Until Brexit, “Green Molly” a.k.a. Molly Scott Cato was a Green Party MEP. She is currently the Green Party External Communications Coordinator and Speaker on Economy and Finance.
On July 29th she tweeted,
UK Covid patients tell of regrets over refusing jab
These stories make me terribly sad
She was referring to this Guardian article. Thus far, I agreed with her. The Guardian article by Sarah Marsh is unashamedly emotional, but it derives its power to convince by letting named ordinary people speak for themselves. However Ms Scott Cato thinks that humans speaking to other humans about their own brush with death or the deaths of their relatives is not a good enough persuasive strategy. She continued,
But they also make me angry with people who spread lies on social media
In the information age it seems to me we need information crimes
And punishments to match
In a sense Ms Scott Cato is right. She does need information crimes. Her party and the worldwide Green movement (of which parties with “Green” in their name are a minor part) have a vision for humanity that goes far beyond trees and whales, and they know they will not get the public to comply if gadflies and malcontents are allowed to bring up information that contradicts the official line. In particular they need information that shows how many of their previous predictions never came to pass to be criminalised.
Related:
“George Monbiot comes out in favour of censorship”, a post I made in January about Mr Monbiot’s article “Covid lies cost lives – we have a duty to clamp down on them”.
And found via Instapundit today, “‘Health misinformation’ should be a federal crime, First Amendment law professor says”.
“They need information that contradicts their worldview to be criminalized”, presumably because of the harm they allege it causes. Because governments act on information. And governments have become nearly all-powerful, influencing or outright controlling (nearly?) every aspect of our lives. Everything is political. So, clearly bad information is the problem.
How about this: every decision made by every G20 government leader in the past 50 years that on balance did more harm than good should be punished criminally. Why just try to prevent future crime when we have ample past crime in front of us that could be punished to set an example!? Isn’t that what these Greens’ goal is: right government decisions and actions? And punishment for those who frustrate such. Well, we have at least a million examples if we just look at recent history.
If Ms. Scott Cato wants to take a swing at Obama…I’ll hold him. Figuratively speaking of course. And replace “Obama” in this with almost any leader, left or right. But let’s start with the left! 🙂
p.s., re the law professor quoted at the end of Natalie’s post, how about we add legal and civics advice to the categories of prosecutable mis-information? After all, if we get politics wrong, nothing else matters (rough quote from Charles Krauthammer).
Wasn’t this article revealed to be a fraudulent fabrication? The doctor in the article doesn’t exist.
GregWA writes, “How about this: every decision made by every G20 government leader in the past 50 years that on balance did more harm than good should be punished criminally.”
I know you are joking, and it is a pleasing fantasy, but don’t give them ideas. They – I refer to G20 governments and the entire establishment, not just the Greens – would love that. The people in charge of deciding what did more harm than good would be them. Even in conditions of free enquiry it is very hard for people to say what would have happened had history gone differently, as we are all prisoners of our own era’s assumptions. Give the “opinion formers” (a revealing name) the power to block contradictory information from coming in and they can make it impossible to even imagine a world which went differently.
P.S. While you were writing your comment, I made some minor changes to the wording of the part of my post that you quoted. I only mention it in case you were puzzled; it makes no difference to the argument.
I hadn’t heard anything about that, nesalpers. Can you provide details?
That was my memory also. Someone looked at the named hospital’s records and found that there were no such patients as the ones described as piteously begging for the vaccination as they died. It was all fake.
I comfort myself with the idea that most people who vote for the Green Party do not know what it actually stands for – for example its totalitarian view that certain opinions (which it believes to be false) should be regarded as CRIMES.
There is every right to refuse to listen to or read certain stuff – I do not want to listen to someone, for example, explaining why Jews should be wiped from face of the Earth (I have heard such stuff before), but there is a massive difference between “I do not wish to listen to you” and “I am going to put you in prison”. The totalitarians reject this distinction – to them opinions they do approve of must be PUNISHED.
But the lady has given the example of Covid 19 – and she deserves an answer.
From the start of this crises Early Treatment of Covid 19 with a combination of existing medications has been possible – and would have saved most of the people who died.
Early Treatment has been systematically smeared by the international establishment who have spent the last 18 months chanting TINET (there-is-no-early-treatment), according to this lady everyone who smeared Early Treatment, including most official health officials, should sent to be prison – for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who could have been saved.
“But they really did believe there was no Early Treatment” – according to the lady sincerely holding a mistaken belief is NO DEFENCE.
Why is it only now that the anti-vaxxers are perceived as a problem? After all, they’ve been around for a long time. Back in the 1970s I remember my late mother, who was a doctor, having conniptions whenever someone said something to the effect that they weren’t going to get their children vaccinated, because of “the risks”. (Needless to say, I was vaccinated against everything, as were my brother and sister.) Of course, not exposing children to the supposed risks of vaccines exposed them to other risks. A few years ago, I remember reading about a measles outbreak in Beverly Hills, because parents there weren’t vaccinating their children.
Despite that, there was absolutely no talk of using the law to silence these people. Could that be because they used to be predominantly left-wing? After all, Beverly Hills is absolutely not Trump country. By contrast, the current crop of anti-vaxxers are mostly right wing types. You know: swivel-eyed, evil, hateful and ignorant people who can’t make decisions for themselves, don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be guided by their betters.
bobby b:
That was my memory also. Someone looked at the named hospital’s records and found that there were no such patients as the ones described as piteously begging for the vaccination as they died. It was all fake.
Don’t know about this story or the UK, but U.S. social media is awash in fake “dying patient voices regrets, begs unvaccinated to get vaxxed”, along with “just finished ICU shift, unit overflowing with children and young adults with covid” tales. Seems to be a cottage industry. The posting docs or nurses may be real docs and nurses, but they’re liars with an agenda, and are regularly busted by the curious who bother to check into the publicly available records. That Guardian story is suspiciously similar to these in tone and content.
