I have many questions about a rushed corona vaccine mandate. Here are some of them.
I am not against well tested vaccines whose effects are well known and those who take it are made well aware of what exactly they are signing up for, including possible side-effects.
But I think it’s wrong for the government to force/coerce us into taking vaccines which were developed in great hurry and whose effects even their manufacturers seem unsure of.
I have no answers to give. Only questions.
(If you choose to respond to this post, I’ll try to reply. But the reply may take a long time to arrive. Even weeks. I would appreciate it if the discussions were made in a civil manner.)
Companies making vaccines are not trustworthy
I feel that we shouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to get jabs of medicine made by the same people who do stuff like this:
Pharma giants are for-profit. Their aim is money, not social service.
And if it’s more cost effective for them to pay the fine than to make misleading claims about their products, they would dot it.
There are too many similar examples. We can’t trust pharma giants.
- Pfizer: Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion, agrees to criminal plea (2009)
- J & J: Johnson & Johnson to pay $5bn in landmark $26bn US opioid settlement (2021)
(Article from 2 September 2021: Judge Approves Purdue Pharma Settlement That Shields Sacklers From Being Sued
Apparently the owners of a pharma company that caused an opioid crisis walked away just like that).
Don’t pharma giants and their investors have enough money to influence politicians?
Aren’t the enormous resources (financial and otherwise) that the pharma giants wield enough to influence politicians?
Isn’t that at least a possibility?
Vaccines haven’t been tested long enough
I heard that vaccines usually take a very long time to develop. After all vaccines are a very serious matter. The medication used to prevent a disease should not cause other health issues (bigger or smaller).
That means rigorous and careful trials which would take years and years.
But in the case of the covid vaccines, the development took just around a year.
What are we supposed to infer from that? The vaccines are not properly tested?
(If that’s the case, are the people being guinea pigs?)
Potential side effects
The very short time taken to development of covid vaccines can only mean that they are not well tested and probably even the people who made it don’t know what side effects it could have.
And if any adverse side effect ensue, are we supposed to live with them (if we manage to live afterwards, that is)?
What if the side effects won’t become apparent soon after taking the medicine? What if it takes time to show up?
Why do vaccine companies seek indemnity?
Here is a news report which says that instance which says that vaccine companies are seeking indemnity against any side effects their vaccines could have:
A quote from the above link:
Pfizer has not sold to any country without obtaining indemnity against legal action over any adverse effects of their product.
Pfizer declined to comment on its discussions with the Indian government but said it sought indemnity wherever it supplied its vaccine.
So what does this mean? Why would the vaccine companies seek to get rid of any possible legal trouble ensuing out of any side effects of their own vaccines?
Are they themselves not confident of their products safety?
No they are not. Most probably, they know that their products would create problems for at least some people.
Vaccine recipes are patented
Why is that? If not to make more money?
Bill Gates was asked the following question in an interview (Sky news UK):
There’s been some speculation that changing the intellectual property rules and allowing these vaccines as you say the recipes of these vaccines to be shared would be helpful. Do you think that would be helpful?
The response was a vehement ‘NO!’.
Video: COVID-19: Bill Gates hopeful world ‘completely back to normal’ by end of 2022 (time: 02:37)
He’s being treated as if he’s a great expert in the field of vaccines. Why?
In the same interview, Gates said that he calls heads of vaccine companies everyday.
I do regular phone call with pharmaceutical CEOs
What’s his interest and influence over them?
(And does he contact CEOs of all pharmaceutical firms making covid vaccines? I doubt it.)
The reason that Gates gave in favour of not publishing the know-how of making vaccines in the public domain was that the pharma giants need the money generated from the vaccine sales to fund further research to make the vaccine better.
But what’s stopping them from siphoning off money meant for research to their investors? When would they have enough money for ‘further research’? I guess the answer is never.
So this ‘further research’ could well be an excuse to allow the investors to draw more cash.
Pharma giants (and the investors involved, which includes many influential people I presume) are for-profit ventures. Their aim is not public service. And they will do anything that generates more money for them. Even if it means doing something unethical.
What is happening with regard to covid vaccines bears a very strong resemblance to the circumstances which triggered the invasion of Afghanistan by USA.
Anyone who opposed the invasion was decried as heretics.
The most notable example of whom is possibly Barbara Lee, whom many criticised for her stance back then.
See this short speech by Barbara Lee: Barbara Lee’s 9/14/01 Speech
People were outraged at the time.. 9/11 had just happened. It seems that some people, including many politicians and businessmen, took advantage of the anger and grief that people felt.
Now people realize that Barbara Lee was right all along, but it’s too late…
The consequence of such hasty decisions are to be borne by the populations of entire countries.
Billions of US tax payer money was wasted, thousands of lives lost.
But some group of people benefited. That includes the defense contractors. Yeah, they benefited a lot. But at the expense of the rest of the world.
Can we see some similarities between the reasons for Afghanistan and a vaccine mandate?
|Who benefited?||Defense contractors, politicians||Pharma giants, Internet companies, politicians|
|Stated reason||WTC attack||Covid pandemic|
|Actual reason||Money, swaying public opinion||Money, swaying public opinion|
|Opposition branded||Unpatriotic||Selfish, paranoid|
|Enemy figure||Terrorists||virus, ‘Selfish people’|
- hasty decisions were made and everyone was made to follow it
- those who voiced a different opinion were denounced
- all media outlets had to play or played along with government stance
Not saying a problem was/is non-existent in either case. But I do get the feeling that some have taken advantage of the chaos that ensued from the problem.
