Get the Shot . . .

COVID vaccine hesitancy is still widespread in the US, and 21st century history is partially to blame. However, the chances of having a severe reaction to the vaccine are minute, and, for some age groups, the risk to benefit ratio absolutely favors vaccination. The skepticism really has more to do with a trust of the United States government, a trust that has been consistently broken over the years. Dr Kulldorff's interview with Jan Jekielek [click here], which was apparently omitted by LinkedIn [click here], can actually help some people get over their vaccine hesitancy.

Skeptics of the coercive effort [namely vaccine mandates and vaccine passports] are not necessarily "anti-vax." Many of these skeptics fully support routine vaccination. Additionally, the shaming of individuals who refuse Covid-19 vaccination does not specify how these individuals are endangering lives. This can allow for a goalpost shift without the optics of backpedaling.

The "self-proclaimed inventor" of the mRNA vaccine is being accused of spreading misinformation about vaccines. But is it really misinformation? While Dr Malone may have overstated his expertise, an article in the Atlantic entitled "The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation" [click here] insinuates the doctor based his assessment "on a botched sentence in a USA Today article, ONE THAT WAS LATER DELETED."

However, Meryl Nass, MD doesn't appear to be making an attempt to enhance her career or prestige. In fact, Nass has already made her mark on history, and she probably wouldn't be jeopardizing her reputation if she didn't have a high level of confidence in her assessment. Nass is cited by an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report in regard to the health issues of Gulf War veterans, which was published in the year 2000 [more on this BELOW click here]. She also testified before Congress in 2001 WRT "Preparing a Medical Response to Bioterrorism" [click here], and before a 2007 Senate Oversight Hearing on "Research and Treatment for Gulf War Illnesses" [to name just a few accolades click here click here].

Numerous scientific papers have been published in an ongoing dispute over safety concerns pertaining to the anthrax vaccine (AVA) and its correlation with various chronic health issues, including but not limited to Gulf War Syndrome and increased birth defects (note: correlation does not prove causation). Nass and former MG George W. Weightman, MD [who was fired in the wake of the 2007 Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal before retiring from active duty in 2009] cited each other periodically in an exchange that has prevailed over the course of several years. In 2011, Weightman's 2002 publication "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS ANTHRAX VACCINATION" was reissued in the American Journal of Public Health [click here].

Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated that Weightman had been relieved of command, in part, because he allegedly downplayed the criticism of atrocious living conditions at Walter Reed [click here]. The US Army released the following statement WRT Weightman's 2007 termination [click here]:

"Maj. Gen. Weightman was informed...that the senior Army leadership had lost trust and confidence in the commander's leadership abilities to address needed solutions for soldier-outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center."

In her response [click here] to Weightman's endorsement of a 2002-IOM committee report, a report that maintains analysis which appears to be inconsistent with the 2000-IOM committee report (mentioned ABOVE, "Nass is cited"), Dr Nass criticized the 2002 report for championing the anthrax vaccine and allegedly basing much of its findings on UNPUBLISHED military research. According to Nass, the 2002 report "omitted the chronic illness rate following vaccination in the Dover study: over 29%," and it contains notations which appear to be contradictory. The 2002 report recommends against cohort studies that target the AVA anthrax vaccine ["8 Future Needs" .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220520/]. It also states, "Thus, these signals ['of a possible causal relationship between an exposure and a health event'] deserve continued surveillance," IN CONJUNCTION WITH ad hoc studies ["6 Safety: Epidemiologic Studies" .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220523/].

Nass also claims the military judge that presided over Capt John Buck's 2001 court-martial had suppressed her pretrial testimony, which was "supported by 65 exhibits, primarily government documents, that proved the vaccine had never demonstrated human safety or effectiveness, nor was LICENSED for its current use," according to Nass [click here]. The latter part of her statement raises concerns as to whether orders to take the vaccine were even legal in the first place.

Similar to the phrase "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," from the [US] Declaration of Independence, Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Having refused to take the anthrax vaccine in 1998, Sergeant Mike Kipling had been court-martialed for insubordination, the same offense as Capt Buck in the US. Citing the protections of the Charter, Colonel Guy Brais, Canada's top military magistrate [at the time], stayed the charges against Kipling, ruling that his rights had been violated when his superiors ordered him to take the anthrax vaccine. Finding no fault with the superior officers who ordered the mandate, Col Brais did conversely remark [click here], "This court is satisfied based on a balance of probabilities that the...anthrax vaccine...was UNSAFE and HAZARDOUS and could be responsible for the important symptoms reported by so many persons who took that vaccine." The military appealed Col Brais' judgement, and, in 2002, a civilian court did rule in favor of a retrial. However, the proceedings were dropped in April of that year. Canadian military spokesperson Captain Bruce MacGregor said [.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/canadianmilanthrax.html], "The director of military prosecutions determined that it was not in the public interest or the Canadian Forces interest to proceed."

On the other hand, USAF Capt John Buck was reprimanded and fined $21,000 although he did not have to serve time in jail or lose his rank [click here]. Unfortunately, Petty Officer David Ponder did suffer a loss of rank, in addition to serving a brief jail term for refusing the anthrax vaccine [click here]. In closing her response to Weightman's endorsement of the 2002-IOM committee report, Meryl Nass made the following statement:

"Consequently, Canada no longer requires anthrax vaccinations for its troops, whereas the US military has resumed vaccinations, enforced with courts-martial at which the evidence will never be heard."

