On Boosters and Child-Vaccination
Dissident Data to Factor into Your Decisions as the Vax Narrative Collapses
Keeping Your Ears Open
Back in the late 80s the folk-singer Roger Manning penned a timeless line about not shutting out advice from the Left:
But ever since Vietnam, I keep my left ear open.
Do you, and let’s assume you are vaccinated yourself, keep your “vax-skeptic ear” open at present? You should. And especially if, whether from inconveniences posed by external obstacles, or from some internal hesitation of your own, you have not yet boosted, nor permitted your child to be vaxxed.1
In the main, I write this essay for you, aiming to keep you from making those decisions with insufficient care. Here in the tail-end period of the Covid-crisis, as the confusion of the public conversation will be reaching new heights, I urge you not to just wearily submit to all those pro-vax slogans and persons which hector you. Quite a bit of important new data has come into view over the last few months, which typical media is not yet reporting.
I of course try to write with a tone of confidence, but I invite you, and particularly if you do know me personally, to picture me as I really am in this piece: sweating, and on my knees, pleading that you look into what could be life or death information.
Now I am among the tribe of the unvaxxed, but since I am not as dense as the average Canadian media figurehead, I understand that the group of the vaxxed hold a broad range of opinions about Covid-policy. For example, vaxxed-but-anti-mandate is a label that always made perfect sense to me. Back last May, when I began to realize—to my deep dismay--that a fight against vaccine mandates would actually have to take place in our supposedly liberal-democratic nations, I assumed that throughout that fight I could remain largely neutral, or even fairly positive, about the vaxxes themselves.
But while I am in alliance on the mandate-opposition front with persons who are vaccinated and quite positive about the vaxxes, I now believe the vaxxes are not neutral-in-themselves tools, but in-and-of-themselves dangerous. They harmed or killed a significant percentage of those who accepted them in 2021, and horrifyingly, there is more and more evidence suggesting they could do damage to a far larger percentage over the long term.
The result of my straining to convey this to you is this long and link-heavy essay. The longest essay I’ve ever composed, in fact! I begin it by discussing the overall policy picture at present before getting to the critical information. I do this for your benefit, but also to meet the expectations of my regular readers at PostModernConservative. If you wish to consider some of the most alarming information without bothering with my set-up and my mediating voice, I recommend a January 17th summary-of-what-we-know piece by Steve Kirsch, titled “Incriminating Evidence.”
I also recommend the following video, 38-minutes of highlights from the recent meeting of dissident doctors held by the U.S Senate, at the behest of Senator Johnson.
The Final and Most-Confused Stage of the Covid-Crisis
The confusion and turmoil in our present Covid-conversation is on the one hand, biologically determined, because Omicron is changing everything. Many experts are beginning to preface any statement about Covid-19 in terms of whether it is one that only applies “pre-Omicron,” or not. As discussed below, Omicron likely means that the pandemic will soon end or take an extended break.
But on the other hand, even prior to Omicron, the dominant pro-vax and pro-mandate Narrative was falling apart. The world-wide impact that the Freedom Convoy in Canada is having, with copy-cat protests popping up from Finland to Bolivia, reflects that. Still, since all that is more a question of popular-opinion dynamics than of biology, however much mandate opponents like myself might try to pronounce that “It’s Over!”, hard experience has shown that things like facts or official spokespersons being repeatedly wrong, does not necessarily end a much-invested-in Narrative.
Thus, even if a decisive victory is won in Ottawa in the coming weeks, it is still going to be a period in which many of the Narrative’s chief spokespersons will be attempting rhetorical moves like gaslighting, and disguising major changes as a continuity of message. Others of them will fall into repeating the old slogans all the more, doubling-down in a last-ditch effort to keep public opinion set in the mold they have depended upon, knowing that as soon as it runs out of it, their careers are in danger. And most confusing of all, many persons you know will continue to reason and behave as if this Narrative still held—the memo will, so to speak, reach them very late in the day, and not a few will even refuse to read it to the end of their days. Some of these will be government officials and corporate bosses who have authority over you—many of them will be in the awkward position of having only recently imposed some of the most draconian mandate/passport/mask measures of the pandemic (see T-Mobile, NW Australia, Austria, Trudeau’s and Biden’s criminally-idiotic new rules for truckers, etc.), and surely, they will seek to keep a number of these going regardless of opposition; and as to the many measures they will now be forced to end, they will more loudly than ever insist that it was absolutely necessary to have imposed them.
So if anything, the politics of this period, the politics of policy and the politics of narrative-re-assessment, are going to be more rancorous than what has come before. Thus, if you are politics-allergic, you’re going to wish you could tune-out. For you, “Covid being over” has got to mean “the endless bickering about it being over also!”
That’s understandable.
But in feeling this way, you might continue to tune-out persons like myself, whom you might be tempted to categorize as the Politics-of-Covid-Obsessives, all the more. I have no reason to be happy about that, nor to provide you with any excuse. First of all, such a tuning-out can hurt you, as the latter two-thirds of this essay will underline. Second of all, it is wrong, for the politics of Covid are very important, illustrating nothing less than a betrayal of democracy by our elites. And whether you see it or not, I understand that even the “politics” of being “allergic to Covid politics” are decisively tilted to the left, or more precisely, to the advantage of the “leftism-so-called” of our managerial elite. Those of you who want the debates to end are often the same persons who throughout the pandemic accepted most of the latest talking points of the Narrative, and who behaved as if going along with most of its demands was the only smart, polite, and civic-minded path to take. The practical difference on Covid-issues between you and the dogmatic vaxxer/lockdowner has been slight, even though the difference-in-spirit remains significant.
