Also, reported rates of vaccine injury were much higher than expected in survey data
It was bleedingly obvious that an experimental “vaccine” wasn’t needed for a virus that killed only half as many as a bad flu season and known cures were available but demonised to pave the legal way for the experimental “vaccine’s” rollout.
There are both authoritarian and religious trait expressions running throughout what we call "human nature."
When the two traits are both expressed strongly within any individual, the result is what we see with the "Branch Covidians." Either trait, by itself, may not invariably correlate with dishonesty and compulsion, but together they can be deadly.
Years before the Covid debacle, I first encountered someone that made me aware of this dynamic.
I'd always considered inoculation a very helpful intervention, but was agnostic about any particular compound. If it can be demonstrated to be safe, I reasoned, it'll be a very good thing, but if not, it mustn't be ingested. I had no interest in the "anti-vax movement."
An extremely erudite acquaintance aroused my curiosity with a vitriolic diatribe about Andrew Wakefield, a name I'd heard but knew nothing about. On a whim, I did a shallow dive into the anti-vax literature and discovered several very interesting things.
The first was that there is a spectrum ranging from "maybe we should space the childhood injections a bit farther apart and maybe not combine so many different vaccine products in one large dose," all the way to "they're all pure poison!"
The second thing I discovered was that what made Wakefield such a pariah was that he questioned the combination of vaccines and argued that keeping them separated and spaced apart would provide more accurate safety and efficacy signals. His mortal sin appears to have been calling for more research.
These two discoveries made me curious enough to seek out the data. Remember that this was years before Covid.
When I saw that people die from vaccine uptake in statistically small percentages, I thought to myself that those who died or were injured had made a great sacrifice for the common good. They should be honored by those of us who are helped by vaccines, I felt, and remembered for their sacrifice. Bless them for their service to humanity, was my general sentiment.
When I shared this sentiment with my very learned acquaintance in a publicly-viewable forum, I was met with walls of type, each one ignoring my "should we honor those who gave their lives for us?" question and going on and on and on about "safe and effective," "insignificant numbers of injuries" and other imprecise assertions.
Finally, I argued my interlocutor into a corner and received an admission that any acknowledgement of any death or injury would "fuel vaccine hesitancy."
I mentioned feeling and sentiment above. The feeling was sadness and the sentiment was gratitude, but neither of those are facts. This led to my next discovery, which is the factual part.
I had assumed informed consent, which led to my considering the dead and injured to be a bit on the heroic side, but it tuns out that they were not heroes, they were victims. All they were ever told was "safe and effective." One supposes they died in ignorance and confusion.
My acquaintance was in an influential position. He knew much more about all of these things than I did, and it became obvious to me that I was not having a friendly conversation and frank exchange of ideas, I was confronting a religious faith expressed in an authoritarian fashion.
There were no lengths to which he would not go to prevent informed consent. I found the extremism rather shocking, until I began to look around and realized that it was common among the "experts;" none of them would accept the free will of the masses of people. Everything they uttered about "democracy" and "human rights" was tainted by their authoritarian religious belief in a word. That word is "vaccine."
Anyone familiar with the story of Pavlov's dogs and Skinner's rats has a notion of what adaptive learning is all about. With the vaccine faithful, it requires neither bell nor electric shock to trigger a programmed response. All that is required is a spoken or printed exposure to the magic word.
Now scale my acquaintance upward and across his cohort, the highly educated and influential, and you have the current scenario of kicking dead people to the curb, spitting on their lifeless bodies as they are stepped over and brushed aside on the way to another round of hand-waving "safe and effective!" media circuses.
Fast-forward to the gene expression therapeutics upon which have been bestowed the magic word. My acquaintance is a fundamentally decent person and quite learned, and his vitriol is now aimed to those who are murdering thousands with their deliberate refusal to acknowledge the safety signals that emanated from VAERS and other injury reporting systems from the very beginning of the mRNA deployment. The signal overcome his religious belief and his conscience "kicked in."
The vaccine faithful do not believe in a human right to bodily autonomy or informed consent. They will obscure facts and even go so far as to utter complete falsehoods in pursuit of their authoritarian agenda. As we have observed, they will support violence and incarceration against apostates and heretics.
Ring the bell and some will salivate, apply the shock and some will cower behind the bars of their cage and refuse food, say the magic word and others will kill.
This time, they went too far.
Pre-COVID, I was a strong advocate for vaccination. Since personally experiencing a severe adverse reaction to the Astrazeneca 'vaccine', I'm not inclined to get any more vaccinations than are strictly necessary. I certainly won't trust future official claims about the safety and efficacy of new vaccines and will advise others to be similarly sceptical.
Nice to see someone in USA academia with some conviction.
Sadly, imagine if this paper is a victim of its own success... the critical commentator community on Substack helped get all the eyes on it across the web, but that ended up spooking the editors too much. If it is survives retraction then I think that signifies another good turning point for us.
Hi Rebekah, you made an error. The vaccines don't have a 1/800 adverse event rate. They have a 1/874 DEATH rate. Cheers