuff is an immediate indication that you are dealing with a person deeply immersed in some pattern recognition stuff gone wrong. All of those issues are peripheral to a central question: Are the exp. injections safe, and do they work?
Already this is a person that is having a hard time separating from a manufactured group think collection of issues, internalized.
This is a person that has been seduced on many levels.
Can I just applaud you on your PATIENCE. Holy cow, this is why I’m a commenter and not a writer. Smart, strong lady you are👏
I admire your willingness to see the good in a fellow human, even after two years into this psyop. I agree with those who believe that B was manipulating you, and never had any interest in learning about why those of us who are awake don't trust this spikeshot.
When this first started, I responded to people like B with mounds of research and information, only to get the same basic response that they "weren't interested" in hearing from expert X or reading an article from that publication, or watching a video made by Y, and that nothing I said could convince them as they had already seen or read enough. Many people like this are simply trolls and others are so propagandized that they simply can't see how irrational their refusal to look at evidence is.
I almost never engage with them at all now. If I decide to, I'll simply turn the question around onto them and ask *why* they trust a media that has a history of lying, a pharmaceutical industry with an appalling record of criminal convictions, politicians and bureaucrats who are deeply conflicted. People like B, whether he's sincere, disingenuous, willfully blind or simply a troll, have had more than two years to learn this information and have diligently chosen not to. It's not our job anymore (if it ever was) to enlighten them. The best we can do is demand that they look inside themselves and figure out why they are willing to go along with something that is so obviously fraudulent and purely evil.