But forgive me my sour grapes, for if you are like this, it nonetheless is my duty in this most confusing of moments to try to get some underreported information through.
On Omicron
Already you’re hearing it: “It’s over. The pandemic, and all the policy-debates about it, are now irrelevant. Because, Omicron.”
Again, I strongly disagree with the idea that the policy-debates will suddenly become irrelevant, as certain sins committed against common citizenship have been so egregious as to demand the demotion or removal of those who pushed them.
But the pandemic is probably over. Many scientists are now reasoning that because Omicron is so transmissible, that most societies around the globe will soon have what amounts to herd-immunity against it. So Omicron, which hospital-wise and death-wise is far less damaging than earlier strains, will have become for all practical purposes the only strain left.
Don’t take it from me, however, but from perhaps the most moderate and focused-solely-on-the-medical-facts Covid-19 commentator, Dr. John Campbell of the UK:
In another recent video, at 9:00, he reports the very good-news finding that contracting Omicron gives you immunity against Delta!
You should be watching Dr. Campbell. Unlike yours truly, he has always been for the vaccinations and still is, but he has earned his credibility by being very careful on the science, including a refusal to affirm the deceptive establishment-line on Ivermectin.
There are also a few non-biological reasons for why the Omicron wave stands to “end the pandemic,” i.e., to function as a last blow that causes The Narrative to collapse.
1.) The Omicron wave gave Covid-19 to millions of the dutifully-vaxxed. So they experienced for themselves, and not through the media lens, what it was like to contract the virus. The fear-of-the-unknown factor has been removed.
2.) The Omicron wave overwhelmed testing capacities. That brought chaos to organization after organization, and to economic sector after sector.
3.) This additionally removed the fig-leaf of respectable gentleness from all mandate policies that say “proof of vaccination or of a recent test.” When the tests became so difficult to obtain, mandate-supporters were forced to see the Kafka-esque arbitrariness and naked cruelty that their policies actually deliver.
4.) Relatedly, the skyrocketing case-numbers, even as death/hospitalization numbers stayed quite close to pre-Omicron levels, made government or corporate policies that functioned according to case-number triggers, i.e., that would shut-down activities on that basis, foolish to abide by. Here in Utah, our governor began pleading that people not try to get tested! And CDC director Walensky at one point seemed to also discourage getting tested, by weirdly admitting something Narrative-opponents have long been saying, that our existing tests don’t test for contagiousness! (At 4:55-6:30 in one of JP Sears’s more serious, but still-hilarious, videos.) Common-sense now sees that any policy centered on case numbers, and which operates as if danger-from-an-Omicron-case = danger-from-a-regular-Covid-19-case, must be scrapped.
The Main Failure of the Vaxxes
Regular readers know my harsh overall judgment about Covid-19 policy: during the two key decision-periods of a) Spring ‘20 and b) Summer ’21, a prudential evaluation—necessarily a multi-factor evaluation--would have seen that the major societal disadvantages of a) typical lockdown and masking policies, and b) vax passports and mandates, were destined to far out-weigh whatever Covid-fighting benefits these rules brought.
So it has proved. The economic chaos and mental-health damages predicted are here. Evidence mounts that serious developmental harm to children is here also.
And even prior to Omicron, it was becoming clear that the key justification for the fundamentally anti-liberal measures to pressure vax hold-outs, namely, the assumption that high vaccination rates would reduce the spread of Covid-19 to herd-immunity levels, was flat-out incorrect. That is, in terms of their main purpose, and the only purpose that could even pretend to justify the coercive measures, THE. VAXXES. DID. NOT. WORK.
I know many are in denial about this, and cling to the largely irrelevant-to-the-main-purpose fact that the vaxxes usually made symptoms less serious and reduced the hospitalization rate. Many of our denialists also make the error-in-logic of plugging their personal reasons for having felt greater security once vaxxed (as it turned out, a feeling fully in line with fact for only four months) into a reasoning about what is doable for a society. And yes, it must be said: those who were among the majority of persons who supported the coercive measures--the mandates, firings, fines, and passport-type-segregationist rules--now stand guilty of having too-readily suspended their liberal-democratic heritage in a crisis, like the panicky Americans that supported the internment of Japanese immigrants, most of them American citizens, during WWII. It would be shameful enough if today’s mandate-supporters had committed this betrayal of their civic heritage for some societal good, so that alongside their disgrace we would at least all be benefitting from that good, but we now know they did so for the sake of a mirage.
Retrospective speculation about how our societies would have done had the vaxxes not been pushed on the non-vulnerable, but had been left a matter of unpressured personal choice, such that we had only arrived at mid-level rates of vaccination, say, 40-50%, would be an interesting intellectual exercise, albeit one of much uncertainty. But permit me to speak in this contrafactual mode as a way of clarifying my argument: I would agree that “the vaxxes worked,” if they had originally been recommended as a way to temporarily protect the vulnerable, and to temporarily mitigate overall spread, hospitalization, and death. They were, however, pushed on quite different grounds.
