"You did it to yourselves." Illusory Superiority/ Dunning Kruger & Milgram.
You may hate this article. If so, good.
The world’s population is now irreversibly demarcated by the Covid gene therapies: those who took them and those who did not. Two-and-a-half years after the gene therapies were deployed, the dosed population is further and multiply sub-divided. Subdivisions include:
Alive/prematurely dead
Uninjured/injured (gene therapy causally associated)/injured (gene therapy not causally associated)
Number of doses
Number of times “infected” with SARS-CoV-2
Responsible for others’ doses e.g. parent influencing child
Remorseful/unremorseful
Let’s consider two simple cases - the “undosed” and the “dosed remorseful”.
The Undosed
For some reason, in the UK, USA and EU, circa 20-30% of the population are undosed according to the data presented by Our World In Data, whose sources are public/official.
The BBC has been caught deliberately lying about the number of UK undosed in its “Unvaccinated” programme, one of whose presenters was mathematician, Hannah Fry. The BBC claimed that only 8% of the UK population was undosed, despite official datasets proving that claim false before it was made.
Two of the programme’s participants went on the record about how the BBC had misrepresented them and also misled them about the nature of the programme.
Professor Norman Fenton of Queen Mary University London (QMUL) has been pursuing a formal complaint against the BBC regarding the programme, which appears to be the most complained about in the BBC’s recent history. You can read into Professor Fenton’s complaint here, here and here. In summary, official UK datasets then showed up to 26% of the UK’s adult population is undosed and the data that the BBC used to claim 8% could be significantly skewed. In October 2021 QMUL’s Professors Norman Fenton & Martin Neil and Scott McLachlan published inconsistencies and obfuscations in UK official datasets (including getting the UK population size wrong) that have serious implications for the estimates of the number of undosed and also gene therapy efficacy and mortality rates, among other metrics. Will Jones’ Daily Sceptic article provides a useful round up of data issues.
The BBC multiply gaslighted and patronised viewers while also telling the undosed that they were in a smaller minority than they actually were, which is itself a deliberate form of manipulation via false marginalisation.
Reasons for “vaccine hesitancy”
So why are a quarter to a third of adults in the UK, EU and USA undosed? Johns Hopkins’ November 2021 article, “COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: 12 Things You Need to Know”, provides a basis of a framework for hesitancy.
JH = Johns Hopkins’ claim. RH = Reason for hesitancy.
JH: The COVID-19 vaccine was created quickly, but was carefully tested for safety.
RH: The gene therapies were created too quickly and inadequately tested for safety.
Resolution: the JH claim is multiply false, based upon manufacturer and regulator documentation that was available in Dec 2020, including Patent and SEC filings, ICMRA documentation and Phase 3 trial documents. Patent filings show that aspects of the gene therapies were not “created quickly” but have been in development for a long period of time. The development history is complex. Research into, for example, adenovirus viral vectors (the delivery mechanism for AZ, J&J and Sputnik V gene therapies) as early as 2007 stated:
Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown. The [adeno]virus activates platelets and induces platelet-leukocyte aggregate formation. There is an associated increase in platelet and leukocyte-derived microparticles. Adenovirus-induced endothelial cell activation was shown… We have also shown that adenovirus interferes with adhesion of platelets to a fibronectin-coated surface and flow cytometry revealed the presence of the Coxsackie adenovirus receptor on the platelet surface. We conclude that VWF and P-selectin are critically involved in a complex platelet-leukocyte-endothelial interplay, resulting in platelet activation and accelerated platelet clearance following adenovirus administration.
This single paper shows that Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia was known about 14+ years before it was attributed to the AZ gene therapy that was based on the exact technology (adenovirus) that was studied in the above paper and has been causally linked to VITT. That gene therapy has been quietly removed from use; so too has the J&J gene therapy.
As has been well-covered by many and stated by VST multiple times, the gene therapies were barely tested for short-term issues, and zero medium and long term testing was done. This is proven in regulatory documentation that acknowledges the products were novel and states the testing not done and the very limited scope and degree of testing that was done.
All of the above is sound basis for being hesitant on the grounds of inadequate testing in the face of long-standing knowledge of potential for harm in humans. Johns Hopkins is literally gaslighting the public with its claim, despite being a centre of expertise (or rather it’s gaslighting precisely because it’s a centre of expertise).
JH: COVID vaccine side effects are temporary and do not mean you’re sick.
RH: Side effects are unknown, not understood and might have lasting effects, including death.
