Specious Anti-Establishment "Logic" Only Makes the In-Fact Evil Establishment Seem Innocent, Which is a Bad Thing to Do

Those arguing that the establishment is deliberately trying to kill us with SARS-COV-2 and Covid-19 vaccines should avoid commonly used specious "logic" and rely only on proper logic and evidence

When people make a strong anti-establishment assertion (namely that the establishment is deliberately trying to kill lots of us) with specious (false) logic, it only makes the establishment look more INNOCENT. I don’t like it when the establishment is made to look more innocent.

Below are some examples of specious anti-establishment “logic.” When people employ such “logic” in their arguments, as unfortunately many good people do, the effect is to make logical people think that ALL arguments against the establishment are probably just as foolish. Let’s not do that!

Example #1

Some people say:

“There is a fascinating moment in a proceeding in January 2017 before Trump is inaugurated, where Fauci reports to an audience that "there will be an event" during Trump's presidency...a prescient prediction that proved true. How could Fauci have known this? Because he is deep state, and based on need to know, was in the know.”

Listen to exactly what Fauci’s words were in this video of his talk.

It is clear that Fauci was warning of what ANY expert in infectious diseases would have warned a new administration in 2017 about the threat of known chronic and surprise pandemic infectious diseases, given the history of such things (see the chart below about pandemics in history.) Fauci’s talk did not incriminate him, and to say that it did only makes the accuser seem foolish.

It is specious logic to argue that Fauci’s statements in 2017 prove he knew SPECIFICALLY that there would be a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the year 2020, rather than that he merely knew the perpetual risk of a surprise pandemic was clear from past experience and that preparations for dealing with such a pandemic are, as they always have been, necessary.

Postscript May 17, 2024: It turns out that Fauci has been making such warnings (to emphasize to politicians the importance of funding his NIAID work) over the years for a long time. Fauci was no doubt more-than-usually worried about cuts to his NIAID research at the beginning of the Trump administration because Trump was threatening to make massive cuts to science and medicine funding. This would explain Fauci’s increased alarmism about a possible ‘surprise pandemic.’:

“CMAJ. 2017 Jun 12; 189(23): E812–E813.

“Massive cuts to science and medicine in Trump budgetThe budget proposed by United States President Donald Trump calls for “massive cuts” to spending on medical and scientific research, public health and disease-prevention programs, and health insurance for low-income Americans and their children. It has drawn intense criticism from many corners, including scientists, physicians and politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties. The only good thing about this “horror” of a budget, according to one pundit, is that it will likely get “eviscerated in Congress.” [source here]

Here are some videos of Fauci telling politicians over the past years how important it was to keep funding the NIAID because of the very real threat of pandemics and bioterrorism:

a. In 2002 Fauci explains how the NIAID is doing crucial work to protect against numerous bioterrorism threats

b. In 2005 Fauci warns of the possibility of influenza pandemics. He says, “I think what this reflects, this activity, is a need and a concern about being prepared for a worse case scenario. When you think in terms of the possibility of a pandemic there is a broad spectrum of possibility as to whether it will come and if so whether it will be really serious,” etc. [rough transcript here]

c. In 2006 at time point 6:29 Fauci begins. At around time point 22:00 he warns we’re not taking the threat of a new contagious disease seriously enough.

d. In 2007 at time point 20:14 Fauci begins. He stresses the importance and urgency of the NIAID’s vaccine research and development for dealing with future pandemics especially related to the influenza virus.

Example #2

Some people say:

“Since SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created in a bio-weapons lab [as it may very well have been—J.S.], therefore it was created with the deliberate intention of being used to kill lots of us.”

This is specious “logic.” For example, the U.S. government did in fact deliberately (and evilly in my view) create nuclear bombs. One such bomb was even accidentally dropped on North Carolina (read about that incident here.) Does this prove that the U.S. government is trying to kill lots of us with nuclear bombs? Of course it does not prove that. And neither does the establishment’s evil (yes it is evil) production of bio-weapons prove that it is deliberately using them or intending to use them to kill lots of us. If there is specific evidence of this “kill lots of us” intention, then it should be presented (and maybe there really is such evidence), but relying on specious logic to make the case only makes it seem to logical people that ALL accusations of evil against the establishment are foolish

Example #3

Some people say:

“Since there are serious adverse events experienced by people after getting the Covid-19 vaccination (based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), therefore the vaccination caused these events and this proves the establishment is trying to kill us.”

This is specious reasoning. It is quite possible that the people experiencing such adverse events would have experienced them even if they had not received the vaccination. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) collects data ONLY on people who received the vaccination. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the frequency of an adverse event in vaccinated versus un-vaccinated people based on only VAERS data. Absent such a comparison, there can be no evidence of an association between the adverse event and the vaccine, never mind causation of the former by the latter. And yet many people based only on VAERS data jump to the unfounded conclusion that the events it reports must necessarily have been caused by the vaccine.

Example #4

Some people say:

Since the Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of bad-outcome-X therefore the vaccine does more harm than benefit and this shows that the establishment is trying to kill us.