I remain highly skeptical of all conspiracy theories about what was done that go further than saying the drug companies committed certain deceptions about the vaccines, and made certain irresponsible gambles in the course of their development, for the sake of massive profits. (See the link to the McCullough and Weinstein interview in fourth-to-last-paragraph for general evidence of this.) What I hold is that the leaders of those companies, and those of our medical and media/social-media institutions who worked in cooperation with them, would never have taken the radical steps of seeking to suppress early-treatment options like Ivermectin, and of pushing the anti-liberal coercive measures, had they not expected decisive benefits from high vaccination rates. I.e., what I hold is that they fooled themselves, even as they fooled others. Don’t get me wrong—I want these leaders punished. For without question, the reasonings in favor of those steps were in the first place evil ones, i.e., taboo-breaking, rights-dismissing, treatment-withholding, and citizenry-rending-ways of thinking, and this evil-thinking was plainly influenced by the profit-motive of those with big-pharma investments, but the point I seek to stress here is that the expectation from which the reasoning proceeded proved utterly incorrect. The numbers—pre-Omicron numbers, mind-you--that showed high case-numbers in the highly-vaccinated populations of Israel, Ireland, and Vermont did not and do not lie. It was a mirage. Our Covid-policy leaders sent us wildly running out into a desert of firings, hatred, and chaos, for nothing.
It is not the case that they all-along expected such a rapid and high degree of “breakthrough” cases. Nor is it the case that they can blame the breakthrough problem on the unvaxxed like myself, even if we surely increased, through our contribution to spread, the number of breakthrough cases by some factor, although likely by only a small amount. But whatever debate we all might have about that is comparatively unimportant, as the main cause of the breakthroughs was the efficacy-fade-out of the vaxxes themselves. Nor can the boosters solve this problem unless a method for precisely predicting the timing of efficacy fade-out is devised, a method which, as far as I am aware, no group of scientists is predicting we will obtain.
Note, however, that that last sentence cannot matter one way or the other now, since Omicron has taken over!2
On Vaxxing Children
Is there anyone who still hasn’t made a decision about whether to get vaccinated or not? I mean the main decision, not the secondary one faced by a prefer-not-to-vax person trying to weigh the pros and cons of submitting to a mandate.
I decided against getting vaxxed back in March of last year. I contracted the virus in early November, before Omicron, and suffered a low-to-medium degree of sickness for someone in their 50s. So I now have natural immunity against the pre-Omicron strains, at the least.
But many of you do face these two decisions at present: Should you boost? Should you get your children vaxxed?
Let’s start with the second question, as the necessity to answer NO is now clear.
We’ve long known that the rates of death or serious harm for Covid-19 infection for children are vanishingly low. Given that, one ought to conduct a risk-analysis comparison, initially, one focused on the short-term—let us say, in the half-year after taking the jab. And then, though any final data here is obviously lacking, one ought to conduct a more speculative comparison about the children’s long-term health.
For the short-term question, you seek to compare the two key risk-calculations, i.e., between on one hand, the risk of serious harm or death from an adverse-reaction to the vax, versus, and on the other, the risk of serious harm or death from catching Covid-19. I can’t provide you a completely detailed version of this comparison here, as it would involve too many links, but a solid summary of it with respect to children can be found from Tim Ellison, even if his data is a few months old.
So if the decision rides on short-term risk for the child, it is clear that the vax-risk there outweighs the Covid-one. However, both risk factors appear to be pretty low, and so until recently, many made the argument that this risk comparison doesn’t matter, because we need to halt aggregate spread in order to protect the more vulnerable. I.e., take the jab, kiddo, and the small assumption of greater risk that comes with it, to help save granny. But that argument, whatever one makes of its ethical reasoning, can no longer apply, as we’ve learned that widespread vaccination cannot reliably combat spread. So even if you errantly think vaxxing kids provides marginally better odds for those teachers who are in a vulnerable category (it does not, since even at top efficacy the vaxxes still allow the vaxxed to transmit the virus asymptomatically), you ought to admit that it does nothing for society as a whole.
Then there are the arguments about the risks to kids’ long-term health. They are three, but I’ll save the third for the end of the essay. The first is the deprivation of natural immunity argument. We don’t know for certain, but we have strong reasons to expect the natural immunity kids gain from contracting Covid-19, is one that lasts for life. We do think that the vaxxes impair or complicate natural immunity—here the science and data are quite uncertain, with some studies indicating that for the period of vax efficacy, those who have both the natural and the vax protection have a better immunity than those with only the natural one. Omicron further complicates our knowledge. But don’t let the confusion obscure the key point: we expect an unvaxxed child who catches Covid-19 today will likely enjoy significantly superior protection for the next thirty years than will a child who gets vaxxed, and especially when the vaxxed child does not catch Covid-19 anytime afterwards in childhood. With that basic picture in mind, why would we deprive a child of the superior natural immunity they can so easily obtain by remaining unvaxxed? What in the world, after the collapse of the “help contain transmission” argument, could possibly justify that?
Someday, your child will someday be able to grasp the weight of this reasoning. Sure, if Omicron and better treatment make the danger from contracting Covid-19 as an adult nearly identical to that of the flu, and if the long-term vax-harms sketched below do not materialize, your depriving them of superior immunity for life might not become a wrong they will ever notice; but otherwise, they will know that you harmed them, through thoughtlessness, conformism, etc.