Resolution: JH’s claim is false. Pfizer and AZ data prove manufacturers knew trial participants were suffering a wide range of side effects that were variable in duration and severity, with significant numbers being life-threatening and long duration or permanent. Furthermore, manufacturers consciously deleted or reclassified these participants and their results and thereby lied to regulators about product safety. Maddie de Garay and Brianne Dressen both sustained severe, debilitating and permanent injuries during the Pfizer and AZ trial, respectively. de Garay’s injury was reclassified and Dressen’s results were entirely removed from the data. Their mistreatment and side-lining by manufacturers and authorities was deliberate and orchestrated. The Pfizer clinical trial data that was forcibly released under FOIA has been subjected to ongoing third party analysis with findings published by Naomi Wolf’s Daily Clout. This data shows Pfizer knew that its gene therapy was unsafe but it and the regulator made false claims and deployed the products. Brooke Jackson blew the whistle on Pfizer trial fraud and is battling in court in the face of a recent adverse ruling.
The mechanism of action of the gene therapies (host cell production of spike protein) actually can be the source of side-effects and, given that the spike protein is toxic, the gene therapies’ induced side effects can indicate that the recipient is sick1. Extreme examples of such side effects can indicate myocarditis, pericarditis, VITT (all potentially fatal) and many other conditions.
Again, Johns Hopkins is literally gaslighting the reader.
JH: Diversity in COVID-19 vaccine testing helped assess safety and effectiveness.
RH: The trials lacked appropriate diversity given the scale of the roll out and therefore are inadequate in scope when it comes to safety and effectiveness.
Resolution: Racial/ethnic diversity is only part of testing. JH claims “older age groups (about 25%), and people with conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and heart and respiratory conditions” were included in trials but provides no references. Pfizer’s own data seems to be missing information. According to Daily Clout’s analysis “with 22% of patients having unknown outcomes, 35% not recovered at the time of the review, and 3.7% dead, Pfizer concludes that the benefits of taking their mRNA vaccine outweigh the risks. So another question arises: how can that conclusion be true?” How manufacturers researched the effects of their gene therapies on a broad range of conditions e.g. immunosuppression, autism, Factor V Leiden (increases blood clotting), latent viral infection e.g. shingles, remains either unclear or unknown, save for what analysis can be done on Pfizer’s trial data. When set in the context of an indiscriminate and global roll out aided by ignorant frontline doctors who parroted “safe and effective”, denied alternative treatments, refused to investigate injuries or associate them with the gene therapies, John’s Hopkins loose claim of diversity is largely meaningless and is unsubstantiated.
JH: Do you have allergies? You can probably still get the COVID-19 vaccine.
RH: I may be allergic to the contents. We don’t know why people are suffering from anaphylaxis. What testing has been done in people with specific allergies?
Resolution: Johns Hopkins reflects the blanket shift of blame and responsibility from manufacturers and regulators to frontline medics. The simple basis was those allergic to any of the declared ingredients should get an opinion from their medic. The problem is that most people have never been injected with some or possibly most of the ingredients, including mRNA, cDNA, LNPs and adenovirus viral vectors, so how would they know if they were allergic? Also, many, possibly most doctors lacked knowledge about the gene therapies and medical regulators and medics’ governing bodies threatened doctors to prevent them from issuing medical exemptions for many who may have deserved them on medical or precautionary logical reasons.
JH: People of color are especially vulnerable to severe COVID-19.
RH: In the USA people of color have been unwittingly medically experimented on by the authorities (see Tuskegee). The reason for this claim of racial vulnerability is not explained. Racial vulnerability should be demonstrated across the globe, not just within a given nation.
Resolution: There’s a major problem with Johns Hopkins’ claim. If we are to believe it, then we should see that there are severe outcomes across the whole of Africa, Asia and South America. This is not the case. In Africa, 30% of the population received at least one dose:
Despite this, African case numbers are a fraction of UK, USA and EU cases.
Confirmed African deaths are equal to UK deaths (despite African population of 1.5bn and UK of 69m) and are a fraction of US and EU deaths.
All of this makes a total mockery of Johns Hopkins’ claims.
JH: If you’ve already had COVID-19, getting the vaccine will add extra protection.
RH: Natural immunity has always been known to be better and longer lasting than any vaccine-based immunity. The vaccines were not explicitly tested for sterilizing immunity and do not induce sterilizing immunity. If my survival and recovery chances are 99.8%+ after contracting Covid-19, I prefer to risk infection and develop natural immunity than inject myself with a gene therapy. I’ve got natural immunity so I don’t need to get dosed.
