It's Getting X-Citing

Or It May Just Be My Algorithm

I do, at times, think why I bother to stay on X? But, I was an early adopter, even was using it’s predecessor, Jaiku, which after a number of google queries managed to remember the name on my own. So, one point for the guy who sometimes forgets why he even rolled across the room, or where his complete thoughts were going in a paragraph.

A couple of weeks ago, my notifications jumped to 20+ a day, which is unusual for me. Were these notifications from friends from my youth who wanted to catch up with me on my latest Martian drawing, which they remembered me making in the third grade? Was it from extended family concerned about what should be done about plans for upcoming family functions? Maybe a cadre of friends looking to do an unprecedented D&D campaign?

Of course not, it was around five people who were tag-teaming me about viruses. Or in the parlance of what they say, “crying about doing something I don’ wanna do!”

According to them, I am a virus denier. I think a better way of putting it is a “virus agnostic.” But far from me to demand that other people adhere to my adjectives. My adjectives, like my pronouns, are “your” and “choice.”

This week, in particular, I did deeper dives into smallpox and polio. Each time I encounter a virus and think, “well, certainly there will be a problem here where the ‘no virus’ theory does not properly address it. And then—hold my cocktail of undetermined ingredients, it gets complicated.

I didn’t know that there was pretty much a terrain theory going around since the advent of virology. But it’s there, we just never heard about it in school, highschool, or higher education. But I am no biologist and chemist, and there might indeed be long talks and discussions about it, and imagine what they must think of any other theory other than germ theory. It has to be given its due diligence, right?

I am pretty much all Dunning/no Kruger on what I don’t know. Very confident that I have reached expert status in what I don’t know. My question often is

“Why isn’t everyone else?”

I knew that there always has been dissent to the virus|vaccine narrative, heard passing words about it, but I managed to read a couple papers on it, as well as some overview on the history of virology as well as the type of people "these early pioneers” were. Just the origins of vaccination alone should send up red flags, flares, smoke signals, and emphatic semaphore gestures of issues. Grinding the spines of corpses into a powder?

X:Factor: The Inciting Event

First, the inciting event, the original post was a X account called “Outbreak Updates” and you can imagine what the various posts are throughout the day. They are “sky is falling” updates about measles, tuberculosis, and the bird flu. I imagine there is money in keeping the fear train going. There is certainly no money in trying to derail it, or followers, or any sort of response. But as most know, If it bleeds, it leads. Nothing bleeds more than a good pandemic, or a possible pandemic story. The story itself was concerning “two new cases of measles found in some obscure town in the US.” Run away! Stop drop and roll! It’s the end of the world!

Under one of the responses is someone asking the question,” Is this healthy? I stated that it is normal to become infected with a mild disease.

From there, I received the usual things you would expect.

A lot of augmenting the measles symptoms. “Mild death,” I believe, was one of the terms my dissenters used.

A lot of focus on “the children” but ignoring childhood accidents, which is THE leading cause of children's deaths. Look on their X profile, I wonder how often the leading cause of childhood fatalities is discussed in their ongoing tweets…I hope your sitting down, there is no results from “childhood accidents” in their account. So for someone so concerned about children, very little care is taken about the leading cause of death among them.

So much easier, apparently, to demand everyone get a measles vaccine to save 500 people a year (including children) vs. maybe thinking of childproofing all manner of things to prevent accidents. Common sense things like locking your guns in a gun locker. having a properly locked gate around a pool, keeping toxic things out of reach of small children.

That’s just the beginning, though, as there is also:

• A lot of ad hominem attacks.

I’ve talked about this before, and thankfully, this week, one of the dissenters, when he mistook my insulting myself as insulting the other people around me, stated (I am paraphrasing) “insulting people is basically waving the white flag.” Indeed, it is. They mistake my calling out as ad hominem, and I agree it is annoying to do so, as “crying about being mocked.” That’s not why I do it at all. It is exposing the quality of their argument.

Ironically, though, he kept reposting one of the accounts that was attacking me personally.

• A lot of other logical fallacies.

In addition to ad hom, there is “appeal to experts, bandwagon, and strawman arguments. I can’t tell you how many times I dealt with “summarizations” of my positions that weren’t even close to them. This is what straw man attacks are. I too could simply knock down my own arguments if I made the same sort of “revisions” to the positions that clearly were not the positions taken.

For instance, one of the issues surrounding measles vaccination is that before the vaccine was introduced, only 500 out of 150 million people in the US at the time died from measles each year. This is all people, not just children. My assertion that getting a mild disease is part of normal life did not bode well for them. They think that me not getting a vaccine is synonymous with “being okay with children dying.”

Also, as usual, I was asked about my published research papers concerning smallpox, measles, or polio. Remember, if you dissent from the narrative, you have to be a PhD, but if you affirm the narrative, your education isn’t questioned.

• A lot of gaslighting

There was a long-standing part of the interaction where, earlier in the conversation concerning the work of Alfred Wallace, registrar records indicated that smallpox infection rates were the same among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. And that in a town of mostly unvaccinated people, their infection rates dropped after rains cleaned out naturally the sewers of and English down. When confronted and asked about what toxins were present in the sewage that caused smallpox, I conceded I did not know, but wouldn’t have infection and mortality rates have stayed the same if the cause of smallpox were a virus, and not due to environmental toxins?

Later on, smallpox on blankets was brought up by them asking again what could be the source of smallpox…or what toxins were on the smallpox blankets. I stated that due to my answer to the same question in another similar context, the answer was the same. I understand that I could have simply said “Like in the previous example, my answer is still the same, since I was not there, and no one else extracted samples of the filth of various London towns where the smallpox outbreak occurred, nor where the smallpox blankets were taken from poorly maintained and cleaned “smallpox hospitals” the toxins in the sewage, and on poorly cleaned blankets are unknown.

Then I could have stated, “Also, so we are clear, any other outbreaks or situations where smallpox is mentioned, and I am asked about the specific toxins that could have been present, the answer will be the same: I don’t know.”

Instead of asking Grok which despite its limitations, can actually give decent answers regarding what is and is not said in a given interaction on X, or doing an advanced search, there are simple ways people can figure out if content was covered, and asking the same question in a different context was, and as it was asked repeatedly, badgering.

A lot of sharing studies that defend the narrative, but don’t explain about the “not following the science” of having proper control experiments to the way that “viruses” are cultured and isolated.

Bottom line: There was a time when I, too, thought that any talk against vaccination was crazy. Jenny McCarthy in my mind, was the well-crafted version of Charlie McCarthy. But because of the constant pressure against those who dissent against taking experimental injections, they have coerced many of us to look into not only mRNA “vaccines” but to check out the background behind vaccines and virology to begin with.

Turns out, the foundation is shaky and sketchy.

No wonder they keep turning up the ad hominem and logical fallacy volume to 11.

What is it so people are afraid to hear?