The second argument about long-term risk comes from adding up all the short-term adverse-reaction risks of annual shots. A number of pro-vax experts have suggested that annual boosters could be required, indefinitely. Well, if so, to start a child out on the vax-path would require them to “roll the dice” of short-term adverse-reaction risk 70 times, compared, let us say, to the 10 times that a 65-year old might expect. Reasoning of this sort likely contributed to the recent statements by experts from Israel, the EU, and the WHO warning that a policy of repeat boosters is not viable for the long-term, and why Sweden recently decided against vaxxes for children.
But Should You Boost?
If you’ve vaxxed, the option of taking the better path that the children can isn’t available to you. And probably, you’re never going to gain an immunity as good as my all-natural kind.
Thus, you might reason that, for better or worse, you’ve committed yourself to the kind of protection that the vaxxes provide.
Moreover, if you’re in one of the vulnerable categories, the incentive to boost increases. I am going to be laying out evidence that should cause you worry about the possibility of harms from the vax, but hear me: if you’re in one of the vulnerable categories, you have a duty to do advanced risk-calculation work of your own. You need to consult a doctor who knows you, your conditions, and is not adverse to learning from dissident doctors. If you talk to your doctor, and she is, for example, opposed to treatments like Ivermectin, and totally dismissive of the criticisms of official hospital protocols, in my judgment you need to start shopping around for a new, or at least an additional, doctor to consult. If you don’t have present access to a more open-minded medical expert, a couple of resources by which you may begin exploring second opinions would be frontlinemedicaldoctors and myfreedoctor.com.
1.) Omicron. We have strong reason to think it, or competitors of similarly lower-dangerousness, will take over for good (cf. ftnt. #2). That means your risk of serious harm or death from a case of Covid-19 goes down by quite a bit, and more importantly, the near-herd immunity that Omicron’s prevalence will likely result in, should reduce the chance of your getting a case of it to miniscule levels, assuming you were to avoid catching one during this wave. So, what real benefit will the booster give you? Again, contracting Omicron gives you natural immunity against the old strains—so our pre-Omicron thinking that once one became dependent on the lesser immunity given by the vaxxes you would likely be obliged to stick with them doesn’t seem to apply anymore.
The territorial government of NW Australia, one of the world’s worst offenders in the mainstreaming of despotic governance on the pretext of Covid, recently announced that the booster provides a 64% rate of protection against Omicron. If you think for a moment, it’s unclear what that number even means. Is it a rate of estimated protection from Omicron during this wave, somehow measured over some course of time, or, a rate of estimated protection from each incidence of exposure? And of course, big pharma is hinting it will have an Omicron-specific booster in “several months.”
If they were selling the booster merely on the claim—almost certainly correct for the pre-Omicron strains, a bit more uncertain for Omicron--that it reduces your odds of hospitalization-level sickness, that would be one thing. But they are still talking up the booster in terms of your duty to protect others. Top spokespersons are talking as if an old chain of reasoning a.) unaware of what we know about vax-efficacy fade-out, and b.) unaware of Omicron, could still apply! And even in an imagined situation, say two-years down the line, in which a new and more-dangerous-than-Omicron variant started to spread, why should anyone now expect that the vax-course, maybe by then a 5-shot or 7-shot course, would work—in terms of preventing transmission--against it?
I admit my Dr.-Campbell-influenced understanding of what Omicron will do could be proven wrong, but note: all of my remaining reasons advising against boosters in no way depend on these Omicron-predictions being vindicated.
2.) You take on another adverse-reaction risk (of the short-term kind) each time you take a vax shot.
More precisely, until we know much more about why the various kinds of adverse reactions are happening, our ignorance obliges us to assume this is how the risk is best calculated.
3.) While few medicines are 100% safe, the number of serious and fatal adverse reactions from these vaccines is much, much higher—off the charts higher--than that of most other medicines.
Here is the present VAERS data. So far:
22,000 deaths.
119,000 hospitalizations.
39,000 permanently disabled.
3,500 miscarriages.
And so much more once you dig into the data! And do not forget that all these numbers represent persons.
Now do note that because VAERS accepts reports on America-developed vaccines from those in other nations who use them, these are world-wide numbers. The number of America-specific VAERS deaths as of now, for example, is around 12,000.
I assume you’ve already read a little about how VAERS is compiled, and understand why there is strong reason to believe it is undercounting rather than overcounting. Here’s the prolific vax-opponent Steve Kirsch on the subject:
If you report an adverse event in V-Safe, you’ll get a call from HHS and they’ll tell you to report that adverse event to VAERS. Many people don’t do that, or don’t know about VAERS or V-Safe, so VAERS is always underreported.
According to a paper analyzing this published in 2015 in a peer reviewed journal, the underreporting is by a factor from 9.52 to 95.5 times.
3a.) Yes, throughout 2021, vax-apologists tried to argue there was overcounting in VAERS by positing coincidence. Given that so many in the entire population were being vaxxed, they said, of course there would be incidences where a family that saw a loved one killed or harmed by a health event in the days or weeks after a vax would assume, but on insufficient evidence, that there was a causal connection. And nearly all media behaved as if they had a duty to super-cautious about lending any credence to common-sense suspicions of causation. If you dig-in, you’ll find story after story of some rare medical event, such as a teenager suffering heart-failure, explicitly denied by the media outlet to be linkable by any responsible sort of reasoning to that person’s recent vaccination. Or, they wouldn’t even report the latter fact! It has been media malpractice on a major scale that ought to result in the removal of top editors at nearly every national and local outlet.