Resolution: The trial designs and the lack of evidence that the induced B-cell antibody titers were directly associated with disease severity and resultant outcomes, combined with a lack of explicit testing in people “uninfected and recovered” and “infected and recovered” means that JH’s claim is highly dubious. It is based on one US study that claims undosed persons were 2.34 times more likely to be re-infected with Covid-19 than dosed persons. That study classed “infection” as anyone with a positive PCR test OR NAAT test in 2020, and “reinfection” being classed as such a person receiving another positive PCR OR NAAT test in 2021. No mention of identifiable symptoms of disease/illness are mentioned, meaning that there is no way the study distinguished between testing false positives or negatives, or accounted for test variables e.g. CT values. JH also makes claims about gene therapy efficacy, durability and performance against natural immunity which were always false and now accepted by the medical authorities to be false.
JH: Getting vaccinated for COVID-19 helps others in your community.
RH: I take medicine for my personal benefit, not the benefit of others. A vaccine that does not reduce transmission or prevent development of symptoms does not protect me or other people.
Resolution: JH is flat out lying and fails to deal with the hesitancy reasons. Its lies are egregious:
Since every COVID-19 infection gives the coronavirus a chance to mutate, being vaccinated helps prevent variants.
It is a long standing medical principle that medical treatment is given to individuals for their benefit, not for that of others. This is inherent in medical bodily autonomy. Even the concept of herd immunity does not require an entire population to be dosed.
Geert van der Bosche and others were repeatedly warning about “immune escape.” No successful mass vaccination strategy should be pursued during a pandemic because that act alone drives the selection of viral mutations that evade the vaccine-induced immunity. This, combined with “leaky” vaccines that provide only narrow protection based on, for example a single antigen e.g. just spike protein, means that only small viral mutations are required to evade vaccine induced immunity.
JH: More vaccinations for COVID-19 mean a chance to get back to normal.
RH: The co-ordinated efforts to exert extreme levels of control over society for a virus that is almost entirely survivable is a reason for suspicion. The extreme emphasis on global, high speed dosing despite lack of testing etc is suspicious. The use of mandates and coercion is suspicious. This claim is purely political and not scientific. I know less people who have died of or with Covid than I do who have been harmed or killed of or with a Covid gene therapy.
Resolution: JH’s claims about normality are false and totally unscientific. They are a form of politicised gaslighting and mental coercion that seek to force people to get dosed. Time has proven these claims to have no basis in science and to be totally political.
JH: Here’s what we know about pregnancy, breastfeeding and fertility concerns with the COVID-19 vaccines. Johns Hopkins Medicine agrees with and strongly supports… all pregnant or lactating individuals, along with those trying to get pregnant, be vaccinated against COVID-19.
RH: There has been no studies into the effects on human fertility, gestation and infants. Extremely limited animal fertility testing showed deformities in at least 10% of first generation offspring and did not evaluate the fertility of those offspring. We don’t know what effect spike protein (vaccine induced or viral) has on male or female fertility or the unborn.
Resolution: JH references their own page on pregnancy. However, it contains misleading language and false claims. At the time of publication, official human fertility testing of the gene therapies had barely begun and manufacturer data about negative pregnancy effects had been withheld from the public. It is now known that gene therapy induced spike protein is different to viral spike protein and both are toxic, that gene therapy LNPs can get into every body tissue type, can cross the blood brain barrier and possibly the placental barrier, and both gene therapy induced spike protein and mRNA are found in breastmilk and blood at least two weeks after dosing. Also, the duration of effect of the gene therapies i.e. how long they cause spike production in the dosed, may far exceed any guess that was publicised (a few days to a couple of weeks). Spike protein has been detected for six months plus in the dosed and it has been calculated that a single dose contains trillions of mRNA particles that last for an unknown duration in vivo.
JH: COVID-19 Vaccines: Time is of the essence.
RH: I wish to wait for as long as possible to see what effects are seen in the population. The principle of herd immunity means I can technically avoid being dosed. Case and death data is false due to dodgy definitions, testing flaws and assumed prevalence, therefore my odds of contracting Covid are likely less than is being made out. I do not wish to be rushed into any medical decision. This goes against van den Bosche’s recommendation to avoid mass vaccination in a pandemic.
Resolution: JH’s claim is false on multiple fronts. The vaccines do not perform in a way that stops the virus, so all reasons to get dosed, including time-based claims are rendered irrelevant. Mutations that evade the gene therapies are now admitted, in line with van den Bosche’s warnings. Also, Omicron is demonstrated to not be a naturally occurring mutation, but instead something specifically engineered and less dangerous.
JH: How can you decide if you should get the COVID-19 vaccine? Do your research: Your questions are important, and getting the right answers from reliable sources can add to your peace of mind. Talk to your family doctor and people you know who have been vaccinated and learn all you can about the COVID-19 vaccine so you can make the most informed decision about getting vaccinated.
