It began when we realized how radically the definition of “radical” had changed. We were discussing a friend of ours, who didn’t like his experience with the jab, and helps people get around restrictions. “He’s not as radical as we are, but he supports our rights.”
Full stop. Radical? Really? Are we actually “radical” for recognizing the Nuremberg code? For sitting out a sketchy vaccine for something we already had and wasn’t a big deal anyway?
That’s radical? But we realized, it’s not just the jabberwocky. Along the way, we have seen things that cannot be unseen. We have learned too much about the whole process, the contorted history of prophylactic homeopathy, and become, almost involuntarily, the dreaded antivaxxers everyone wants to burn at the stake.
It’s more than not rolling up our sleeves. We have been suddenly thrust into a lifestyle underclass, stigmatized by so many people we thought valued the same things we did, like freedom of choice and expression. We saw these people unflinchingly transform from peace-loving hippies to pharma reps and uptight reactionary censors.
So we’ve entered into a new drug war, an inverted image of the one fought by governments against their people throughout the previous century. Before, the government lied about the hazards of substances they wanted to ban, including the decidedly non-lethal cannabis plant. They conducted extensive propaganda campaigns, as well as deadly wars in production countries and urban combat in the cities. Untold lives were interrupted, destroyed, and taken in the name of a futile “public health” campaign based on utterly spurious pretexts.
Now, the nature of the war has stepped up. This time, it is compulsion rather than prohibition (though competing alternatives get the old-school treatment); the drug really is dangerous; the cartel is run from inside the government itself.
So, as veterans of the cannabis battles, who just witnessed the abrupt curtailing of the most egregious restrictions, we strongly suspected something new would replace it. These government drug campaigns, whatever their nature, serve to fundamentally filter out the disobedient. The laws themselves are nonsensical; therefore, they discriminate against those who won’t obey a stupid law for the sake of obeying.
The old way had one key weakness: it was too easy to simply opt out, to obey by default. Not everyone wanted to get high. The filter had a big hole in it. It wasn’t really getting the right people anymore.
So they flipped the polarity. The very absurdity of mandating a lightly tested, experimental Frankenjection which brings so many dimensions of risk, ensures that “hesitancy” will be high, as it should be under these conditions.
The question is, under what conditions could they even be a good idea going forward? Were they ever a good idea at all? A cursory glance at the history of this entire approach reveals fundamental conceptual flaws present in each stage of development. They are, as has been observed in their defense, “unavoidably unsafe”.
These products cannot survive in the market playing by the rules other drugs do. The liability exposure is an unacceptable business proposition. In the 1980’s, manufacturers threatened to take their ball and go home unless they were given immunity. The infamous 1986 Act was born and that’s the last immunity to be produced by this vaccine cartel, which peddles needle drugs to kids and is powerful enough to force them all to get shot up.
It might be radical to advocate for banning all vaccines, but would it be wrong? If a product is too dangerous to absorb personal injury lawsuits, isn’t it too dangerous to inject into every schoolchild? If vaccines get a pass because they are so key to maintaining public health, shouldn’t they have a higher bar for efficacy and durability? And if they are so key to the general welfare, shouldn’t patents on them be forbidden, with all research done at public expense?
Considering the way governments conceal unfavorable data and become totalitarian around these injections, would it actually possible for a worthwhile formulation to be produced? Considering the asymmetrical and dislocated reaction stimulated by injecting fake pathogens, would it even be a good idea?
We don’t have to ban vaccines. Just take the profit and protection racket out of it, and they’ll go away, like any wasteful grift.