25 million deaths: psychological mechanisms of popular denialism
WRITTEN BY ADMIN ON OCTOBER 15, 2023. PUBLISHED IN PRESS.
Alessandro Bagnato
Everything except the vaccine. The logical fallacies underlying a dogma.
This article is an appendix to the work that estimated the number of deaths from Covid injections in the Western world. It was developed in the three articles referred to in the following links.
https://sfero.me/article/contributo-stima-realistica-numero-decessi-causati
https://sfero.me/article/-impronte-iniezioni-anti-covid-eccesso
https://sfero.me/article/-numeri-decessi-iniezioni-covid-fino
The topic of the responsibility of Covid inoculations for excess mortality gives rise to some typical reactions, which we could group into four categories.
There are those who already know and with every piece of information added they only find sad confirmation. This type of reaction concerns a minority percentage of the population, albeit a rapidly growing one.
On the opposite is the most widespread reaction, that of those who stiffen and refuse not only to discuss but even to listen. If forced, these people respond with anger and aggression. They hide the terror of facing a truth that would demolish the basic certainties with which they look at the world. The reaction is defense of one's own psychic survival.
Then there is the third type, unfortunately the least frequent. It belongs to those who honestly enter into a comparison, with the aim of understanding whether there might be something true in a thesis that they don't initially agree with. It is typical of those who believed in good faith in the vaccine narrative but are now beginning to doubt its veracity.
The last category is that of the TTV (Everything-Except-the-Vaccine) gentlemen. They are those who pretend to be prepared for a comparison but in reality have the only objective already set a priori of demonstrating that vaccinations CANNOT be responsible for excess mortality. In their instrumental argument they initially pose with disdain and sarcasm, which are immediately replaced by anger and aggression as soon as the position they defend falters under the weight of logic and evidence. They thus betray that they too are guided by the terror we talked about. It is often even more profound, since many of the TTV gentlemen have spent these three years defending the indefensible and if the situation collapses, the image they have given of themselves collapses along with it.
It must be said that, when it comes to a comparison, whether honest or instrumental, the arguments of those who contest the lethality of Covid pseudo-vaccines often present the same flaws in reasoning, real logical fallacies.
This article intends to lay them bare and show that only by overcoming them is it possible to become aware of the evidence that has emerged on the topic we are dealing with.
THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE PERSPECTIVE
The first fallacy is expressed more or less like this: "It is impossible that vaccines caused all those deaths, if the numbers were so high, everyone would have noticed it in their everyday lives."
This is an error of perspective that derives from a poor understanding of the quantities at play, such that it is taken for granted that every macro phenomenon necessarily has visibility in the micro.
This rarely happens.
On the one hand, in fact, that increase of around 10% in mortality is a median figure which does not necessarily correspond exactly to what happens in the small portion of the world we frequent.
Secondly, the selectivity of attention comes into play. We record only a small part of the thousands of phenomena we witness every day, usually unusual or macroscopic ones. The simple quantitative variation of an already known phenomenon captures our attention even less, unless it reaches out-of-scale proportions.
To stay on the topics that interest us, let's say that a person is used to reading the mortuary signs in his small town and let's say that the board shows more or less a dozen announcements every day. Do you think that person could notice that in a given year the daily average was not twelve but thirteen? And do you think you know if this year you heard the ambulance once every nine days instead of once every ten? They are both increases of about 10%.
This also applies to larger numbers. Can you tell if in a certain week of city life you passed 1,100 people on the street instead of the 1,000 of the previous week?
But what blatantly reveals the existence of the fallacy is the very phrase with which it is expressed. The obvious error lies in that "IF" ("if" there were all these additional deaths....). Because, the fact that there are all these additional deaths is a fact that no one actually doubts, what is being discussed is only what they are due to. The statement therefore does nothing but expose precisely what he would like to contest, namely that DESPITE so many more people having died (around 130,000 excess deaths since 2021 in Italy alone), the daily perception of many has not registered it.
THE BAD INFINITY FALLACY
The second fallacy is what Hegel would call the bad infinite. He expresses himself with sentences like: “There are indications that the excess mortality is linked to inoculations but there is no definitive proof, so any thesis is as good as the other.” Or: “Correlation does not mean causation, so what are we talking about?”.
The statements are re-proposed with each piece of evidence/clue/correlation that is gradually added, moving the goal of "conclusive proof" further and further, which will never be reached because with each strengthening of the evidentiary framework, additional proof will always be required. Even those who, despite already being aware of the causal link between inoculations and mortality, are continually searching for the so-called "smoking gun", the indisputable proof that convinces skeptics, fall into this fallacy.
The vice consists in asking for an impossible mathematical/experimental proof where the amount of evidence already exists which in the things of life is considered sufficient to consider a fact as substantially certain and act accordingly.