RH: I’ve done research that shows how little testing and research has been done into the effects of these gene therapies on humans. I know people who have been injured by them. I know less people who have been injured by Covid than by the gene therapies. I am aware of the dodgy data and testing. Doctors I have questioned don’t know what underpins the “safe and effective” claims, and they don’t know how the gene therapies really work or their potential side effects. Doctors I have spoken to are not conversant with the published research I have read. Doctors and vaccinators are either mentally biased, financially biased or coerced into encouraging people to be dosed.
Resolution: JH’s claim is valid provided that you can get “the right answers” from “reliable sources”. JH itself is shown here to be an unreliable source, as are most medics and vaccinators who have been shown to be mass ignorant and unwilling to admit their ignorance and vested interests to patients. JH is effectively saying that “the right answers” are available only from the people with the greatest vested interest in telling the vaccine hesitant to get dosed i.e. vested interest medics and those who are already dosed. This claim is self-contradictory for those who have done serious research into primary sources in December 2020 or since, and yet JH is assuming that people will only talk to effectively biased or ignorant sources. This is a toxic assumption that employs signposting to those sources and away from primary research.
That’s 12 claims from one JH article all rubbished by research, data, time and technique, that often predates the publication date of the claims.
Note, none of the above hesitancy reasons include the more extreme concerns around vaccine ingredients or purposes, or their possible links to bigger schemes e.g. population control or depopulation. Such concerns are not to be ignored and some of them, particularly depopulation based on the acceleration of infertility and the acceleration of excess deaths, are of serious concern.
It remains VST’s position that no manufacturer, authority, institution or individual has managed to credibly and fully deal with ANY of the above hesitancy reasons. As time has passed, the case of being dosed has only worsened. Mandates have been dropped, some gene therapies have been totally withdrawn, some have been gradually taken out of use for those under 65, and so on. There is a hugely understated drawback from the overt and co-ordinated stance on dosing, but there remains the draconian legislative and infrastructure basis that enables everything to be repeated.
Where does this leave the undosed? More committed to their position than ever before, and grateful for their position. They are unlikely to ever accept any gene therapy and possibly never seek any form of vaccination ever again. An obvious construct suggests this would not be generally harmful for many societies. If you were born in or before the 1970’s it is likely that the only vaccines you ever received were DPT, BCG, Polio and tetanus. You may have received Yellow Fever (voluntary). If you received only those vaccinations and you are still alive today, why would anyone need any more than those vaccinations, especially a schedule of 65+ doses before the age of 21?
The Dosed Remorseful
In order for someone to have been dosed, they must have believed something even if that was just the credibility of the threat they were subjected to e.g. no jab, no job mandates, social exclusion, financial penalties. Anyone subject to a mandate can clearly say that they were effectively coerced into getting dosed. People subjected to a highly coercive environment could say similar.
In order to be now remorseful enough to reject further doses, those beliefs must have changed. What the dosed remorseful cannot credibly use as justification for a change of mind is:
“The Infection Fatality Ratio significantly changed.”
The IFR was always below 0.5% and for most it was below 0.2%:
Overall average IFR may be ~0.3%-0.4% in Europe and the Americas (~0.2% among community-dwelling non-institutionalized people) and ~0.05% in Africa and Asia (excluding Wuhan).
“We know more about the virus now than we did before.”
By May 2020 there were complete and effective treatment algorithms based on cheap, generic drugs and nutraceuticals, which prove that enough was known about the virus to treat it. These protocols were deliberately suppressed, side-lined, rubbished and shutdown by governments across the world. The drugs required were outlawed in the Western world yet still successfully used.
“We didn’t know about the manufacturer or regulatory shortcomings that we know about today.”
Most of the things the hesitant contingent have cited have been known about since before the global roll outs kicked in. Evidence has continued to accumulate on top of that.
“The mandate was appropriate for the circumstances at the time, which have now changed.”
The virus is not more deadly than it was (it was never a significant or otherwise untreatable threat).
Nothing done has affected the seeming global spread of the virus.
The existence of a significant control group in most territories totally contradicts justifications for interventions.
Retrospective research finds practically all measures have been valueless on a net basis.
For some reason - likely to include the belief in one or more of JH’s claims above or coercive force - ~70% of people dosed themselves. Remember, a majority of people voluntarily dosed themselves BEFORE mandates took effect. On mandates, look at this level of extreme, unscientific, political and sociopathic dogma:
The Australian approach was some of the most disgustingly simplistic, tasteless and offensive forms of political bullying in recent history. Canada and New Zealand are close joint second, differentiated only by a marginally more subtle initial approach that became as bad as Australia’s. Despite the open brutality, most of these nations’ citizens just went along with it.
