An Unpopular Opinion: Challenging the Narrative With A Dose of Skepticism
I came home from middle school one spring afternoon, my face red, blotchy, and swollen from sobbing. That day had been like many others during the school year; the bullying was relentless, especially on the bus ride to and from school...but that particular day had been especially bad. I had been mocked in front of the entire lunch room over a pair of jeans I was wearing. I begged my Mom to take me to the store and get me some Massimo T-shirts and Keds. That's what was popular. I just wanted to disappear into the crowd. That's what everyone else was wearing. I just wanted to be left alone. Maybe if I just blended in... "If they all jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too?" Mom asked. Mom had always been a rebel. I hesitated. I wasn't sure. Maybe if it meant the bullying would stop. "Buck up," she said shaking her head at my hesitation. "Get used to it now. You don't want to be part of the herd, blindly stampeding around. Have courage to be yourself. It won't be easy. But the right thing usually isn't." Suffice it to say I never owned a Massimo shirt or a pair of Keds. I think Mom later regretted her tough love parenting when I hit my Goth phase. Yet, her advice echoes through my spirit and has served me well, even to this day, nearly three decades later. In times like these, I desperately miss my Mom and I feel her passage acutely. Grief and I are well acquainted, and it's not an experience anyone can judge because it affects everyone differently. It's also not a pain I wish upon anyone else. To those who have lost someone they love dearly over the last 13 months, my heart goes out to you. Its a difficult, unavoidable part of the cycle of life, mortality; you are not alone. However, in honor of my Mom's advice to be courageously authentic, I feel it is time to speak truth to power and boldly question mainstream cultural narratives that I believe threaten the fabric of our society and Nature herself. I do not do this lightly or with judgment or mockery for those whose beliefs differ from my own. I do this because in an age of cancellation, censorship, and shadow banning, stifling debate of the most difficult topics of our time is dangerous. The backbone my Mom encouraged me to grow served me well for over a decade as a litigator in anti-corruption and breach of fiduciary duty cases. Sometimes what we need to hear most is what causes offense at first blush...but only because it refuses to conform to and confirm our own rigidly held dogmas and beliefs. Confirmation bias is a trap all of us fall into from time to time, if for no other reason than convenience and comfort. I have been and always will be a skeptic of authority. I am not a denier. I am a skeptic that gives a side eye to all mainstream narratives, not because I want to, but because my experience has taught me the wisdom of ensuring trust is earned rather than freely given. Today in particular, I'm a skeptic about one particularly unpopular topic: the mRNA "vaccines." First, all scientific experiments have a "control." In the context of experiments involving vaccine efficacy, this means having a control group who do not receive the vaccine and a separate variable group who do. In Pearl Kendrick's 1930's pertussis vaccine trials, "[t]he rate of pertussis disease in the control group would allow Kendrick to easily demonstrate whether or not her vaccine could reduce the rate of disease in the experimental group." Ideally, whether a study participant is assigned to the control group or the variable group is done via a random, double blind process whereby the participants are assigned to either group at random and neither the participant nor the scientists know who is getting the placebo versus the trial vaccine during the study. The participants are linked to number codes that are matched up at the conclusion of the trial when all data is reviewed. What kind of control is being used here? Where's the control group for all these experimental mRNA vaccines being tested on the global population? Is there one? If you have been vaccinated, did you receive any informed consent paperwork that you might receive a placebo? If you did not... why not? Does that mean you and everyone else who got the same injection were part of the variable group? Then there logically has to be a control group, right? Is this a random double blind trial? How can it be if everyone who receives an injection consented not to a placebo, but to the actual experimental mRNA vaccine? Those of us who opted out are (1) not randomly assigned to a group because we haven't consented to participate as controls in any study regardless of the type of control used; (2) aren't being observed clinically, at least not with any formal informed consent; and (3) are being called out when it's discovered we are skeptics so as to be pressured into participation. Is this a social experiment as well? If so, the method has some serious flaws and it's ethics are not above question. Perhaps everything I am questioning has valid answers. But if those questions have answers, where are they? They certainly aren't being discussed in mainstream media, and I have to wonder why that is, if their goal is indeed to combat vaccine hesitancy. Second, voluntary informed consent is the bedrock of all scientific human experiments. Have the vaccinated been informed that in animal trials, the mRNA vaccines caused cytokenesis in the animals once the animals were reintroduced to the pathogen after receiving the vaccine...and many died as a result? The vaccine fact sheets for Pfizer and Moderna mention that the mRNA vaccine is approved for emergency use only (if you can actually get ahold of the inserts, let me know). That means that no other treatment exists such that an experimental vaccine is the only viable option. However, this simply isn't true with respect to covid 19. I've seen doctors worldwide (who have been heavily censored) state that they have successfully treated patients with a combination of a number of the following: hydroxychloroquine (a very cheap drug that is thought to have an alkalizing effect on the body which hampers viral replication), azithromycin, ivermectin (an anti-parasitic commonly used by farmers on livestock), vitamin D3, vitamin C, and zinc. Former President Trump was successfully treated with a different combination. While the media chose to focus on Trump's speedy treatment as being "inaccessible" to average Americans (a claim debunked to a certain extent by the previous link) the real issue here is that there were alternative treatments, significantly lessening the urgency of an experimental vaccine for emergency use. Interestingly, there was a massive push to discredit hydroxychloroquine; an entire plant manufacturing hydroxychloroquine exploded last year, supply chains were disrupted, and it's use was not endorsed by the AMA when prescribed as a treatment for covid 19. Why? Hydroxychloroquine has only had few adverse reactions over millions of prescriptions during the pandemic as opposed to deaths and numerous adverse reactions reported in the US and UK over the last four months involving the mRNA vaccines. These are just short term; we have no idea what the long term effects, including the impact upon fertility, may be. Who benefits from denying a patient her choice of treatment and pushing a vaccination only agenda? Patients aren't being informed of all the risks or their options. Worse, one could argue VOLUNTARY consent is lacking due to the immense pressure of not getting to enjoy natural rights (freedom to travel, freedom to assemble, free exercise of religion, etc) unless fully vaccinated. Last I checked, natural rights are inalienable from birth and cannot be confiscated and then dangled as a "carrot" under duress of not being able to shop, travel, or gather unless the individual finally consents to participating so that they can still provide for their family, buy food, pay rent, keep a job, or fly across country to see family. Perhaps governments won't mandate these passports, but that won't stop massive corporations with unchecked power and money from forcing their will upon the populace.
