The alternative paradigm of public health, which has been effectively disappeared behind the obsessive fixation on the indispensable pharmaceutical/vaccine solution, is to build structural public primary and continuous healthcare, and social measures that make for strong immune systems in healthy bodies in healthy social and environmental conditions. It's a paradigm in which fully-tested pharmaceuticals and vaccines--targeted and offered to those most vulnerable to new pathogens--supplement, not replace, the natural human immune system, which has developed an armada of ways for defending against viruses for the million or so years we've been subscribed to it. For free. This paradigm offers the only hope of humanity staying alive in the infinite sea of ever-emerging viruses that no magic bullets will conquer.
Have you seen one segment, heard one word, in the tsunami of media fear-mongering over the last eighteen months about how people can and should get and stay healthy and reinforce their immune systems? Has there been any discussion about possibly helpful available treatments that don't require a new subscription, besides rejecting them and ridiculing anyone who mentions them? Has there been anything related to public health, besides rejecting universal, single-payer healthcare? Or has it all been about building anticipation for the appearance of the magic bullet?
Do you think the presence of one thing and the absence of all the others is an accident or an oversight? The entire discourse of the Pharma-captured medical establishment has not been about public health; it's been about vaccines. It's been directed toward getting us to anticipate and accept mandatory adult vaccination. It's going to be very hard to get them to focus on anything else. Some mass of people--maybe even including leftists--will have to force them to do it.
Public-health scientist Allyson Pollock made the point about these different public-health paradigms in an interview with Tariq Ali during the Ebola outbreak in 2014:
The solution to these epidemics is not the magic bullets of vaccines and it is not sending in the troops. It's structural, it's social, it's economic, it's environmental and it is putting in all the public health measures...
Now I'm not saying we don't need vaccines, but one of the big problems is that vaccine development itself is now in the hands of these large very powerful foundations like NGOs, like GAVI - the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative, who in conjunction with big companies like GSK and Merck, are out to seek patents and the reason why they like vaccines is it gives... because vaccines mean mass immunisation, it means numbers and numbers mean money... we are talking about re-building public-health infrastructure and that includes putting in community primary health care, community health systems, infection-control units at community level, putting in hospitals and training nurses and doctors.
... large global funds like the Gates Fund or the Buffett Fund... need to industrialise, they need to medicalise and they need to pharmaceuticalise. But there is a big backlash coming, a big backlash in the Western world, much more critical thought about the ethicacy [sic] and the safety and the appropriateness of the drugs and vaccines and medications...
  The Unintended
So far, we have talked about possible unintended effects of this mass-vaccination program on the process of viral evolution and transmission (N.B., concerns about not "personal" but societal effects), which support legitimate concern about forcing everyone to take the vaccine. But there are also concerns about the safety of the vaccine, about its potential "non-specific" adverse health effects for the person and the mass of people taking it. These concerns cannot simply be dismissed when considering whether the state can force everybody to take a drug. They must be openly and transparently investigated, without favoring a desired result. As in, you know, science.
This is what everyone--certainly leftists--would expect and demand with any drug, but the very idea of which many ridicule with vaccines, for which they adopt the upside-down attitude that, however brand-new the vaccine is, its safety is to be assumed by default and the serious-risk factor set to 0, unless someone gives overwhelming proof otherwise. I can't believe the constant outcry I'm hearing: Why haven't you approved it for the children already? What's the matter with you? People really don't see what dangerous, anti-scientific, lunacy that is.
Isn't it remarkable that the British government wants to ignore, and, as Jonathan Cook, points out, "appears to be furious" at, the advice of its own scientific advisors (the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) and "push ahead" with vaccinating all 12-15 year-old children? It seems that, when "the science"--i.e., your own chosen group of experts that you've defined as "science"--happens to go in any way against extending the vaccine requirements, it's time to unfollow it. 'Cause it is not the science, but the vaccine, that leads. Boris & Co. are clearly looking for the "science" that takes them where they want to go--to more vaccines.
And not to
worry. Cook predicted that they would likely "bully the JCVI into hastily
changing its mind," with "liberal media outlets... which have been so careful
until now to avoid giving a platform to 'dissident' scientists,... suddenly
subjecting the great and the good of the vaccination establishment to harsh
criticism from doctors who want children vaccinated as quickly as possible."
And so it seems the Ministers are
"tak[ing] a wider perspective than the JCVI" and will likely approve the jab
for those kids. Follow the science leader.
One might (or might not) also notice how this echoes a pattern that extends through every discussion of vaccines: Every bit of negative evidence that isn't proof is deemed not evidence at all, to be dismissed, while every bit of positive evidence is presented as dispositive, to be embraced. And every attempt to point out how upside-down that is is denounced as "anti-scientific." This is vaccine exceptionalism, and it is anti-scientific.
There are serious, unresolved harms and signals of harms from these vaccines, including to children, that deserve to be scrutinized, not dismissed.
Of course, the medium- and long-term effects of these vaccines are entirely unknown. In less than a year of use, they have already generated one-third of the adverse-event reports of all vaccines since 1990 (>600,000, including >17,000 permanently disabled and >13.000 deaths) in the VAERS system, which admits it receives notice of "only a small fraction of actual adverse events." Just reports, not confirmed, they say, as if, apples-to-apples, the astronomical difference means nothing.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
