Towards the end of 2021, I did a piece on how the obvious abuses of science and medical ethics in the development and roll-out of COVID genetic medications (aka “vaccines”) had led me to re-evaluate my enthusiasm for vaccines in general.
I wrote how I had only begun to take a more than superficial interest in the matter after mediating in a conversation between an academic who knows several people with children apparently severely damaged by the infant vaccination schedule, and a doctor who insisted, essentially, that the science shows vaccines to be safe and effective. Read my article to see where that took me.
I was reminded of this by an excellent discussion on the science of vaccine harms between married evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyling. This in turn arose from their belated release of an interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jnr., from about the same time as my blog, withheld at that time because of the degree of controversy in which they were already embroiled by bucking the COVID narrative.
There’s much good stuff in the two videos, though most relevant here is the first. In it, Weinstein mentions how, in defending vaccine-damaged legal clients, R.F.K. suddenly developed a more personal interest in the wider issues. This was by reading the data-sheet on the flu vaccine, and discovering that his most notable physical characteristic – a neurologically damaged voice, which rare condition he had developed mysteriously some years beforehand – was listed as an adverse reaction to the vaccine. It was far too late to establish a causal link between his condition and the many flu vaccines he had had back then. But the conversation led Weinstein himself to wonder whether his own late-onset allergies to wheat, pollen and (of all things) marijuana might also have been triggered by the flu vaccines.
If you’re too lazy to listen to the video, vaccines like influenza, containing dead fragments of the viruses in question, are insufficiently allergenic to trigger an immune response. So toxic “adjuvants” like aluminium compounds are added to provoke an intense sensitisation of the whole immune system, rendering the virus particles “visible” to it, and so triggering antibody formation. The potential problem is that the awakened immune system may also react to familiar molecules that happen to be in the body, like constituents of wheat, marijuana – or nerve tissue, including the developing brain cells of infants. The massive increase of these adjuvant vaccines in the last forty years has coincided with a massive increase in both allergic and auto-immune conditions, which is an interesting correlation, though not of course necessarily linked. Research to investigate this risk has not been adequately done – how indeed could you research the effects of the 90+ doses of adjuvated vaccines in US infants with a large enough unvaccinated control group?
To add my own testimony, I simply didn’t consider having a flu jab necessary after a couple of decades, and several bad flu seasons, in general practice without any major problems. But my partners insisted I start having them, to avoid my absence at the busiest time of the year, which got me into the habit for the rest of my career and into my dotage until two years ago, apparently with no ill effects whatever. At that point I read the Cochrane report on their uselessness and didn’t see the point of risking an earlier onset of Alzheimers for little or no benefit.
But to return to my gentle coercion into surgery policy, neither I nor my partners ever considered the question of possible adverse reactions at all – it was all about possible benefits v. “masterly inactivity.” But why, when even the data sheet lists a range of quite dire ARs, did we not only merrily slap the stuff into each others’ arms (none of us with conditions that might render us at serious risk from flu), but happily run an assembly line for the increasingly large queues of people for whom the NHS recommended jabs? I can vouch for the fact that it wasn’t only the pound signs in our eyes, though item-of-service fees are always welcome. We genuinely thought we were saving lives without any downside whatosever. “safe and effective.” Likewise as we turned infant legs and arms into pin-cushions for the ever-lengthening tally of childhood adjuvated vaccines. It is professionals’ unthinking acceptance of vaccines as an unmitigated blessing – even as a sacred cow when their heavenly perfection is challenged – that I want to explore here.
Weinstein casts some light on the matter, because he used to lecture students on the elegance of vaccines and their untrammeled blessings for human health, actively encouraging them to get whatever was offered to them too. As he began to question things, he realised that he had never considered vaccines in their actuality, but only as the text-book diagram described them in theory. In other words, he saw the beauty of the idea of pre-warning the immune system about a bug by presenting it with an attenuated or dead version. He had never even considered that, to make that elegant principle work, manufacturers had to do all kinds of dubious things to the witch’s brew they send out to the public.
As an analogy, you might think it wonderful that some organisation trains alsatians to sniff out lost infants and carry them home in their jaws. But then you find out that to make the dogs notice the children at all, they are savagely whipped, and that as a result they sometimes run amok, not only tearing the test-babies to bits, but rampaging around the neighbourhood causing mayhem. As in Darwinian evolution, the devil is in the detail.
Weinstein did not, at that time, know the details, largely because he had not reckoned on criminal pharmaceutical corporations, bought regulators and corrupt Public Health institutions, all of which make it their business to divert professional attention away from actually exploring the evidence.
Few doctors get beyond the “recommended vaccine schedule” to glance at the research references in the footnote. Fewer still read the papers, and even fewer are able to parse journal articles carefully designed by Big Pharma people to present positive conclusions about a product and to mask any detrimental effects. Even the one or two sceptics who, seeing through the double-speak, try to get hold of the original data on which the study was based will find it is withheld “for commercial reasons.” If those one or two are still suspicious, then like R.F.K. they are obvious heretics and will keep quiet or be shut up.
This is the kind of problem one faces when one hears that the supposed link between MMR and autism has been debunked. Maybe it has, but who designed the research and what were his concealed commercial links? Who wrote up the actual paper? And where can we get hold of the complete dataset, the exclusions from the trial, and so on? John Ioannides showed that 60% of medical research is not replicable. So is the research that got Andrew Wakefield struck off in the other 40%, and how would we know? At the time, us docs were only too glad that “science” had exposed the charlatan, confirmed our professional biases, and enabled us to carry on as we were. Now I am less gung-ho.
R.F.K., in a meeting with Anthony Fauci some years ago, claimed that not one current vaccine has been tested against placebo, but only against other vaccines. That, of course, would make any adverse reactions to components shared between both invisible, because “normal.” “No increase was found in adverse reactions across the study population compared to the control group.”
Fauci denied this claim, and when asked to produce even one such placebo-controlled study, characteristically fumbled about with the papers on the table and said, “It’s back at the office.” Only much later, after persistent pressuring, did NAIAD staff (not Fauci, of course) admit that no such research exists.
At the heart of professional unconcern and ignorance about the possibility that vaccines are causing serious harm, apart from the powerful phenomenon of medical and scientific solidarity against scaremongering amateurs, is the same phenomenon that has been revealed since COVID hit the scene in 2020 – most people just find it impossible to believe that the entire system in which they live, move and have their being is lying to them. We assume that our professional colleagues, the companies and regulators for which they work, and the government ministers they report to, are interested in the truth and the best interests of ordinary people. It helps, of course, for those authorities to label questioners as “Antivaxxers” and associate them with the Holocaust.
Professionals’ gullibility is, I suppose, a tribute to their own essential honesty and goodwill. Bret Weinstein had no reason to know that the complex vaccination story had become a heroic myth, cynically exploited by those without heroism in high places. And neither did my erstwile partners, committed to demonstrating the love of Christ through the highest quality of medical care, doubt the myth. Likewise, the public, unless they happen to have experienced a child developing autism after an MMR jab, are as innocent as doves about such possibilities, and adore vaccines as an Immaculate Contraption from medical heaven. Perhaps the journalist who has just closed down a T.V. debate with R.F.K. because of “his dangerous views on infant vaccines” is an innocent, too – if he is not part of the corruption problem.
But as I have said so often here, although Jesus told us to be as innocent as doves, in the same breath he told us to be as wise as serpents. Let the reader understand.