Questionable COVID vaccines — and lousy mandates policies — do not bother government's Fear Goons

© 2021 Peter Free

 

10 November 2021

 

 

Thanks to Paul Alexander (PhD) at the Brownstone Institute . . .

 

. . . I do not have to write much about the scientifically unsupported tyranny embodied by mandated COVID-19 vaccines:

 

 

The following research papers and studies raise doubts that Covid vaccine mandates are backed by science and good public-health practice. Anyone seeking to challenge these mandates should consult these carefully.

 

They demonstrate that these mandates provide no overall health benefit to the community and can even be harmful. Instead, the decision to accept the vaccine should be made by individuals according to their own assessment of risks in consultation with informed medical professionals.

 

The model of Marek’s disease (‘leaky’ non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing vaccines that reduce symptoms but do not stop infection or transmission) and the concept of the Original antigenic sin (the initial priming of the immune system prejudices the immune response to the pathogen or similar pathogen life-long) may explain what we are potentially facing now with these mass mandates of COVID vaccines (immune escape, increased transmission, faster transmission, and potentially more ‘hotter’ variants).

 

In addition, such mandates result in the forced separation and segregation of society. They create hazards for people in their professional lives. For example, why would governments impose punitive career altering vaccine mandates on an unvaccinated nurse who is most likely already immune due to natural exposure?

 

Mandates also represent an encroachment on freedom and liberties, and call into question the motives behind these mandates when the science shows no public benefit compared with the costs.

 

[Alexander then goes on to list — and link to — 20 such papers.]

 

© 2021 Paul Elias Alexander, 20 Essential Studies that Raise Grave Doubts about COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, Brownstone Institute (10 November 2021)

 

 

Peter Doshi (senior editor, BMJ) . . .

 

. . . testified to the US Senate last week.

 

He expressed similarly founded objections to US COVID policies.

 

See a clip of Doshi's opening statement, here — (since removed by the propagandists at YouTube):

 

 

Suneel Dhand, Shocking Qs on Capitol Hill: Did we just change scientific definition of a vaccine?, YouTube (08 November 2021)

 

 

After YouTube's attack on genuine science, Dr. Dhand reposted Dr. Doshi's Senate testimony here:

 

 

Dr Suneel Dhand, Shocking questions on Capitol Hill: Did we just change the scientific definition of a vaccine? Rumble (15 November 2021)

 

 

What Doshi told the Senate committee

 

Doshi began by expressing irritation with the fact that "everybody knows" things about COVID that are, in truth, unproven.

 

He pointed out that this alleged "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is not. At least not in the United Kingdom, where mainly COVID vaccinated people are falling ill.

 

Second, Doshi wondered why — if COVID really is a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' — one would demand boosters in the already vaccinated.

 

Third, he continued, the idea that the mRNA vaccines prevent deaths from SARS-CoV-2 has not been substantiated. The Pfizer and Moderna trials' own numbers (he told the Senate) demonstrate the mRNA vaccines' lack of impact upon COVID deaths.

 

Fourth, Doshi raised a critically important semantics issue. Why are these mRNA injections called "vaccines", when they are not similar to traditionally mandated vaccines (in either mechanism of action or proven effectiveness)?

 

What would happen — Doshi asked — if we named these mRNA injections "drugs" — rather than "vaccines"?

 

Would people still think that it was a good idea to take the mRNA 'drugs' — which do not prevent infection or interrupt transmission, no matter their names — every 6 months for the rest of our lives?

 

Would the same people — who might be willing to take the mRNA 'drugs' themselves — still think that it is a good idea to make them mandatory for everyone else?

 

And why not substitute the kind of 'normal' medications that one takes, when one falls ill?

 

 

The moral? — Absence of critical thinking . . .

 

. . . exactly as Doshi suggests, is the real issue.

 

Lacking critical investigations — and for Big Pharma's greedy sake, and its companion government goon behavior — much of the world is being enslaved by public health policies that rapidly accumulating evidence is calling into question.

 

The COVID 'regime' seems not to be working very well:

 

 

Facts keep getting distorted. Or not investigated.

 

Lockdowns, vaccine mandates — and masking kids and banning normal schooling — could be (and probably are) extending COVID's societal damage.

 

 

Yet, no one is inquiring into all that.

 

Why?

 

I do not mind errors in judgment, when facing novel crises.

 

However, I do object, when the people making those errors pay no attention to accumulating evidence that runs counter to their thinking and actions.

 

When and where blindness (to incoming evidence) occurs — or where ignorance is intentionally fostered — one should start wondering which incentives are contributing to not seeing the mob of gathering elephants.