If during the night we smell burning, a strange heat and the neighbors shouting "fire", we flee quickly without waiting for the flames to invade the room in which we sleep. And there is no proof that during the next night the Moon will not fall on the Earth and destroy it, and yet we essentially take it for certain that this will not happen and we will plan tomorrow as usual.
We always act, in every circumstance, on the basis of the largely most probable hypothesis, attributing a degree of (relative) certainty to it when it reaches a certain level of plausibility, while being ready to change our minds if new elements convincingly disprove it. The wait for absolute certainty leads to a dead end. Even what would be considered by many to be conclusive proof, namely the comparison of death rates between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people, would not escape the action of the fallacy. Even if it returned a clear result, we could still discuss the reliability of the data, the method of their collection, the definition of the reference audiences, etc. etc.
The real question is therefore not whether there is "definitive proof" that it is the Covid inoculations that cause a large part of the excess mortality but whether the available elements are such as to make this the hypothesis to stick to, being the largely more probable and in the absence of well-founded alternative hypotheses.
In the same way, even if statistical correlation is not always a sign of causality, the proof of causality can only come from the accumulation of correlations. And when correlations are found in every element that is gradually analyzed and they cannot be motivated with confounding factors, Occam's razor wants them to be explained with the causal link, a conclusion that acquires the dignity of (relative) certainty.
The important fact is that when this level of plausibility is reached, the burden of proof is reversed. From that moment on, it is up to those who support alternative hypotheses to bring more convincing evidence. In the meantime, it is best to escape from the house even if the flames in the room have not yet reached.
According to the Bradford-Hill criteria, causality is considered proven when the elements from which it is deduced are numerous, strong, consistent, specific, coherent, deriving from a plurality of sources, temporally correlated, based on a plausible mechanism of action and there are no valid alternative explanations. The criteria are all met by the evidence that has emerged today on the link between mortality and Covid inoculations. It should also be highlighted that they aim not so much at the need for a single conclusive proof but at the coherence and strength of the overall evidentiary framework.
Anyone who falls into the fallacy of the bad infinite therefore first of all shows an inability to place themselves in a synthetic vision.
THE FALLACY OF THE MEASUREMENT METER
The third fallacy is expressed like this: “Even if the vaccine had killed millions of people, Covid killed more, so it was worth it.”
Those who fall into this reasoning probably don't know that the real Covid deaths are much fewer than those indicated in the official statistics. Data from the ISS and regulatory authorities in other countries confirm that only between 3 and 5% of "Covid" deaths were people without serious previous pathologies. It is likely that in 2021 and 2022, with less lethal variants, the numbers will be even lower. Without even considering that with specific and simple treatments most of these people could have been saved.
It can therefore be said that, even in the completely imaginary hypothesis of 100% effectiveness, the anti-Covid inoculations could have perhaps avoided a few tens of thousands of deaths around the world. These are still very high numbers but they represent a minimal fraction of the 25 million excess deaths that the Economist and the WHO estimate have occurred in the world from 2021 to today. Not even a purely accounting calculation argues in favor of inoculations.
However, it is necessary to strongly state that this approach must be promptly abandoned, because it follows exactly the fallacy that we want to denounce, namely the claim to quantify a quality that cannot in any way be translated into numbers. Attributing a specific value to human life, whatever it may be, presupposes that it can be "weighed" and compared. We could then take it for granted that two lives weigh more than one, three lives more than two and so on. Yet, how many would say lightly that the life of two ninety-year-olds is worth more than the single life of a young person and that therefore, if necessary, this can be sacrificed to save the former? And if the young person were ill, would the weight change? And how many other people's lives is worth the life of our best friend?
If lives were measurable in terms of quantity, we should consequently conclude that it is a highly moral gesture to sacrifice the person whose killing the terrorists are asking for to free one hundred hostages. And it would be virtuous to murder a healthy person, because from that person one would obtain the organs to save ten others.
Reducing human lives to assets in a give-and-take game is equivalent to measuring time in kilometers and distances in kilograms. It is a fallacy that leads to nonsense, as well as the worst moral atrocities.
THE PETER PAN FALLACY
It is expressed with a sentence like this: “If the institutions say that vaccines are safe, then it will be true. At least the vaccines didn't cause all those deaths"
The flaw in the reasoning lies in excluding a priori that institutions can lie. It is the same psychological mechanism that prevents the abused child from admitting the possibility that the parent was evil, he will instead place the blame on himself. Thus, new Peter Pans, we who in the West have experienced a period of (relative) democracy, instinctively exclude from the list of possibilities that governments can lie to us and not act for the good of the people. We have quickly forgotten that every system of power implies a division of society into a very small minority that dictates and a very large majority that adapts to the provisions, and that the former is naturally inclined to protect its position of privilege, sometimes even with methods not morally acceptable.
