I downloaded a Torrent here it is.
ANTHONY FAUCI, M.D., Dir., Natl. Inst. of Allergy and Infectious Disease: The number of antigens in the 14 vaccines, including their boosters, which brings it up to somewhere in the 20s— it’s literally a drop in the bucket to the antigens that an infant and a child get exposed to naturally, even if they never got vaccinated with anything.
NARRATOR: Officials like Anthony Fauci have struggled with how to convince parents that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks.
Dr. ANTHONY FAUCI: To say that there is no risk in any vaccine would not be truthful. What is the risk of injecting something into someone’s arm? The risk is that a certain proportion of people will get swelling and a little bit of pain, lasting from an hour to a day. That is a very acceptable risk.
A very, very, very small percentage of people will get an allergic reaction. Namely, there’s a component to the vaccine that they didn’t realize that they were allergic to.
And then there’s a subset of a very, very, very, very small percentage of those who actually could get a serious reaction. But if you look at that, the risk of that is so minisculey small as to be completely outweighed by the benefit.
NARRATOR: The CDC’s Web site tries to convey all these risks accurately, even when scientists are not sure the vaccines are, in fact, responsible. Here’s what it says about the measles vaccine.
WEB SITE: “Severe problems very rare. Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, permanent brain damage.”
Dr. PAUL OFFIT: When the CDC communicates risks, they fall into two groups. One is, are those risks that are very rare but, in fact, are real.
The ‘New Normal’ Is Actually Pretty Old
Everything old is new again, including normality.
I had the pleasure of attending the American Economics Association’s annual conference this weekend, and over the course of many meetings with various brilliant thinkers one theme persisted: Everyone needs to get over the fear of the “new normal.”
Chief among these advocates was David Laibson, an economics professor at Harvard who was recently co-author of a paper on exactly this subject. In the paper, and in person, Professor Laibson argued that the economy will always revert back to its long-term growth trend, but people still tend to freak out about sudden shocks to the system in the short-term and assume they present a permanent diversion from that long-run trend. That is, they interpret the terrible economic conditions resulting from a financial crisis as the “new normal,” and likewise the buoyant economic conditions associated with a bubble.
This obsession with a “new normal” lends some momentum for the current catastrophe or craze, but nonetheless subsides as things eventually return to their long-run trend.
Professor Laibson used as an example a statement from 1929 from the eminent Yale economist Irving Fisher, who declared that stocks had reached a “permanently high plateau” — a week before the markets crashed. (“This Time Is Different,” the financial history opus by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, documents many other such foolish statements.)
2 thoughts on “Hyper normalisation & Social Constructionism. Adam Curtis, Foucault or Chomsky? Let History be the judge. #4PAMPHLETEERS @GRUBSTREETJORNO @WIKI_BALLOT @FINANCIALEYES @JOEBLOB20”
Reblogged this on Not The Grub Street Journal and commented:
October 19, 2016 updated 3 May 2020 (New Normal)
HYPER NORMALISATION & SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM. ADAM CURTIS, FOUCAULT OR CHOMSKY? LET HISTORY BE THE JUDGE. #4PAMPHLETEERS @GRUBSTREETJORNO @WIKI_BALLOT @FINANCIALEYES @JOEBLOB20