Recent evidence, however, has tended to confirm the common-sense. Dr. Arne Burkhardt did 15 autopsies of a special, tissue-micro-scoping kind called histopathological analysis on the organs of persons who died weeks or months after vaccination, and found that while
…the initially performed conventional post-mortems…uncovered no obvious hints to a possible role of vaccination, since the macroscopic appearance of the organs was overall unremarkable… Histopathologic analysis show clear evidence of vaccine-induced autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs.
Now you might dispute that it was evidence of autoimmune-like pathology, but clearly, Dr. Burkhardt found some kind of quite unusual evidence of pathology that must be explained. Later, the number of bodies he performed these histopathological analyses upon was increased to 70, and he found the same results in 90% of them, as the video I provide way down below from Dr. Bhakdi, Dr. Burkhardt’s research-colleague, indicates. Note also that he performed these autopsies on the bodies of the deceased whose family members suspected that something did not add up.
If these doctors are right--and it should be easy to learn if their results were correct by directing just a couple-dozen more experts to conduct similar analyses—it is quite likely that most of the unusual deaths and events are not due to coincidence. And worse, these deaths are likely best explained by a theory of vax-triggered auto-attack that as far as I understand it, could turn out to be a long-term phenomenon.
Bhakti and Burkhardt conclude thusly, I think too categorically as my interjection indicates, but nonetheless in a way that gives us much to worry about:
That myriad adverse events deriving from such auto-attack processes must be expected to very frequently occur in all individuals, particularly following booster injections, is self-evident. [Much depends on how we define “very frequently,” and obviously that cannot include “all” individuals who vaxxed. ed.] Beyond any doubt, injection of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines places lives under threat of illness and death. We note that both mRNA and vector-based vaccines are represented among these cases, as are all four major manufacturers.
3b.) That might help explain why there is mounting evidence that the actual death count is much higher. See the Kirsch piece I linked about a page up, in which he claims he has 12 ways to confirm this, but especially by relying on counts of excess-mortality which exclude Covid-19 deaths. (I do wonder if he has taken adequate care to factor out of his calculations all the excess deaths which are occurring due to postponements of treatments and screenings, as discussed at Johnson’s Senate hearing.) In any case, Kirsch estimates in that piece, he says conservatively, that that the actual number of US deaths caused by the vaccines is near 300,000. That sounds too high to my gut, but in the back of my mind are several troubling reports of increased mortality across the globe, such as this one from a UK funeral director.
I’m going to be extra-conservative, and slice Kirsch’s estimate in half, and so, if we take this 150,000 estimate, and divide that into the number who are counted as “fully vaccinated,” i.e., who received two doses, we arrive at a 1 in 1400 aggregate chance of dying from the vax, in the short-term.
So the risk is quite real. These vaxxes are dangerous, and even if we only permitted ourselves to look at the short-term, the comparative risk calculation would be clearly against them for really anyone under about 40 in good health. (All this assumes Kirsch at his more conservative is at least half-right—but do note there other vax opponents who argue the real number of American vax-deaths is around 40,000.) And once we know the post-Omicron-wave data, a similar calculation might even apply up through the below-64 and healthy category.
3c) There are two possibilities, however, that could cause us to regard a significant number of the adverse-events as not due to the medicine itself. The first would be the way a very widely-committed error in the way the shots are delivered, the skipping of the “aspiration” safety-step (the shot-giver does a brief pull-back on the plunger after initial skin-penetration to make sure he is not about to inject directly into a blood-vessel) has likely increased the overall number of adverse events.
There is a study, if I’m remembering correctly, which has shown that aspiration reduces the risk of myocarditis by a factor of three. My apologies for having no link to that, but I probably got that from Dr. Campbell, and there’s more info from him here on the aspiration issue.
The second would be the possibility, which has been raised especially about the striking increase of dramatic cardiac events among athletes, that the event is often caused not by the vaccine, but by Covid-19 itself, given the many undiagnosed cases of it, and given our still-substantial uncertainty about its long-term impacts. However, data from New Zealand, which has had next to no Covid-19, but a higher-than typical vaccination rate, strongly suggests there is nothing to this argument. For their rate of adverse events tracks with what we are seeing elsewhere, whereas if those events often being were caused by Covid-19 itself, their rate would be much lower. See 12:00-15:30 in this rich-throughout video from Peak Prosperity.
But let us say we are somehow wrong about what the New Zealand data means, such that these two guess-based explanations are right. That would mean that any Kirsch-like extrapolations from all-cause-mortality data and other indices, would be overcounting the harms done by the medicines themselves. With the lack-of-aspiration explanation, there would be no comfort, of course, to those who did suffer an adverse event due to the neglect in the way the medicine was administered, but it would make the rest of us feel a bit less queasy about the normal operation of the vax ingredients.
But note that these explanations remain essentially guesses, and that the second one is likely wrong. And likewise note that while they are possible arguments for reducing the number-estimates of vax opponents like Kirsch, the lowered number of adverse-events would remain an alarming one.
4.) And what might the long-term risk be?
The key question here is what reasoning about why the adverse events are happening would permit us to decisively separate the short-term from the long-term? I.e., what is the science of how these vaccines work that also is able to explain most of the adverse events, and, which is able to assure us why such events will be mostly confined to the short term?