The gap between rulers and subjects was clearly visible until two centuries ago and the ideas of divine right, castes, blood rights, or the power of arms, served to give it legitimacy on the level of the culture of the time. When, in the nineteenth century, the masses appeared on the stage of history demanding rights and equality, democracy seemed destined to fill the gap. But the right to vote and the adoption of some participatory mechanisms have not made much of a dent in the power scheme. Divine and blood rights have been replaced by the overwhelming difference in economic availability and the power it provides, perpetuating the oligarchy. On the one hand it has been able to progressively co-opt the "people's representatives" within itself, on the other it has made full use of the means of manipulation and control made available by the new science of social engineering. Bernays, one of the fathers of this science, explained it well already in 1928, in these words of his essay "Propaganda":
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the opinions and habits of the masses plays an important role in a democratic society, those who master this social device constitute an invisible power that truly directs the country.”
This is why what is still too little known must be brought to light, namely that there are countless cases in which "democratic" governments have used systematic lies, acted in the shadows and carried out unspeakable actions, even going so far as to sacrifice the lives of citizens for power interests. The list is too long to be exhaustive but we could mention in no particular order the sinking of the Lusitania, the MK-Ultra operation, the Portella della Ginestra massacre, Pearl Harbour, the projects for Operation Northwoods, the attacks linked to strategy of Italian tension, Gladio, the Ustica case, the Tavistock clinic experiments, the Mattei murder, the Timisoara massacre, Operation Bluemoon. All operations in which the institutions acted like the worst criminals.
And among the most shameless lies, on which hosts of PR agencies and spin doctors, how can we not at least remember the charade of the fake Kuwaiti nurse, who convinced the American population to join the Gulf War, and the artfully constructed videos of Islamic cutthroats?
Thinking that the lies of Power and its unscrupulous actions, necessarily cultivated in the shadows, have magically disappeared since the appearance of Western representative democracies is more or less equivalent to believing in fairy tales. As Agamben recalls, history is ultimately nothing but a history of "conspiracies" and always, in every place and at every time, the interests of the populations have been pursued only as long as they coincided with those of the caste in power.
It should also be remembered that the greater the interests, the more the good of the people takes second place and the more manipulation and lies prevail. There is no space here to illustrate the gigantic economic, geopolitical and military interests underlying the Covid scam. They have united private companies and public institutions in a perverse game, conquered by private interests since they opened up, especially international ones, to their financing.
The strength of this conditioning is often greatly underestimated. While it is common knowledge that Gates, through his Foundation and Gavi, competes with the United States to be the largest financier of the WHO, it is less known that funding for the Institute may be linked to specific projects. Those of Gates are all and commit the WHO to sponsor vaccination campaigns, from which Gates himself then benefits economically as a partner of many pharmaceutical companies, first of all Moderna.
After all, the field of health has always lent itself to the worst ignominies. On several occasions, pharmaceutical companies have marketed drugs whose toxicity they were aware of. Or they tested them directly on the unaware population, as Pfizer did in Kano, Nigeria. The experiment had tragic results, as you can learn more at the following link.
As far as national states are concerned, how can we think that they have any room for autonomy in the face of the power of financial entities that have assets much higher than their entire annual GDP, such as the largest US investment funds? What Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, denouncing its danger for democracy, has today made the definitive leap, taking possession of the space of public power, which previously stood before it as the last barrier. Added to this is the status of colonies that the countries of the Western world have compared to the USA. American interests, both the geopolitical ones and the financial ones of their companies, always prevail.
Here we end this long work on the lethality of Covid genetic pro-drugs.
I close with an invitation.
It is not aimed at the TTV gentlemen, I have little hope and even less interest in their regrets, they are people who are currently beyond redemption.
I appeal to those who are honestly interested in understanding.
The Covid scam is incredible and, for those who have not followed it step by step in recent years, an instinctive reaction of rejection when faced with such a gloomy picture is understandable.
But I ask you to be curious. Find out for yourself, find out, find out and find out some more. It is easy to verify how many times in the "democratic" era the institutions and pharmaceutical companies have acted against the people without any scruple.
You will find the unthinkable. And you will understand that the pandemic/vaccination scandal is not too surprising. Tragic as it may be, it is just the latest episode in recent history.
I am aware that this will be a difficult transition for you. Admitting that the person in whom you had full trust has betrayed, and continues to do so, means realizing at the same time that you have been abused and forces you to take on the pain of your own wound.
But crossing that passage is possible, as many who have already passed can testify.
If many others follow, the path will be easier for everyone afterwards.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento