There is much wisdom in this post but one can argue that there is too little context, or at least too little when viewed by an outsider. Like a poem, it seems meant for all people in all eras, rather than for some people, in some situation or circumstance. Just like a poem, it is long on truth, but short on context.
For a non-insider, who is it that you refer to when you mention "Lexi"? I can see the screenshot you added -- and I presume that it pictures "Lexi" -- but as you wisely said, screenshots can never replace argument.
Your assessment of the style is a fair observation. I can say it was intentional. We chose to keep the piece broad and less tied to specific examples. We wanted it to be less about laying out a specific case in this instance and more about expressing principles that could prehaps resonate across many situations encountered, even if that means it comes across as lighter on context.
Calling people “keyboard warriors” while melting down in a comment section with keyboard threats is a level of self-awareness worth studying, especially while appearing to be actively auditioning for the role.
An interesting article, excellent, but carefully deficient in one central and most important regard, not a single mention of 'ethics' throughout. This omission seems reliably revealing and occurs on several platforms alleging to 'fight the good fight'.
Indeed, one might legitimately view this as a form of controlled opposition.
Ample remarks concerning and directed toward, "transparent, accountable, and evidence-based"... but 'ethics' and their explicit derogation nationally and internationally (UN Siracusa Principles for example) glaringly left the room, supplanted by the rank opportunism observed in BigPharma, national politicians, the risible Bafflement Brigade, and the shadowy caricatures on the cave wall in the flickering flames that inhabit the World of the Parasite, ordering and directing the axes of incoherence and chaos.
Maybe one day, the remaining people will realise that they never stood a chance in the face of the uninformed product knowledge and an absence of fully informed consent. Had they been, most would likely have headed for the hills. Moreover, the falsification of virology has progressed so well in the post hoc carnage following 2020 that many now appear well aware of the extant and of the robust falsification of a 'contagious, self-replicating obligate intracellular parasite'.
Meanwhile, we collectively head toward UNEP/WEF Agenda 2030, that absurd destitutional nonsense nailed, screwed and glued to the supranational mast head by the Parasites, this much is beyond obvious, as indeed is the possibility of its failure.
With that in mind then, when left with no choice and nothing left to lose, withdrawal of social license and submission to government appear the wisest choices to precipitate the failure of those seeking to impose tyranny.
I'm sorry the specific word dear to Spinoza hasn't been mentioned in this article, LatusDextro.
However if it escaped you that ethical behavior is an obvious underlying concern of the article, it's a comprehension problem.
You mention "controlled opposition". Can you provide one inaccurate information I have printed, between my various articles covering *actual* controlled opposition figures (Latypova, Ruby, Makis, Ethical Desceptik..) ; or my articles exposing pharmaceutical frauds (such as my very lengthy dismantlement of the Pfizer trial)?
Thank you for your generous reply and important work. Opined in your commentary it is stated that, "People who speak in the name of truth and freedom often present themselves as beyond suspicion," which alludes to the point I made in my response.
The omission of established 'ethics' in your valuable commentary nevertheless appears as seminal as the omission of 'informed consent'. Sadly, as you likely know this has occurred relentlessly since 2020 and still remains an astonishing cultivated blindness upon which the extant psy-ops relies. Indeed it appears explicit the Yale study: James et al. (2021); Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions; (a 'study' that took place before even a barrelled shot was present that disingenuously conceded it was a "study limitation.").
The studious omission of these cardinal pillars (ethics and consent) in any medical treatment raises reasonable attention to a striking omission in an otherwise valid and useful commentary.
In the light then of such omissions that arise a literal country-mile prior to, "transparent, accountable, and evidence-based," it appeared reasonable to the state that 'one might legitimately view this as a form of controlled opposition'.
The operative word here remains 'might'.
To also paraphrase your commentary that underscores your own reply implying a 'comprehension' you suggest that appears absent: "It should reward restraint, precision, correction, and evidence."
The derogation of <ethics> and erasure of <informed consent> must remain as central tenets to any analysis. While their absence lies at the heart of the current assault, does it not still remain (at least theoretically) at the heart of evidence based medicine? (Dawes et al. 2005. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice BMC Medical Education 2005, 5:1 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-5-1).
Brilliant. I needed this. Just parted ways with a group that seemed bent on "protecting identity" rather than defending the truth.
Thank you.
Then you made the right move !
Thanks to you 🙏
There is much wisdom in this post but one can argue that there is too little context, or at least too little when viewed by an outsider. Like a poem, it seems meant for all people in all eras, rather than for some people, in some situation or circumstance. Just like a poem, it is long on truth, but short on context.
For a non-insider, who is it that you refer to when you mention "Lexi"? I can see the screenshot you added -- and I presume that it pictures "Lexi" -- but as you wisely said, screenshots can never replace argument.
Your assessment of the style is a fair observation. I can say it was intentional. We chose to keep the piece broad and less tied to specific examples. We wanted it to be less about laying out a specific case in this instance and more about expressing principles that could prehaps resonate across many situations encountered, even if that means it comes across as lighter on context.
Good point - I sometimes forget that my readers aren't a static list.
Lexi's story has been covered in this article.
https://blog.openvaet.info/p/alexis-lexi-budzon-and-the-failures
I added an hyperlink on her name so that it's easier to find for the next readers ; thanks !
This article was beautifully written! So good to read a perfect article. Thank you!
You're most welcome, a pleasure to read you as well 🙏
Calling people “keyboard warriors” while melting down in a comment section with keyboard threats is a level of self-awareness worth studying, especially while appearing to be actively auditioning for the role.
Take a bit of rest and come back in 30 days (or never) when you have cooled down!
Pray you don’t get a chance to talk to me face to face.
An interesting article, excellent, but carefully deficient in one central and most important regard, not a single mention of 'ethics' throughout. This omission seems reliably revealing and occurs on several platforms alleging to 'fight the good fight'.
Indeed, one might legitimately view this as a form of controlled opposition.
Ample remarks concerning and directed toward, "transparent, accountable, and evidence-based"... but 'ethics' and their explicit derogation nationally and internationally (UN Siracusa Principles for example) glaringly left the room, supplanted by the rank opportunism observed in BigPharma, national politicians, the risible Bafflement Brigade, and the shadowy caricatures on the cave wall in the flickering flames that inhabit the World of the Parasite, ordering and directing the axes of incoherence and chaos.
Maybe one day, the remaining people will realise that they never stood a chance in the face of the uninformed product knowledge and an absence of fully informed consent. Had they been, most would likely have headed for the hills. Moreover, the falsification of virology has progressed so well in the post hoc carnage following 2020 that many now appear well aware of the extant and of the robust falsification of a 'contagious, self-replicating obligate intracellular parasite'.
Meanwhile, we collectively head toward UNEP/WEF Agenda 2030, that absurd destitutional nonsense nailed, screwed and glued to the supranational mast head by the Parasites, this much is beyond obvious, as indeed is the possibility of its failure.
With that in mind then, when left with no choice and nothing left to lose, withdrawal of social license and submission to government appear the wisest choices to precipitate the failure of those seeking to impose tyranny.
I'm sorry the specific word dear to Spinoza hasn't been mentioned in this article, LatusDextro.
However if it escaped you that ethical behavior is an obvious underlying concern of the article, it's a comprehension problem.
You mention "controlled opposition". Can you provide one inaccurate information I have printed, between my various articles covering *actual* controlled opposition figures (Latypova, Ruby, Makis, Ethical Desceptik..) ; or my articles exposing pharmaceutical frauds (such as my very lengthy dismantlement of the Pfizer trial)?
Just one will suffice, thanks.
Thank you for your generous reply and important work. Opined in your commentary it is stated that, "People who speak in the name of truth and freedom often present themselves as beyond suspicion," which alludes to the point I made in my response.
The omission of established 'ethics' in your valuable commentary nevertheless appears as seminal as the omission of 'informed consent'. Sadly, as you likely know this has occurred relentlessly since 2020 and still remains an astonishing cultivated blindness upon which the extant psy-ops relies. Indeed it appears explicit the Yale study: James et al. (2021); Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions; (a 'study' that took place before even a barrelled shot was present that disingenuously conceded it was a "study limitation.").
The studious omission of these cardinal pillars (ethics and consent) in any medical treatment raises reasonable attention to a striking omission in an otherwise valid and useful commentary.
In the light then of such omissions that arise a literal country-mile prior to, "transparent, accountable, and evidence-based," it appeared reasonable to the state that 'one might legitimately view this as a form of controlled opposition'.
The operative word here remains 'might'.
To also paraphrase your commentary that underscores your own reply implying a 'comprehension' you suggest that appears absent: "It should reward restraint, precision, correction, and evidence."
The derogation of <ethics> and erasure of <informed consent> must remain as central tenets to any analysis. While their absence lies at the heart of the current assault, does it not still remain (at least theoretically) at the heart of evidence based medicine? (Dawes et al. 2005. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice BMC Medical Education 2005, 5:1 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-5-1).
Thank you for your important work.