Apply this to three cases.
Case one: two medically similar persons boost the same day with a vax from the same batch, and within a week one of them dies of cardiac arrest, and a histopathological post-mortem confirms it was caused, in accordance with Dr. Burkhard’s and Dr. Bahkti’s theory, by an auto-immune attack. What science can assure the one who did not suffer a cardiac attack that he is “in the clear” from any future similar attack due to this particular shot? I am not saying such a scientific explanation is not out there. But I do not know it. You, likely, do not know it either.
Case two: a woman I know, in her 40s, suffered a 70% loss of hearing in one ear. Lasted for about a month, and then largely-healed, down to a 5% loss. What science can assure her that a.) her heaing will not be damaged a second time, or that b.) that she is “in the clear” from any other adverse reactions due to this particular shot? I am not saying such a scientific explanation is not out there. But I do not know it. You, likely, do not know it either.
Case three: a despotism-mainstreaming governor of a major state, who regardless of all his denials, seems likely from the photographic and circumstantial evidence to have suffered a case of Guillain-Barré shortly after his booster. Assuming he did, what science can assure him he is “in the clear” from any other adverse reactions due to this particular shot? Same again.
And consider just how many types of adverse events that have been reported so far, and ask yourself, what is the science that can explain a high number, let us say 75%, of all these types, and in so doing assure us that the risk of them is in some way a confined one? Here’s some of the most prominent adverse events or conditions:
1) Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, 2) Guillain-Barré syndrome, 3) Myocarditis, 4) Pericarditis, 5) intracranial hemorrhage, 6) Bell’s Palsy, 7) peripheral neuropathy, 8) severe and persistent muscle spasms, 9) menstrual issues, 10) miscarriages, 11) re-emergence of latent disease (cancers, etc.), 12) worsening diabetes, and 13) a yet-to-be-named condition noticed by some embalmers which I’ll call “stringy blood-clot syndrome.” But as Steve Kirsch puts it, and this is again from his recent “Incriminating Evidence” piece, there are “hundreds more [ed.--types of] serious adverse events that are obvious in VAERS...”
Where is the explanation that accounts for a.) the sheer numbers of adverse reactions, and b.) the wide range of reaction types? And again, since that explanation will have to be one that involves at least several biological processes triggered by the vax-medicine that are resulting in these various sorts of events, it will be obliged to additionally convince us that no yet-to-be-documented other events, could also result from these processes.
If they can’t give you such an explanation, what good are their assurances of safety?
5.) The behavior of the vax-manufactures does not lead to confidence. You can dig into various accounts about how the initial trials did not go so well, and how information about them has been hidden, but one of the most surprising things is: why haven’t large tests with animals such as rats been conducted?
And then there is the creepy refusal of the companies to be forthright about the ingredients. Consider how this panel of four dissident docs dealt with a question that contained a wild speculation about nano-bots being in there—they discourage any discussion of that idea, but everything else they relate on this topic of “the ingredients” is rather troubling.
All in all, there are just too many unanswered questions adding up. Consider this one paragraph from the letter that a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, Richard Mehner, recently composed in protest after he was fired due to a mandate:
Data from the UK is showing that vaccinated adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of the unvaccinated. American VAERS data shows these Covid “vaccines” have caused more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the last 30 years. In Europe, FIFA data has revealed a 500% increase in cardiac events and sudden deaths in soccer players. Very recently, the American Heart Association released a study which demonstrated that Mrna “vaccines” dramatically increase markers related to heart conditions. A recent German study showed that the higher a jurisdictions’ vaccination rate, the higher it’s mortality rate. On November 11th of this year, a Doctor Nagase came forward to report a record 13 still born births, in a 24 hour period, at BC Children’s hospital. They average 1 per month. During a very recent Ontario provincial parliament debate, MP Rick Nicholls confronted the health minister about a sharp rise in still births from vaccinated pregnant women in Ontario. All he got for his efforts was deflection.
You can sniff at such “research” by non-experts all you want. You can dismiss portions of it as “anecdotes.” But since the “anecdotes” might start entering your own life, and perhaps they already have, affecting your own colleagues, friends, and loved-ones, you might permit yourself to wonder: “Why am I hearing of so many? Could it all be a function of paranoia and bad social media dynamics? Somehow causing those I know to misunderstand their own experiences?”
And you might also ask, with Steven Kirsch, why there has been zero willingness to hold public debates on the adverse reactions!
Could the Vaxxes Be a Long-Term Poison?
We do not know. One way or the other. We might say “they surely cannot be” simply on the basis of modern humanity never having experienced anything that momentous and bizarre, at least outside of the Nazi and Communist death-camp experiences, but the bottom line is we don’t really know.
But I am deeply sorry to report that signs that it may be true, at least to some degree, are beginning to emerge.
I will say more below about the special sensitivity that vax-opponents ought to have whenever they discuss this issue, but I want to go right to a particularly disturbing video recently released by Dr. Bhakdi. It is disturbing a.) due his own emotional judgment, and b.) due to his theory, which projects auto-immune attacks on various organs, and most devastatingly, on the lymph-nodes which themselves enable all our immunities. It is also disturbing c.) due to his and Dr. Burkhardt’s findings on the 70 cadavers, which we talked about above--and do note that if you don’t think he’s likely to be right on b.), that would not alter finding c.) which again, calls the “coincidence” argument into grave question.
