I’m pro-vaccination, but…

Another day, and another excellent article points to the signs of developing problems with the COVID vaccination programme. At the same time, statistician John Dee provides an alarming presentation of ONS data showing how (factoring in obvious things like the number of tests) the positivity rate of PCR tests has escalated since mass vaccination was rolled out, even as you’d expect it to wane:

Various explanations are possible for this plot, but not many of them sound good.

No doubt you will also have heard of the studies suggesting that transmission rates amongst the vaccinated are at least as high as among the unvaccinated, and possibly many more times higher. This is entirely logical, once transmission by the vaccinated is present, even from the assumption that the vaccinated have fewer symptoms, and so are less likely to be home in bed if infected. Vaccine passports can only make things worse by packing such asymptomatic spreaders together and then out into the communities, care homes and hospitals.

Incidentally, given that this is now commonly discussed, we can know for sure that for HM Government even to keep passports on the table, let alone implementing them in the winter, would be slam-dunk evidence that social control is the aim, not health. Either that or they are utterly incompetent but (to misquote Dawkins) I prefer not to think about that.

It’s customary for the good guys, like Jay Bhattacharya for example, to deny any anti-vaxx leanings before drawing attention to their dissenting positions, even regarding matters of COVID vaccine policy or the vaccines themselves. Although this is no doubt partly intended to stop people immediately stopping their ears and yelling “Blasphemy!” it is also true that most dissenters never had any problems with public health vaccine policies before 2019.

But there have been serious questions asked long before COVID, and not merely amongst the well-heeled worried, though these have not been allowed to get into the public eye, largely because vaccine damage was a very early example of press-censorship, in the wake of the MMR/autism controversy. Neither, it seems, have many medics become aware of them.

I only discovered this because of a conversation I had in 2019. I was sitting between an academic (a historian of science) concerned from his own acquaintances and their chidren’s post-vaccination problems that maybe that controversy hadn’t been honestly dealt with, and a medic reiterating the reassuring reasons that autism had been excluded as a sequel of MMR vaccination. As piggy-in-the-middle, I couldn’t help wondering if the reassuring research itself might conceivably represent vested interests like those of vaccine manufacturers, and whether the average medical practitioner would have any way of knowing this without digging into it. I was already aware of the replication crisis in science, and the role of Big Pharma in producing misleading studies affecting major policy areas such as cardiovascular disease prevention.

I did a little research as a result, and found a few interesting trends. The first was a video of a conference of vaccine scientists, in which quite major worries were expressed by some scientists about, for example, the lack of research on possible adjuvant damage from multiple childhood vaccinations. So the “all vaccines are safe and effective” message in the public arena was not entirely true to the state of the scientific discussion itself, yet the expert voices of caution appeared to be sidelined.

A second trend was the controversy in the medical community pertaining to the possible ineffectiveness of the whole flu-vaccine rollout across the western nations, in actually saving lives, Since this relates to the role of Big Pharma in influencing policy, and to actual scandals like the corruption surrounding Pandemrix during the swine flu outbreak, it goes beyond “pure science” and into the realm of “scientific corruption.” Yet certainly I, when in General Practice, had no inkling that such doubts even existed – we were simply spoon fed expert consensus, NHS policy and vaccination payments, and we rejoiced at how effectively we’d jabbed everyone in the ever-widening target groups.

The other trend, which came as I was researching my e-book Seeing Through Smoke rather than my academic friends vaccine concerns, was the rather surprising stress being placed on mass-vaccination in policy documents about the world’s socio-political future, which to me rather stuck out like a sore thumb from generalities like “sustainability,” “equality,” “overpopulation,” and so on. Vaccination for everything was not too much of a surprise coming from an NGO like the Gates Foundation, and clearly might be mentioned by the WHO, but it seemed also to be a central part of every WEF, UN, Bilderberger (etc, etc) policy aim for the world’s future.

Somehow it seemed to mean more than simply getting the poor of the world out of the polio and measles cycle. Apart from also being the apparent answer to cancer vaccination was also mentioned in the context of the risk of new pandemics and other novel diseases, not to mention biological warfare, and to be closely linked to controlling travel through digital identities. That focus has become far clearer with COVID, both because of the newer policy statements by governments and trans-nationals, and because it brings clarity to what seemed rather disconnected before.

The bottom line is that many of the movers and shakers of the world have become utterly convinced that the final answer to most of the world’s actual and potential health problems is the vaccination of everyone for everything. Through organisations like GAVI, governments too have bought into this vision, and it is clearly apparent in things like the WHO’s change in the definition of herd immunity last year to one entirely revolving around vaccines..

I don’t want to concentrate here on any possible malevolent underlying motives for this, such as bringing the world into dependence on Big Pharma, into slavery to Big Government, or even into termination by Big Death. I just want to draw attention to the “Vaccines are Our Salvation” policy that seems to be assumed even by the good guys saying they are big fans of vaccines apart from the present COVID lot, and to the possibility that it is highly misguided. Vaccines, like most things, are a mixed blessing.

The Eugyppius substack article linked at the top discusses a number of the problems in relation not only to COVID vaccination, but to flu and other vaccinations as well. Whether or not the recent UK signs of actual “Original Antigenic Sin” in response to mass-vaccination turn out to matter, it is obvious that a number of serious theoretical problems with vaccination have been known for a while, and that they can cause enormous harm. This is particularly true when the aim is to vaccinate the whole world in short order during a pandemic.

Either the consortium of vaccine interests is simply unaware of these risks (and remember that Sajid Javid and Bill Gates and Boris Johnson could sit and formulate vaccination policy forever without a single science qualification between them) or it is blinded by a monocultural approach to medical science.

The truth seems to be that “I support vaccines” is as dangerous a generalisation as “I support antibiotics” or “I support surgery.” I am increasingly of the opinion that we will soon find that vaccination has been taken far beyond its life-saving role and into the realm of dangerous and careless over-use. There would seem to be quite major constraints on the kind of vaccines, and the kind of vaccination programmes, which will actually be beneficial to public health. Just as treating every cold and every farm-animal with antibiotics has produced widespread bacterial resistance, and just as gung-ho surgery from routine tonsillectomies to Nobel-prizewinning leucotomies seemed to be progress but weren’t, so it is with vaccines.

The idea that if we can produce a vaccine, we should, and that everyone in the world should receive it, seems to be highly misguided. Highly lucrative, but misguided.

Maybe the outcomes from COVID will prove this – or maybe the myth of the Vaccine Gospel, backed as it is by a very powerful priesthood, is just too strong.

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to I’m pro-vaccination, but…

  1. Jon Garvey says:

    Still on vaccines, I’ve just heard about on the news about an Imperial College study that showed that a sufferer from COVID stands about a 25% chance of passing it on to double-vaxxed people in their household.

    Do you remember that earlier study that showed the general transmission rate of COVID in households was 17%, or 40% for spouses. We now, of course, have different variants, but those figures suggest that double vaccination has achieved roughly nothing.

Leave a Reply