This is specious reasoning because the relevant question is not whether the vaccine increases the risk of some bad things (the establishment already acknowledges that this is the case); the relevant question is whether a person is more likely to be better off getting the vaccine or not getting it. If the vaccine lowers the risk of a likely on-average very harmful disease while increasing the risk of something likely on-average much less harmful, then it would still be better to get the vaccine in spite of the fact that it increased the risk of a less dangerous event.

Example #5

Some people say:

Since the Covid-19 vaccination causes (according to questionable ‘logic’—J.S.) some people to die, therefore the establishment is vaccinating us in order to kill lots of us.”

According to this specious reasoning, the fact that the initial polio vaccine actually gave some people polio (read about this here) proves that the establishment’s polio vaccination campaign was for the purpose of increasing the number of people getting polio. (Note: the fact that the polio vaccine may not have played as important a role in eliminating polio as we are commonly told, while true, does not take away from the point I am making here about specious reasoning. I hope this is evident after some thought on your part.)

Example #6

Some people say:

“Since the establishment used the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext for doing evil things such as tightening its unjust power over the have-nots and enriching itself at the expense of the have-nots, this proves that the establishment deliberately created the Covid-19 pandemic.”

This same specious reasoning would declare that since the establishment used Hurricane Katrina as a pretext for doing evil things in New Orleans afterwards such as tightening its unjust power over the have-nots and enriching itself at the expense of the have-nots, this proves that the establishment deliberately created Hurricane Katrina. Who believes THAT! (Note, if there is specific evidence that the ruling class created Hurricane Katrina, that would of course be relevant, but absent such evidence the mere fact of having taken advantage of the Hurricane as a pretext for evil deeds does not constitute evidence the establishment created Hurricane Katrina, right?)

Example #7

Some people say:

“It is overwhelmingly obvious that the establishment does evil things. Therefore when the establishment does X (such as provide a vaccine for a pandemic), X must be an evil thing.”

According to this specious ‘logic,’ it must have been an evil thing for Hitler to have cancelled (in Germany) the adult euthanasia project known as T4 (that killed ‘useless eaters’), which he did cancel (read about this here and here) after the German public discovered it (it was initially kept secret) and was so outraged that Hitler knew he needed to cancel it or risk being overthrown. Does the evil reality of Hitler mean it was therefore an evil thing to have cancelled the T4 project in Germany? Likewise, if there is a pandemic the establishment knows that if it doesn’t do things (such as a vaccination program) that the public expects it to do to protect the public health then it would hasten the day of revolution. Does this mean that when the establishment responds to a pandemic with some action that therefore the action must be an evil one?

Example #8

Some people say:

The establishment is lying to us by telling us that the so-called Covid-19 vaccines are vaccines. But they are NOT vaccines because they don’t prevent infection by the SARS-COV-2 virus, and the definition of a vaccine is something that prevents infection by the disease organism against which it is a vaccine. And sure, if you Google “vaccine definition” today it will omit from the definition any mention of preventing infection; this is because they CHANGED the definition after the Covid-19 pandemic to cover up their lie.

The faulty logic here is in assuming that what one mistakenly thinks the definition of “vaccine” always was really was its definition. Here are the definitions of the word “vaccine” and the related word, “immune” taken from a dictionary published in 1986:

And here is the current Google search definition of “vaccine”:

Notice the absence of any mention of preventing infection either in the 1986 or the current Google search definition.

The reason many people today believe that the word “vaccine” means something that prevents infection by a disease organism (rather than making one able to resist a disease organism’s harmful actions once infected by it) is in part the fault of establishment health professionals who wrongly (based on unfounded optimism) told the public when the Covid-19 vaccines came out that if enough people got vaccinated it would produce “herd immunity” by preventing people from getting infected and becoming contagious. Vaccines for some diseases may prevent people from becoming contagious after exposure to the disease organism, but it just turned out not to be the case for Covid-19.

The New England Journal of Medicine article reporting on the clinical trial results and efficacy of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is online here; read it and you will see that it never says the vaccine prevents infection.

Nonetheless, vaccination for Covid-19 does reduce the number of days that an infected person is contagious (i.e., sheds virus), as I discuss in my critique of RFK, Jr.’s book about Dr. Fauci here.

What about 9/11 Being an Inside Job: Is this specious logic too?

If the people who argue that 9/11 was an inside job used the kind of logic illustrated in example 6 above (“If X is used as a pretext for evil then it must have been caused by the evil-doers”) then that would be specious logic and by using such ‘logic’ they would only make the ruling class seem innocent. But 9/11 truthers who argue that 9/11 was an inside job do NOT use such specious logic; they cite evidence that specifically supports the inside-job accusation. They don’t simply say that since 9/11 was used as a pretext for launching the “War on Terror” and the Patriot Act restrictions on our liberties, that therefore it was an inside job. No! They cite evidence such as the physical evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives previously inserted and of a kind to which only the U.S. establishment had access. I personally cite evidence (see it here) that George W. Bush and his Chief of Staff acted in a manner that is only consistent with 9/11 being an inside job.

Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to remove the evil establishment from power, after which we will finally have access to all the documents and files we need to determine exactly which secret evil deeds they did or did not do while they were doing ALL the non-secret and well-known routine evil things to treat the have-nots like dirt.