In data terms, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were the most extreme and draconian Five Eyes nations, yet on a per million basis i.e. corrected for size of population, on a case and death basis, all three of them were bettered in outcome by Africa, who did close to nothing for a supposedly especially vulnerable population. Australia and New Zealand have the highest cumulative case counts (which could easily be attributable to testing strategy, tools, flaws, categorisation and data manipulation) in the most dosed populations.
In the UK, the only people who were technically forced to dose themselves were care home workers. They were the first group deliberately targeted by the UK government using a method of private outsourcing. The government mandated gene therapies for a group of private employees who were paid minimum wage and therefore had no labour power to resist personally or collectively. The mandates were likely illegally enforced by the private employers. When the mandates were then switched to the NHS, the resistance from the remaining 10% of undosed NHS staff was sufficient to stop the mandates. This undermined the ability for wider mandates in other sectors and demographics, but did not detract from various forms of private coercion and ongoing abuse of patients by the NHS e.g. forcing of mask use in order to be treated, which still exists despite there being no basis for this.
There appears to be an increasing number of overt dosed remorseful people in the form of the actual vaccine injured and those who now vocally object to what they did to themselves. Covertly, booster uptake across all ages and dosing of children seems to indicate that en masse, people are increasingly hesitant to continue dosing themselves and countries now dropping strong recommendations for people to get boosted.
On a simple level, the dosed remorseful either gave into pressure or believed the wrong thing. If they believed the right thing (even at the time), they wouldn’t be remorseful now as remorse stems from a retrospective change in understanding. The wrong thing was what made up the entire Covid narrative and the dosed, remorseful or otherwise, were either wittingly or unwittingly ignorant of whatever the undosed knew.
"You did it to yourselves."
Here’s where things get contentious. Anyone who is dosed in the absence of a mandate did it to themselves. Anyone who dosed their children or wards did it to their kids. In Nov 2021, VST published “Parents: Buy one get one free”:
Any child that suffers any injury or dies as a result of Covid-19 gene therapies is a totally avoidable, unnecessary and unjustifiable casualty. As Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and many others have repeatedly explained if Covid-19 presents less than 0.003% chance of hospitalisation or death to a child, any vaccine that is used must be more than 99.997% totally safe, otherwise the risk of using it on children is unjustified. Covid-19 gene therapies are not 99.997% safe.
You Are On Your Own - Your Child Only Has You
There is no meaningful insurance available for any citizen who suffers a Covid-19 gene therapy injury. The UK Government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme is woeful and the maximum total payout of £120,000 is tied to a 60%+ disablement threshold that must be conclusively causally tied to the gene therapy in question. This scheme is laughable and designed to not pay out. Just read into Pandemrix* and what the UK Government did in those cases. Gene therapy manufacturers are all indemnified. They are not legally liable. You are on your own. Your child only has you, unless the state takes you out of the equation. Would you leave your child alone with strangers who have an agenda?
If 13 year old Andrew is permanently or significantly injured by the gene therapy that he “chose” to have, he is going to have to also deal with the reality that he was his own worst enemy.
Buy one physical injury, get one psychological injury free.
There is more than the above to the article, and VST still stands by a key tenet of the article: although the state was potentially weaponizing Gillick competence to remove the parent from the dosing decision for children 12 and older, parents were still going to have to accept that it was they who dosed and possibly harmed their children. Further, as the article tried to demonstrate, the risk analysis basis employed by many parents could well have been utterly faulty.
This risk analysis applies to all individuals, but is dependent upon an ability to analyse risk and the information and data on which the analysis is based. If the majority of the dosed simply abrogated their responsibilities to the narrative spouters and failed to do any analysis of their own, then they bear the ultimate responsibility in the absence of meaningful, credible force.
This begs the question of exactly why anyone who had initial misgivings gave in if they weren’t subject to mandates or credible threats.
Matthias Desmet - Mass Formation
One model that has been put forward to explain why so many people went along and still go along with the Covid narrative is the theory of “mass formation”:
It’s a specific kind of group formation that makes people radically blind to everything that goes against what the group believes in. In this way, they take the most absurd beliefs for granted. To give one example, during the Iran revolution in 1979, a mass formation emerged and people started to believe that the portrait of their leader—Ayatollah Khomeini—was visible on the surface of the moon. Each time there was a full moon in the sky, people in the street would point at it, showing each other where exactly Khomeini’s face could be seen.