Third, the world's population is being asked to trust major pharmaceutical companies, who in the last decade, have been held liable for billions of dollars in damages for what basically amounts to fraud. This is the same industry who has brought the devastating opioid epidemic to our doorstep. Executives were sentenced to prison. This is but one example. Pfizer has actually asked countries in Latin America to shield them from immunity if their mRNA vaccines cause injury or death, and when these nations wisely denied their request, they then attempted to get these countries to offer up their embassies and military bases as collateral in the event they were later sued. Another company, Moderna, has existed for over a decade. Moderna has never gotten any of its prior mRNA vaccines approved, and hasn't put a single product on the market in its entire existence... until now. So why are executives selling off stock? Johnson & Johnson just in the last few years was hit with an immense judgment over using asbestos in its baby powder, resulting in plaintiffs suing for death and injury due to ovarian cancer. These companies are shielded from liability under the United States vaccine laws, which force all injured parties to make claims to a compensation court that pays out a fraction of the actual damages in confidential settlements after the plaintiffs spend years in administrative litigation.
Fourth, there are some questionable relationships that at least give an appearance of impropriety and at worst could be conflicts of interest and breaches of fiduciary duty. Take Dr. Fauci, the highest paid bureaucrat in the federal government, who has been the leading advisor on pandemic policy in the U.S., if not world wide. He had ties to the Wuhan, China lab where the virus has been alleged to originate from. The lack of transparency is disturbing at the very least. The NIH, which Fauci essentially runs, owns half the Moderna mRNA vaccine patent, so there are indirect financial benefits to Fauci's organization. Why is it then tantamount to heresy to question this man's motivations and intentions? Just prior to this pandemic, Netflix aired a mini documentary series on Bill Gates, highlighting his philanthropic work. The piece smacks of propaganda with interesting proximity to the onset of the pandemic. There was little mention of Gate's financial ties to Gavi, ties to the WHO, zero mention of his foundation's work with MasterCard on vaccine passport trial runs in Africa, the numerous children in India injured by his bad vaccination programs, a polio outbreak in Sudan, his ties to Big Ag, or Big Oil (I thought he was against carbon-based, fossil fuel generated climate change). Just ten or eleven years ago, the Occupy Wall street movement railed against giant corporations shielded from liability and taxes and the billionaires who profited off of such schemes. Somehow, in what may have been the worst year in this country's recent history, certain people managed to obtain exponentially more wealth: Gates and Bezos in particular, just to name a few. Where have the Occupy crowd gone? Protesting banks is well and good, but picking and choosing which among the predatory class are worthy of ire erodes the sincerity of the cause as a whole. Is this philanthropy...or influence? And to what end? Isn't it naive to assume these billionaires are doing all this work out of the goodness of their hearts? Why is it we bemoan billionaires, yet at the same time, bow to their influence as though they are global saviours?