If there was a significant penalty for information crimes, no relevant left-wing journalist would still be alive. A lot of authors, media people and such wouldn’t either. Just remember their hymns about Stalin’s russia, the glorification of castro, chavez, the Khmer rouge etc etc.
If there were “information crimes” AND justice, there wouldn’t be any left journalists out of prison or the grave.
Exactly. Here’s another great example:
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2021/07/catch-of-day.html
(“My poor dying patients are begging for the vaccine!”
“Uh, no, I looked you up. You’re a veterinarian.”)
More:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CR3tZQ9FIbg/
So, person spreading lies on social media is demanding punishments for people who spread lies on social media, do I have that right? What punishment do we propose to give her?
‘ UK Covid patients tell of regrets over refusing jab.’
So none of them died, thus they did not need the jab to save them. It is the immune system that saves lives, not vaccines.
Addendum to mine above of 1:51a.m.:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/07/31/lauren-boeberts-opponent-is-a-veterinarian-who-works-in-wyoming-and-claims-her-hospital-is-filled-with-covid-patients-n419474
Turns out the lying “doc” who is actually a cat doc is a politician too.
Molly, is like our own once resident troll, spreading lies and untruths on Social Media. According to VAERS 11,940 have died in close proximity to their first or second anti COVID-19 mRNA therapy.
The VAERS figure has increased by about 4000 deaths since the 25th June.
Given VAERS is a voluntary US system and many victims and families of victims don’t know it exists, that figure is almost certainly a gross underestimate.
If you are misled, being told that if you had had the mRNA injection, you wouldn’t have caught COVID-19, and you were against the anti COVID-19 therapy, then you might have regrets.
But then if you were told the truth, that the mRNA gene therapy doesn’t give you immunity from catching COVID-19, and may give you a host of additional auto immune conditions, you probably wouldn’t express regret at a sensible decision.
But then you rarely see this sort of case reported widely in the media.
Or this. And even if you do, the deceased’s partner is always ‘rah! rah! ‘ for the mRNA therapy that just killed his/her partner.
Must follow the narrative.
While obviously regrettable is there any definitive proof or even a reasonable degree of certainty that the blood clots in the second case arose purely as a result of the vaccine? Is the fact that the lady passed away a full 22 days later consistent with this interpretation?
If in the first half of last year, it was permissible to identify a motorcycle crash victim as one who had died of COVID-19, then this year it’s OK to cite a fatality, with a known admitted side effect of the mRNA therapy, as a vaccine death.
By the way, there is no time limit to these mRNA therapy deaths, if as may seem likely the mRNA instructions get into the blood stream, it has been suggested it causes clotting in the capillaries, leading to a progressive loss of function.
Where, from the long term longitudinal trials of the mRNA therapy does the effect of the mRNA therapy cut off after 22 days?
I don’t think it’s possible to say 22 days is the limit of the impact, because there having been no longitudinal trials, there is no answer to that question,… yet.
But suppose we agree your arbitary 22 day deadline and discount Ms Taberer. How about three days?
Not my deadline.
I was referring to the newspaper report which stated that she died 22 days after receiving the vaccine.
Grauniad article:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/26/covid-patients-tell-of-regrets-over-refusing-jab-vaccine-intensive-care
Did anyone else notice that the Grauniad article, perhaps carefully, doesn’t say what the look on the faces of the vaccinated people is like. Who were told you won’t get Covid if you are vaccinated. Like finding you’ve got an insurance policy that doesn’t pay out.
Public Health England (Briefing 19 for 1 February 2021 to 19 July 2021)
Table 5 contains “Deaths within 28 days of positive specimen date”
Deaths for both jabs: 224
Deaths for unvaccinated : 165
@nesalpers
Err, perhaps we’re getting the articles mixed-up?
Regarding the doctor named here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/26/covid-patients-tell-of-regrets-over-refusing-jab-vaccine-intensive-care
That is:
Who is visible on the GMC Register
https://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors?text=Batt-Rawden
Samantha BATT-RAWDEN
GMC reference no: 7280639
“Information crimes” Is that the new, Orwellian name for the old laws prohibiting and punishing heresy?
Deep Lurker – yes it is.
I wonder when there will be a criminal investigation against the Lancet for publishing, and subsequently retracting, a false study about hcq which caused 10s of 1000s preventable deaths? Did Ms Scott Cato say anything about that?
In France, the health minister banned hcq on the back of that.
A 70yrs old drug that was prescribed to a billion patients in 2019.
Pr Raoult, the foremost specialist in infectious diseases in France, vilified for promoting hcq and azythromycin (prescribed to 1 in 8 americans in 2019 for pulmonary diseases) as early treatment, in his hospital in Marseille, have treated more than 35000 patients in the last year with a mortality rate of 0.6 per 1000 (not a typo). Average of death? 81. With less than a year life expectancy because of other conditions.
The real killer is the NHS message that one should stay at home if positive. Because when you get to a hospital, it’s too late, the damage is done.
Fun fact, people dying of covid do not actually have any covid virus when they die.
Rudolph Hucker, thank you for providing those details regarding Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden. A comment addressed to the company in general: I do appreciate that there are many items of fake news about, as Perry de Havilland’s recent post “Manufacturing the grass roots…” illustrated, but it is in the nature of fake news to look like real news. My trust in the mainstream media has fallen far in recent years, but I suppose I do retain enough trust in the Guardian to believe that they would correct or update a story if it was revealed to be an invention cut out of whole cloth.
Looking again, I see that I spoke of USA instances of fraud whereas the OP speaks of UK fraud.
It’s just so hard to keep all of the fraud separate these days.