A second characteristic of an individual in the grip of mass formation is that they become willing to radically sacrifice individual interest for the sake of the collective. The communist leaders who were sentenced to death by Stalin—usually innocent of the charges against them—accepted their sentences, sometimes with statements such as, “If that is what I can do for the communist party, I will do it with pleasure.”
Thirdly, individuals in mass formation become radically intolerant for dissonant voices. In the ultimate stage of the mass formation, they will typically commit atrocities toward those who do not go along with the masses. And even more characteristic: they will do so as if it is their ethical duty. To refer to the revolution in Iran again: I’ve spoken with an Iranian woman who had seen with her own eyes how a mother reported her son to the state and hung the noose with her own hands around his neck when he was on the scaffold. And after he was killed, she claimed to be a heroine for doing what she did.
Mass formation is group-based and, according to Desmet, dependent upon certain factors like lack of purpose or meaning to one’s life. However, there are other factors that work on the individual basis that tie into the bigger picture that VST believes are key contributing factors, separate to mass formation.
Dunning Kruger Effect/Illusory Superiority
On a scale of one to 10, you probably think you're a seven. And you wouldn't be alone.
While it's impossible for most people to be above average for a specific quality, people think they are better than most people in many arenas, from charitable behavior to work performance.
The phenomenon, known as illusory superiority, is so stubbornly persistent that psychologists would be surprised if it didn't show up in their studies, said David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell who has studied the effect for decades.
Illusory superiority is also known as the Superiority Illusion, the ‘better than average’ bias, or the ‘illusion of confidence’. It is a cognitive bias that is similar to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Illusory superiority is when a person widely overestimates their abilities. Don’t be confused, however, because illusory superiority isn’t about being confident and capable. It specifically describes people who are unaware of their lack of abilities but mistakenly believe these abilities to be much greater than they are.
Dunning & Kruger first identified this illusion of superiority in their study ‘Unskilled and Unaware of it’. Researchers gave grammar tests to college students and found two interesting results.
The worse a student performed, the better they rated their abilities, whereas the best student underestimated how well they had done.
In other words, illusory superiority describes how the more incompetent a person is, the more they overestimate their ability. Depressive realism is the term for people who are competent that dramatically underestimate their abilities.
[The Dunning Kruger] cognitive bias occurs when people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or incompetence — at a task and consider themselves to be more competent than they actually are.
This psychological bias, where a person believes themselves to be smarter and more competent than they actually are, was first identified in Kruger and Dunning’s 1999 study “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments“.
In essence, it shows how people with low ability do not have the necessary critical ability and self-awareness to recognize how low their ability actually is. This leads to them having a superior view of their own competence and knowledge.
Dunning and Kruger found that the most dangerous situation is when people have some knowledge about a subject rather than when they know nothing about it.
Interestingly, Dunning and Kruger showed that as you begin to learn more about a subject or become more skilled at a task, you begin to rate your ability less favorably. You become aware of all that you do not know about a subject.
How would Illusory Superiority apply to belief in the Covid narrative? If we ask ourselves simple, relevant questions, we get an indication of where this bias could influence someone’s disposition towards the narrative.
Are you good at assessing the authenticity of the presented narrative?
Are you good at assessing the relative risks the narrative is presenting?
Are you good at finding, analysing and using broad ranges and credible sources of information?
Are you a good judge of who to trust and on what they should be trusted?
Are you open-minded?
Are you a credentialist?
Are you ignorant of things in life and on the specifics of the Covid narrative?
We could go on, but you get the idea. Those questions deliberately suggest a false binary answer of yes/no, when really the question is “how good are you at…?” Someone subject to the bias is more likely to convince themselves that what they are listening to, how they are thinking and what they know is all good enough and adequate if not better than anyone else, even if they are only watching BBC and “analysing” whether the BBC should be believed. VST has directly encountered this exact situation in board level management on both the Covid narrative and the Ukraine conflict. A highly intelligent and multiply qualified manager (MBA and law degree) claimed that they were well informed on both because they followed the BBC (“the best independent journalism in the world”) and The Guardian. They couldn’t have been more wrong. The same person also believed that the CDC was the US authority that granted drug approval, and that the CDC had fully approved the Covid gene therapies. When presented with more detailed aspects of the Covid narrative, they were utterly ignorant and became rapidly defensive. What they were unaware of was their own inability to consider any other information that conflicted with their chosen sources of narrative to the point that they actively rejected a Depressive Realist presenting them with extensive, conflicting primary research that they could not otherwise refute. In essence, they were saying “I’m clever and so the information I pay attention to cannot be wrong or misleading. If it were, I would be clever enough to identify its shortcomings (even though I do not seek out conflicting information with which to challenge those sources or myself).”