These two doctors could be wrong about their theory about what caused the pathology they have found strong evidence of. And if Bhakdi is wrong about his scariest projection, that attacks in the lymph-nodes would weaken various immune-cells, he tells us precisely what would disprove this part of his theory: we would not see what he predicts, dramatic unexplained increases in rates of diseases like cancer, herpes, and tuberculosis.3
Bhakdi and Burkhardt are far from the only ones suggesting that auto-immune attacks, and/or similarly destructive, but differently-triggered, longer-term processes, could be unleashed by these vaxxes. One might review some of key discussions on these topics by the podcaster biology professor couple Bret and Heather Weinstein, or look over the recent paper highlighted here by Alex Berenson. If you’re not too prejudiced to listen to some speculations by a MIT researcher who writes books against widely-used weed-killers and who wears tie-dye, you might consider what Stephanie Senett was saying back in July, warning that “Covid Vaccines May Cause Diseases in '10 to 15 years.’” Or one could begin poking around the site of the Doctors for Covid Ethics. What will strike you is that while auto-immune attack theories are the primary long-term worry, there seem to be 10 or so other kinds of long-term-harm theories.
And scariest of all, as I was putting this review together, a bombshell report came from the embalmer Richard Hirschman, on the Dr. Jane Ruby show. It is either the story of the century, or one of the vilest frauds ever. Hirschman says he and other embalmers are increasingly finding never-before-noticed long rubbery-clot strings in the veins of cadavers. If it is not soon shown to be some kind of elaborate hoax, or a fundamental mistake about what the embalmers are finding—perhaps the mistake is being unaware of a vax-induced process that takes place in the blood after death--, it ought to immediately shut down the entire vaccination program.
Pay special attention to the claim made at 14:30—15:45.
I pray God, for the sake of nearly all my loved ones, that this is wrong. If not, we are dealing with a.) significant upticks of mortality in the vaccinated, and b.) somewhere near half of the cadavers being examined during this uptick showing evidence that stongly suggests the vaxxes, or something new operating in the same time-frame, are causing the growth of killer-clots in the veins. If Hirschman’s story holds up, it does not necessarily mean that all or most the vaxxed will develop these, but it would have to be a high proportion if the numbers the embalmers are noticing in recent cadavers are to make any sense; hopefully, again, this is a hoax, but if the story holds up, perhaps we would be able to detect the growth of these clot-strings through imaging, and devise a treatment to dissolve them.
We need immediate attention from top researchers on this. Immediate top-level investigations from multiple organizations across the globe.
It will not be adequate, for example, to point out that this Dr. Jane Ruby who conducts the interview with Hirschman has had some kind of association with Infowars in the past. Serious testing and wide-interviewing of morticians must be conducted ASAP. The usual 2021 script with these sorts of reports, the usual “dismiss what the deplorables are sharing” script, must be ripped to shreds.
Representatives of all democratic nations must similarly demand (any GOP reps listening?) that resources be applied to looking into the research of doctors like Burkhardt and Bhakdi. I know I suggested above that the Covid-crisis has entered a final stage, a simply-a-matter-of-how-long-it-takes-to-kill-the-Narrative-with-the-present-facts stage, but if the worst theories discussed in this section prove true, we will have to pivot from a fading health-crisis of Covid-19, to a perhaps more serious health-crisis of vaccine-harm. And if so, more lives would be lost the longer we stayed in denial about what was happening. Even if, God forbid, it could be that great waves of debilitation and death are on their way that our science can do little to hold back, it would be better to have more time to prepare.
I will say this to my fellow vax-resister: it is a sin to even to want the long-term poison hypothesis—any version of it--to prove true, and a worse one to allow let such a dark desire pass forth from one’s lips. I acknowledge that, even as not a few mandate supporters slipped into openly wishing for numbers of us to die from Covid-19 as a way to vindicate what they thought was the correct view, not a few of us are similarly tempted to hope they will face dire consequences, again, as a way to vindicate what we think is the correct view, but also, out of a desire for revenge. Turn from such temptation, resolutely and firmly. Do not let your urgency about having the latest findings become known turn into a kind of “excitement” about them, a glee at showing your opponents just how wrong they were. But I also say to those mandate-supporters who allowed your leaders to slander us vax-refusers over and over, to try to silence us, segregate us, fire us, etc., you should not be surprised by the desire for lashing back. If you become stunned at the hatred some of the unvaxxed will display when discussing the dark hypotheses of long-term harm, I say you should let it prompt you, first and foremost, to repent for the way you enabled your side’s kind of hatred, and perhaps succumbed to it yourself.
All that said, the long-term vax-harm hypotheses must be discussed openly. Great harm would be done by what we might regard as taboos of conversation and journalistic/scientific investigation, should they prevent our nations from realizing for several crucial years, or even crucial months, that a mass horror was unfolding.
The Implication Regarding Child-Vaccination
It would be one thing if you refused, due to prejudice against dissidents like myself, to attend to the many warning-signs now flashing that there is significant risk of long-term damage from these vaxxes, and these warnings proved all-too-true, such that you would later know that by accepting the booster you probably sliced three-or-so years off your lifespan, or even doomed yourself to comparatively early death, say in your 50s. A most horrible thing. But it will be something altogether more horrifying if you sentence your children to short lives due to such negligence. All the excuses one might try to grant oneself--“But media and the CDC misled me!” “I meant to protect the vulnerable!” “They left me no choice.” --would ring hollow. Please—on my knees please—do not permit them to vaccinate your children.