The side-effects of some vaccines can outweigh their benefits.

In an article she coauthored with RFK Jr [in The Defender], Nass explains that her skepticism [the apparent bait-and-switch in regard to the licensed Pfizer vaccine and the Emergency Use Authorization Pfizer vaccine] comes from the language of the FDA approval letter itself [click here]. Nass' skepticism does not come from a typo in the press. Her blog, which was originally created to disseminate information about the anthrax vaccine, contains valuable information about the COVID vaccine as well [click here].

The Defender article explains how EAUs are considered experimental under US law, and it would be illegal [under US law and international law] for an employer, school, or government to force anyone to take an EAU vaccine. If Nass' skepticism is valid beyond a simple misunderstanding, and the vaccine is safe, why won't Pfizer accept liability for their vaccine? And if this is the case, why is the public being misled by both the media and the US government?

"ONE THAT WAS LATER DELETED"

US history in the 21st century has led to significant trust issues and is partly responsible for the resentment and resistance within the community.

The tragic events of September 11th were misappropriated to justify war under false pretenses and to instill fear. This was particularly damaging to public trust once people had some time to reflect on the manipulation. Virtually eliminating public resistance to unwarranted mass surveillance and a loss of habeas corpus privilege [without a rebellion or invasion], pseudo-patriotism was used to induce mass conformity when resistance would have been logical. The superfluous renewals of the Patriot Act, perpetual war in the Greater Middle East, and trillions of dollars in government spending have made even the most "patriotic" Americans question the war-hawk narrative.

FDA whistleblower Dr David Graham informed the public of an evident conflict of interest between the agency and the pharmaceutical industry. His revelation in regard to Merck's pain killer, Vioxx [click here], was unveiled a few years after the turn of the century, and it led to the product's recall. In a Fraud Magazine interview, Graham made the following claim in regard to the FDA:

"It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs as it can, regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed...Also, the emphasis at FDA is on APPROVAL, and the focus is on EFFICACY - that is, does the drug have an effect. SAFETY ISN'T ON THE RADAR SCREEN regardless of what FDA officialdom would have you believe," [.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294967770].

More recently, there was a WaPo/60-Minutes expose' with whistleblower Joe Rannazzisi [click here]. Rannazzisi oversaw the DEA's regulation and investigation of the pharmaceutical industry. The expose' revealed how Congress, lobbyists, and law enforcement enabled "pill mills" to distribute copious amounts of opioids with virtually no oversight, fueling an epidemic in the process.

The United States government needs to work on rebuilding trust within the community.

State COVID vaccine mandates may be working out fine, so far. But how are things going in Europe and Australia? Some 80 million Americans will be affected by Biden's "vaccine mandate." If a large portion of them refuse to get vaccinated, will there be a COVID testing shortage or logistical problems that lead to worker shortages, mass terminations or layoffs? What will be the ripple effect if this happens [click here]? Will there be shortages of necessities? What will happen when the effects of this economic leverage are felt by the individuals who are being coerced, many of whom view this whole process as being "tyrannical?"

Back in 2019, a leaked email revealed a Washington state representative shared a manifesto for a Christian holy war [click here]. Since the start of the lockdowns, many conservatives have been spreading propaganda with frightening implications. One of the more common passive-aggressive phrases used is "I don't see how this can end peacefully." Another, more unsettling veiled threat is reminiscent of the manifesto, and it appears to be calling for a holy war, preparing individuals for battle. Many people are repeating the phrase, "The word 'Rapture' is not mentioned in the Bible." Now, this may seem like a harmless teaching of scripture, but context is relevant, especially when someone elaborates that when the Apocalypse does happen, faithful Christians are not just going to ascend into heaven. "They will be stuck here on earth for the final battle." It seems as if people are grooming each other for war.

People are hinting at all kinds of violent extremism, ranging from modest implications of so-called "traitors" to more explicit threats of body mutilation, references to the "scalping [of] faces." However, the most troublesome threat seems to have a powerful emotional response, exploiting the religious beliefs of Christians. Many faithful Christians are interpreting current events as signs of the Apocalypse. Regardless of whether or not this is a true interpretation, Christian-terrorism is an oxymoron. Hypothetically speaking, if we are in the Apocalypse, the only sensible thing to do, as a Christian, would be to pray and spread the Word of God.

If the United States does find itself in another civil war, who wins, the establishment, the anti-establishment or China? PRC is the only superpower that has been scrutinized in the 21st century for allegations of crimes against humanity, allegations which may even constitute genocide to suppress a rival of influence (Falun Dafa). Despite the optics of transplant reform and oversite within China, there is evidence that suggests organ transplant data manipulation [click here]. Currently, the nation's Ministry of Commerce is urging families to stockpile nonperishable goods for the upcoming winter, and this has already triggered panic buying in China. The likelihood of a chain reaction to this messaging could lead to a global disruptive event with the potential to overthrow democracy in the West.

(Article changed on Nov 21, 2021 at 11:56 PM EST)