Where Dunning Kruger kicks in is in the specificity of a task or topic. VST posits that it is the Covid narrative itself that gives the audience just a little bit of information about the virus and the gene therapies through the broadcast and mainstream media, which is enough to convince people that they are well informed. They take on the slogans, vocabulary and lexicon of the narrative but lack true or deep understanding and therefore are unable or unwilling to analyse the narrative and its and their own shortcomings. An example of this is the gene therapy mechanism. If you take the narrative at face value, the gene therapies tell your body to make spike protein and then your body learns to deal with it. Hey presto, immunity develops. But, just a little more knowledge and critical analysis quickly reveals that to do so triggers destructive autoimmune responses. This leads to questions of location, duration, controllability and ultimate consequence. Once this is realised and understood, it becomes impossible to accept the “safe and effective” claim without significant proof, which has never existed. Those suffering from IS/DK would never have even asked themselves these questions because of their unwitting ignorance.
Milgram
The well-known Milgram study suggested that approximately two thirds of people will generally go along with the instructions provided to them by an accepted authority figure such as a doctor, even if the credentials are not fully established and the consequences of those instructions can be understood to be fatal towards a stranger.
In the case of Covid, this degree of compliance actually manifested in self-administered harm and exposure of family and loved ones to unknown, potential harm e.g. children and dependent family members. People pressured themselves and their spouses for a reason as facile as “so we could travel”, all based off the false claims of people in pseudo authority positions. When one looks at the qualifications and validity of most of the people instructing society to get dosed, the vast majority, perhaps 90%+ are vastly unqualified to make those statements and many who were technically qualified actually lacked credible, specific knowledge. Most doctors and nurses are proven to be in this category as they all lack deep knowledge about vaccination in specific terms and have close to zero knowledge about mRNA/cDNA gene therapies. Perfect cases in point include none other that Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Aseem Malhotra and the 38 dead Canadian doctors. All of these people were/are doctors who dosed themselves on false grounds (Malone’s was to travel and for a rumour of long Covid benefit), Malhotra literally repeated the “anti-vax conspiracy theorist” accusations on TV before his father died from the gene therapies, and the 38 dead Canadian doctors were from mixed fields. What all of this shows is that doctors are not, by default, knowledgeable or qualified to assess the validity of the Covid narrative just by virtue of being a medical doctor. In these cases, Illusory Superiority/DK, Milgram-based compliance and perhaps mass formation could all be considered as factors. Therefore, literally why the fuck would any other person blindly follow the instructions provided by any of these doctors? Milgram.
What are/were you? What are you going to do about it?
If you are dosed remorseful, have you clearly and deliberately assessed, in detail, the reasons why you are? If you have not, it is worth asking yourself why you have not done this analysis. Failure to do so leaves you vulnerable to the same techniques of manipulation in the future.
If you are undosed, you should be honest about the reason why. Just because you are undosed does not mean that you are actually smarter or more capable. To believe this could be a demonstration of the IS/DK effect, just from the other side.
When we consider the cumulative effect of IS/DK, Milgram and Mass Formation, what we need to consider is:
The danger of the unrealised level of ignorance and lack of self-awareness and knowledge across all levels of society;
That all people have biases that they are not consciously aware of that can be exploited;
The group effect is far, far stronger than the vast majority of people will openly admit, even as they are dragged into bad places by it;
Any narrative consciously plays on these shortcomings in humans and therefore work on the majority of people;
Narrative patterns (timing, delivery, format, content, construct) can be used alone to determine credibility to significant degree, before detailed specifics are analysed;
Failure to question the narrative is an individual failure. Blind trust is never, ever deserved.
Sadly, the Covid narrative’s close proximity to the Ukraine war narrative shows us that humans can be repeatedly duped over and over. Worse still, someone who spots one thing can still get duped by the same methods applied to a different topic.
VST has said it before but will say it again. The biggest false narrative that follows the same pattern as Covid and Ukraine is Anthropogenic Global Warming. That narrative is contradicted multiply by data, failed predictions, faulty logic, the actions of those in power and with resources, and by the narrative itself.
Trouble is, at least 66% of the world still listens to the men in white coats, while telling themselves that they are smart enough to work out the most complex system known to man (earth’s climate) within which we have created a narrative that those believers aren’t bothering to critique.
Never assume competence. Never trust the mob; always be wary of it. Trust must always be earned. Trust but verify is essential and always your responsiblity. Your ignorance is your responsibility. Irreversibly injecting yourself with a gene therapy is not like injecting any other drug, or buying any other product. Abrogating your responsibility to others who turn out to not know what they are talking about is ultimately your failing.
Now, does anyone know how the German population went along with the Nazi regime? We’d never do that, would we?