As we speak, there are some families becoming refugees rather than submit to this, for they understand the stakes; and yes, that is how shockingly far the despotism has gone in some lands.
The Shock of Dissident Information
For those hardy souls who were pro-vax, or even pro-mandate, but who have now read to the end of this, and who have not been dismissive readers along the way, I know it must be a shock to realize that your leaders and usual outlets kept so much troubling information out of your notice. The question of why they did is another whole can of worms, but I do think that a basic combination of 1) base financial motives, 2) a long-established pattern of bogeyman-invention of right-wing villains that drive many to dismiss dissident voices, and most importantly, 3) the phenomena of groupthink by appointed leaders, is adequate to explain what has happened. I do not categorically rule out the explanations provided by conspiracy theories, indeed I think it is plain that a certain conspiracy was pulled-off by the drug companies—see one of the best overall-situation videos, the December interview of Dr. Peter McCullough by Bret Weinstein, esp. at 52:00-58:00, 104:00-107:40 for my reasons for thinking so. But I don’t think you need to posit “plandemic”-type theories to explain the widespread deception, orchestration of public-opinion, and disgusting moves into despotism, that we’ve all been subjected to, and with many of us lured into participating in these sins. And I do not think the conspiracies that did occur could possibly have been motivated by a goal of killing large numbers. I do not need such a theory to explain how our existing institutional dynamics, corrupt dynamics that reliably empower men like Anthony Fauci and Albert Bourla, could also produce a set of medicines so very flawed, and which will perhaps even prove widely deadly.
I first learned of the idea of “group-think,” a process whereby a group of otherwise very intelligent men and women collectively working to make a decision get swept into a narrow channel of thought, into an inability to hear alternative views and see what the full menu of options are, and thus, into disaster-causing error, in a book by Loren Baritz called Backfire: A History of How American Culture Led Us into Vietnam and Made Us Fight the Way We Did. He showed how group-think about Vietnam led some of our supposedly best-educated and best-trained men, the advisers assembled by President Kennedy in particular—many were retained by President Johnson--to make error after error, eventually resulting in an extended defeat that took the lives of 57,000 Americans, and over a million of the Vietnamese on both sides, before the disaster was most shamefully just walked away from by our government.
Our response, indeed most nations’ response, to Covid-19, will go down as a far-worse disaster than Vietnam. That will be the case even if all of what I have put forward in the long-term danger section is proven false, which I dearly hope it is. In any case, I hope to have shown you, even before we arrived at the long-term section, why the risk-calculations have become far too high to justify most boosting, or any vaxxing of kids.
And know also that there is still time, as the extent of the disaster already wreaked begins to be taken stock of, to redeem yourself if you have been a participant in the collective sins. You can repent, and join in efforts for broader reconciliation, and for lawful trial of the leaders suspected of great guilt. This will not be, even if the darker possibilities become reality, the end of the world, nor the end of your dignity. We very much need you and any children of yours around, and in the best-health possible, although we will be grateful enough for having you with us even in sickness… God forgive us all, and as the Anglican morning prayer puts it, deliver us, we beseech you, from our peril; give strength and skill to all those who minister to the sick; prosper the means made use for their cure; and grant that, perceiving how frail and uncertain our life is, we may apply our hearts unto that heavenly wisdom which leads to eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
In this piece I do not put scare quotes around the words vaccinate, vaccination, and vax, but I understand that these novel m-rna and viral-vector medicines cannot fit the standard definition/understanding of what a vaccine is. I do not discuss the real thing, i.e., the “non-Covid-19 vaccinations,” in this piece, so a term like “vax opponent” herein always just means an opponent of these new medicines, and in no way lines up with the pre-2020 usage of “anti-vaxxer,” which refers to a person who opposes many long-approved vaccines.
I am in no position to judge the claim, but FWIW, many scientists like Dr. Campbell are saying that it’s likely impossible that a new variant both more transmissible and more deadly than Omicron could establish itself.
I am aware that there is a “fact check” from Reuters that claims to dismiss the findings of Burkhardt’s and Bhakdi’s initial paper (a findings summary) that I linked. Two facts might make us suspect the credibility of Dr. Burkhardt: the German Society of Pathologists is in some way (unclear from the stories I could find) unhappy with that paper, and, in a presentation before them, he made the suspect move of labelling part of a microscopic photo of vax ingredients that appeared to show rectangular particles with the word “microchips?” A dumb move, that. Appropriately raises suspicions about him. However, the Reuters “check” is quite notable for the way it never seeks to refute the two doctors’ specific claims b.) and c.), but instead attacks a straw-man claim that they did not make, even if one moment of sloppy phrasing could sorta suggest they might go on someday to make it. I.e., it is an example of an entirely typical legacy-media science-reporting pattern during this crisis, which seeks to disqualify persons from the official discussion, but which does no work to actually review their findings or try to test their hypotheses. Again, these two docs could be wrong, and I hope and pray other scientists will show why they are wrong about claim b.), but for the moment, none have.
Re: dramatic increase in myocarditis and related maladies in 2021, if it were really being caused by COVID, and not the shots, then why wasn’t there a dramatic increase in such diseases in 2020, when a more virulent strain of COVID was raging and we didn’t have any “vaccines”?