That Bullshit in The Atlantic

Or, Why I am Not Going to Forgive the Scamdemic Pushers

I wasn’t going to do another post so soon, but the Atlantic posted an article on declaring ‘a pandemic amnesty’. Or, to put it in simpler terms, that the people who were right about everything – the anti-lockdown, anti-‘vaccine’, anti-mask, anti-coercion people – need to forgive those poor souls who were screaming at us that we were granny killers for the last two-and-a-half years.

Yeah? How about no.

So, let’s break this down. Yeah, I know every anti-scamdemic substack is doing one of these but you’re getting another one from me anyway.

The author starts by talking about hikes they went on in April 2020 because they were bloody bored shitless because of the lockdown. This I can understand, because I was also bored shitless because of the lockdown and went on walks purely because the government said that that’s what I shouldn’t be doing. That said, I doubt the author wanted to kill themselves because of these totalitarian lockdowns, and I did, so you know, I’m already losing sympathy. Anyway, she brainwashed her kid to scream at strangers about social distancing and to shove a mask over their face if anyone got too close.

Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

Ah, yes, the ‘I was just ignorant’ defense. Except, this person is meant to be a University Lecturer, so I am sure that they are capable of finding a scientific study. Unless I am seriously overestimating the intelligence of university lecturers, that is, which wouldn’t surprise me since most of them these days can’t define the word ‘woman’.

So, what does the scientific literature on cloth masks actually say?

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. 

I thought we were supposed to be listening to ‘THE SCIENCE‘. But the main point is, if Ryan Cristian could find this study, I’m pretty certain some University Lecturer can find it.

We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

Uncertainty? Uncertainty? There was zero uncertainty on my part because I knew it was bullshit. And I didn’t get to make any choices because I was locked in my house by decree of these assholes.

She then goes on to talk about schools:

But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.

Anyone with a brain knew that a) children don’t die from Covid-19 unless they are already severely ill, and b) that shutting schools would be an absolute disaster for the children, would stunt their social growth, and would affect poorer kids the worst due to lack of support and technology and c) that shutting down schools locked children with abusive parents in with those parents 24/7 with no one to perform any safeguarding functions. It wasn’t some secret.

And of course, the people arguing for ‘shut the schools’ were far from reasonable. And they did not care about children, they cared about themselves, and were willing to throw children under the bus to get what they want, i.e. sitting at home and doing fuck all and being paid by the state to do fuck all. While wearing 10 masks and dunking their head periodically in a bucket of hand san in between the Game of Thrones binge watch sessions, of course.

And now we come to the most insane claim in the article:

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

This is how this article chooses to address the topic of the ‘vaccines’. This. Where do I even start with this?

Note what the author does not do here. They do not bring up any of the side effects of the jabs, not even the ones that are admitted to by the government and media, such as myocarditis or blood clots. Not even in some sort of bullshitty way that you might expect, such as ‘We didn’t know there were super-super-super-super rare side effects like myocarditis and a few people got harmed by this’.

No, they choose to frame it as the question of whether J&J is better than mRNA. When ‘Died Suddenly’ cases are through the roof. When excess death is skyrocketing in heavily ‘vaccinated’ countries and it clearly isn’t Covid. As I said in a previous article, ‘Vaccine’ Side Effect Narrative Management and the Mainstream Media:

[T]he extreme danger of these injections was clear to anyone paying attention very quickly. Testimony quickly popped up online alleging mass death in care homes after the jabs. Vaccine injury stories began to pop up on TikTok, Facebook and Twitter from January 2021, for example testimony from Shawn Skelton, Angelia Desselle and Kristi Simmonds, interviewed by Del Bigtree back in April 2021. Death and injury reports in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began to skyrocket early on in the rollout. In other words, anyone paying attention could figure out these jabs were extremely dangerous by February 2021.

Of course, this barely even qualifies as ‘narrative management’ at this point since they aren’t even trying to ‘manage’ the death reports, they are just pretending that they don’t exist.

Even on its own limited terms I’m not convinced this is even true, since the mRNA seemed preferred from the start.

Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims.

But not our government and our media and saints like Our St Anthony Fauci, no, not those people. Just ‘conspiracy theorists’ online and maybe Trump.

The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat.

Damn right I do.

Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. 

These people called us scum. They called us plague rats. They called us granny killers. They wished death on us for not taking the ‘vaccine’. They wanted to sack us for not taking the ‘vaccine’. They wanted to exclude us from society for not taking the ‘vaccine’. They wanted to strap us down and forcibly inject us with their poison ‘vaccine’. And then they complain that we gloat when we are vindicated.

And they dare complain about culture wars? They created the damn ‘culture war’. Most of us ‘vaccine’ sceptics tried to convince our families not to take it, but we couldn’t stop them. If people want to kill themselves with these jabs, there’s nothing we can do. We weren’t the ones cutting people out of our families for taking the jab. We weren’t the ones threatening employees with the sack for taking the jab. We were defending ourselves.

In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. 

There was absolutely no luck involved in predicting that lockdowns would destroy the economy and massively increase poverty. Anyone with two brain cells could predict that. There was also no luck involved in predicting that a novel product with rushed safety testing may have negative side effects. Common sense is not luck. And no, being incorrect about the jabs because you were duped by the MSM isn’t really a moral failing per se. But it is a moral failing to support forced jabs against medical ethics and bodily autonomy which this author has glossed over in her article.

Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.

Yes, it’s those ‘evil anti-vaxxers’ who are the problem. We are just too obnoxious about being right and we should shut up. We need to ‘move forward’ by forgetting the ‘vaccine’-injured, the dead from ‘vaccines’ and the dead from lockdowns. No. Now there is a moral failing for you.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years.

No. Many people were denied healthcare by lockdowns. But that is the individuals’ fault and not the fault of the psychopaths who denied them the healthcare according to the author. Just watch those Tik Tok dances and shut up.

Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.

Yes, you read that correctly. The author’s suggestion for ending the ‘culture war’ about forced jabs is forced jabs for your children.

This makes it clear that the author has no remorse for promoting forcing the covid injections. As such, they are promoting this idea as a way of avoiding accountability for being involved in the covid scam as an MSM stooge, which paid an important role in promoting the official narrative.

Now, my unvaxxed arse is gonna go gloat some more, see you later.