Fifth, can we admit there are issues with the testing and the numbers without accusing someone of being a covid denier? We can acknowledge that there is a terrible illness that is making people sick without completely buying into the reliability of the PCR test and the narratives surrounding it. A CDC report, page 39 admits that, "no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available." What does that mean? Does it mean that there is a man made patented virus that is proprietary in some way that it can't be legally isolated in other labs without infringement? Or does it mean that whatever we have been calling covid 19 doesn't actually exist and it's really something else? Who knows at this point? Interestingly, courts in Portugal and Austria recently ruled that the PCR tests aren't suitable for measuring infectivity; meaning, it isn't an accurate diagnostic tool. Why isn't this in our news here in the US? Even the test's creator admitted it wasn't designed as a diagnostic tool for viruses. A member of the Rothschield family has held the patent on the tests since at least 2015. Wonder how much money these banksters have made off of these questionable tests? Additionally, it is common knowledge that healthcare facilities were financially incentivized to diagnose and treat covid patients, even if testing wasn't available to confirm a diagnosis. So if the tests are potentially unreliable as a diagnostic tool, then the numbers generated from the flawed diagnostic tool could also likewise be unreliable. If these testing numbers form the bedrock for all policy decisions we have endured globally over the last year, then necessarily, it would mean questioning and reevaluating the mask mandates, lockdown measures, distancing, and the need for vaccines. Who benefits from censoring such an inquiry?
Sixth, a former Pfizer exec and hundreds of doctors worldwide have tried to speak out and have been silenced. Why? In science, which is rarely truly settled, debate, questions, inquiries, adjustments, etc. are to be encouraged, not smeared, stifled, or censored. This debate is part and parcel of voluntary informed consent, so to come anywhere near prohibiting such discourse has an unethical feel. Nuremburg-type class action lawsuits are being prepared in Europe on this issue.
Seventh, if so-called herd immunity is the real goal, vaccine passports make little sense. Assuming the numbers are accurate (a big "if" at this point) a massive number of Americans tested positive for covid 19 and fell ill but made a recovery. That means they have natural immunity. They wouldn't need the mRNA vaccine, so they wouldn't receive a passport. The ACLU acknowledges there is a potential for civil liberties to be abused. So what's really going on here? They have said that the vaccine would protect against multiple strains and then are beginning to question their efficacy against variants, yet the vaccinated must still socially distance and wear a mask. Why?
With so much going on, how can it be wrong to question motives? How can it be heresy to distrust public officials and billionaires? A dose of skepticism seems the most humanly normal thing in the world to me at this juncture.
These mRNA vaccines are not fully FDA approved and there is little indication of when they might be fully approved. So why the fervent push to get EVERYONE vaccinated? The adverse events, including deaths, which have been reported since December 2020, show there have been more adverse events in four months for these mRNA vaccines than in the last decade for all vaccines combined. There are some reports of insurance companies who will deny coverage for injury or death due to "experimental gene therapy" that has yet to obtain full FDA approval; contacting your insurer directly is the best bet to determine how the vaccine will affect insurability. People are being put in incredibly tight (perhaps even unethical) situations such as between staying employed by getting vaccinated and if they are injured, being unable to continue working, not being able to file an insurance claim, and being forced to wait years for a pittance of a payout from a secretive vaccine court...or risking employment now, but safeguarding insurance assets and, potentially, their long-term health and fertility. For something experimental and for emergency use only (and if the numbers are potentially flawed, is there truly an emergency?) these Hobson choices are untenable.
Judging someone for their choices during this unprecedented time is a trap in and of itself. Judgement and divisiveness necessarily presume a false narrative of "one size fits all" while ignoring an entire constellation of situations and options available. Isn't it telling that in all the media coverage of this pandemic there has been relatively little, if any, talk of boosting natural immunity with lifestyle changes? What if an individual prefers to boost immunity with an alkaline diet? Or by taking supplements? Or by getting more sleep? I know one thing: perpetuating a cycle of fear and unnecessary stress does just the opposite. Calling these people selfish ignores the fact that healthful lifestyle measures mitigate risk and cost across the entire healthcare market, which benefits society as a whole. What about the covid survivors who have natural immunity who theoretically wouldn't require vaccination? Do we discount an entire century's worth of scientific precedent on immunity just so we can further a narrative or agenda? Those with severe allergies or health complications who cannot get the vaccination; will we allow an exception to discriminate against them on the basis of their disability because they cannot be vaccinated? I suspect so, because numerous places of business do not honor medical exemptions for masks as it is.
When I visited Germany in 2000 and visited elderly ancestors who had lived through World War II, all of them were too ashamed to talk about it. I couldn't understand how good German citizens had allowed the apartheid between the Nazis and the Jews to occur. But now...it seems apparent. We are in a dangerous time where too few questions are being asked. There's a lack of transparency and full informed consent. There is an immense power grab occurring where our natural rights are being held hostage over the largest human medical experiment in recorded history. They admit it could potentially alter our DNA. We have not experienced this before as a species. Especially not without a stated control group. Skepticism is nothing to be ridiculed for. It is not selfish; that's a manipulative narrative that I whole heartedly reject. It is courageous and entirely justified to question with the highest level of scrutiny any artificial, lab engineered experimental substance injected into our bodies manufactured by criminal organizations shielded from liability for their products. "My body, my choice" applies to more than abortion, dietary choices, and lifestyle choices. It applies to medical treatments and therapies as well. Those who have had the vaccine already have their reasons, and each of us occupies a unique position in life. We can respect each other's differences without casting blame, shame, fear, and guilt. It's time we stop silencing one another and instead, have an open, civil debate, listening and bearing witness without judgment. The sustainability of the organic human race depends upon it.