“Source: Daniel B. Demers PhD. “Report 05: Pfizer mRNA Construct – Why Spike Protein Causes Disease”
In a 2005 article, Kuba demonstrated that SARS-CoV spike protein injected into mice worsened their lung disease (Kuba, 2005).
In 2008, Wang et al. demonstrated that the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV leads to internalization of ACE2, resulting in downregulation and subsequent lung injury (Wang et al., 2008). The authors concluded that “because the RBD spike binding to ACE2 contributes to SARS pathogenesis, the use of subunit
vaccines based on RBD spike should be considered carefully.”
Wang et al. (2020) and Semimukai et al. (2020) noted that recombinant spike protein induced antibodies in mice and protected against SARS-CoV infection, but lung eosinophilic immunopathology was observed in the immunized mice after SARS infection.
Elizabeth M. Rhea and her co-authors reported on-line in December 2020 and published in March 2021 (Rhea et al., 2021) that S1 subunit labeled with radioiodine (I-S1) readily crosses the mouse blood-brainbarrier (BBB) and could explain the adverse effects of S1 and/or SARS-CoV-2 such as encephalitis, respiratory difficulties and reduced ability to smell. I-S1 was also detected in kidney, liver and spleen.
In January 2021, Letarov et al. published an article in the journal Biochemistry (Moscow), titled Free Sars-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Particles May Play a Role in the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 Infection (Letarov et al., 2021). They noted that the upregulation of cell surface expression of ACE1 and/or downregulation of ACE2 can lead to pulmonary damage. This occurs during SARS infection and by recombinant SARS-CoV spike protein. They hypothesize that S1 molecules carry intact RBDs, and their binding to ACE2 may induce ACE2 downregulation and deleterious downstream effects such as increased inflammation, thrombosis, and pulmonary damage.
Letarov et al. (2021) also reference the work of Zhang et al. (2020) who elucidated a spike protein mutation in SARS-CoV-2 (the D614G variant) that is associated with increased infectivity but reduced S1 shedding and mild symptoms. This is further evidence that the spike protein is responsible for pathogenesis.
Nuovo et al. (2021, posted online Dec. 2020) reported on the endothelial cell damage caused by the S1 subunit of the spike protein. They reported two main findings: 1) Human COVID-19 cases demonstrated microvessel endothelial damage in the brain and other organs, including the skin, due to circulating spike protein that induces cytokine production resulting in microencephalopathy; and 2) injection of the S1 full-length spike subunit into mice (but not the S2 subunit) induced an equivalent microvascular encephalopathy as seen in human COVID-19 cases. The authors further note that although their study “focused on the brain, it should be stressed that there are other sites where there is a rich bed of microvessels with the ACE2 receptor, including skin/subcutaneous fat and the liver. As has been documented in human patients, microvessels at these sites can also display an endothelialitis that, in the skin/fat can induce complement activation/hypercoagulable state and the so called cytokine storm typical of fatal COVID-19.”
“In sum, the data presented indicates that the full length S1 subunit of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 alone is capable, without the infectious virus, of inducing systemic microendothelial cell damage in mice with a cognate pattern of complement activation and increased cytokine expression and the concomitant thrombosis/hypercoagulable state. This disease pattern strongly parallels the extra-pulmonary manifestation of severe human COVID-19 and suggests that the latter may not represent systemic infectious virus. Thus, prevention of the CNS disease so common in severe COVID-19 may require neutralization/removal of the circulating pseudovirus.”
Lei et al. (April 2021) created a pseudovirus exhibiting spike protein but containing no virus inside and concluded that the spike protein alone is sufficient to cause damage to the vascular endothelial cells
In December 2020, I was desperately trying to find a way to get the new covid vaccine shot early for both me and my family. But then, I heard a few dissenters. They were doctors. They were scientists. They were researchers. I carefully read and considered their arguments. I never presumed to know more than those on either side nor understand completely the complexity of the virology and immunology involved. These dissenters challenged, but were never seriously engaged by the those in government or the community. They were never rebutted point by point. They were either loons or they held serious, legitimate concerns. I decided to remain vaccine-free. More than not having any regrets, I am relieved and eternally grateful to those who risked everything and spoke up.
No, I don't hate the article, I hate big pharma and all their poison drugs. I don't care for the entire stone age medical mafia. I will not be forced to inject anything into my body and I have no control over anyone else's health. We should all be free to make our own decisions as adults and what you decide is your choice, not mine. I am not responsible for the outcomes of some other person's choices. If I don't get your poison mRNA injections and I die, so be it. I died a free man. You can never in a million years prove that any vaccine or mRNA injection will save any life.