Often, opposing voices are being branded misinformation.
But who draws the line between misinformation and truth?
Are the people doing the classification without bias?
There may be an attempt to limit the thing that we, the people, see.
And what we see determines what we come in contact with and what we will come to think about.
A form of thought-policing.
Against corporates? Baaaad..
Tagging somebody or an opinion to being that of alt-right (or left or center or whatever), is being used as one-size-suites-all weapon against all opposing opinions.
An effective way to destroy someone’s credibiity.
How do you define alt-right? Who makes the definitions?
Why group people who wish to have a genuine discussion with people whose views may be.. well, unusual?
If not so that they may be more easily dealt with?
Practice of blending truths, half-truths and falsehoods
This is an effective way for entities to spread information (which they may even know to be false) that they want spread. Blend the misleading information with accurate information so that it is difficult for others to call out the misleading part.
If someone dares question the resultant information, the people purveying it can simply say that the true part of it is accurate and by virtue of that, the misleading part is also correct.
The accurate info may be used to mask the not-so-accurate info.
A strategy made famous by Microsoft.
Wikipedia: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
I think this is very prominent in this era of corona.
Everyone is afraid of corona yet nobody really knows what’s happening in reality.
And some people are definitely taking advantage of that situation.
Manipulating statistics is not impossible
The authorities put out some figures and the media regurgitates them.
Who verifies these figures? Is there any kind of audits happening for these statistics?
US President Joe Biden, in a press briefing on 6 August 2021, that too after carefully considering a piece of paper, said that ‘roughly 350 million people’ have been vaccinated in the USA when the total population of the country is lower than that.
Video: Biden: “We have roughly 350 million people vaccinated in the US and billions around the world."
This anomaly was detected because the disparity was too large. What if other such anomalies in statistics went unquestioned? For political or financial or economic interests of some authority figures?
Biden probably meant that 350 million doses instead of people here (as edited into the transcript available in the White House website), but the problem is that there are no mainstream media courageous enough to question authorities.
People are encouraged to blindly trust the data being put out. I think people have a right to know how the authenticity of the data was established. But usually people who question the authenticity instantly gets accused of being paranoid (or be branded with some similar tags). That’s an easy way to wiggle out of any responsibility, I guess.
Not everyone who are against a vaccine mandate are extremists.
True, there are lot of people who didn’t hesitate to get a bit too toxic when voicing their opposition to a vaccine mandate.
But this group of people are being used to mask and stifle the voice of people who would like to say that the vaccine mandate doesn’t feel right. Many people fear that if they speak out, they will get that ‘conspiracy theorist badge’ and be ostracized.
ie, a form of thought-policing is happening here implicitly.
What’s this talk in some countries, where there are limited vaccine stocks, of mixing vaccines into vaccine-cocktails?
Even vaccines whose operating mechanism are totally different?
I don’t know about everyone else, but that doesn’t sound legit.
Interval between doses
I don’t remember where exactly I saw this, but I think the recommended gap between two doses of corona vaccine kept changing in some countries depending on the stock of vaccines that they had.
So, who decides what interval is okay and what’s not?
Found somewhere in the Internet:
“people say pen is mightier than the sword but often those wielding the sword decides who wields the pen.”
Cloth masks are okay now?
During the beginning of the pandemic, media was stressing the ineffectiveness of cloth masks and the need for N95 masks.
What happened now? N95 too expensive, stick with cloth masks?
Is mask wearing being promoted just for exhibitory purposes or what?
(I’m not questioning the effectiveness of masks here but am a bit frustrated with the about-turn. Makes it difficult to decide what to trust and what not to.)
Is much of it show biz?
G7 meet 2021 London
In videos of many press briefings available online (I hope they are still there), President Biden makes his entry wearing a facial mask but neglects to put it back on when he leaves. It’s all just for show or what?
During G7 London 2021, on camera leaders greeted each other by bumping elbows and wearing masks. Later on the same people were seen interacting with physical contact and without masks. So then why did they do the elbow bumping in the first place? That means it was just for a show. What else could be the meaning?
So, what are we supposed to infer? Is this more for show or what?
Or is it that corona is scared of the people in power like most of the world?
President Biden’s press meets
I’ve noticed that often (if not always), when President Biden arrives for one of his press conferences, he comes to the mic wearing a mask and removes it only after reaching the mic as if to make sure that everyone sees that he was wearing mask.
Yet, he doesn’t put it back on when he leaves the podium.
- Watch Biden’s First Full Press Conference | NBC News (March 25, 2021): Arrival @ 00:01:50, Departure @ 01:04:00
- Live: Biden Delivers Remarks on Afghanistan | NBC News (August 20, 2021): Arrival @ 00:00, Departure @ 27:25
If not for mere appearance’s sake?
(It may be that a politician is also an actor, but still..)
Why aren’t credentials of vaccine advocacy people questioned?
People who advocate vaccine mandates on social media are almost never asked what makes them eligible to talk on the subject.
But those who question vaccine mandate are instantly asked to furnish proof of their eligibility to speak on the topic and are also usually insulted.
Why two kinds of treatment for similar actions?
How come people like Bill Gates are invited by media outlets for talks about vaccines? Are they doctors? Why aren’t they called out for their credentials?
Emergency use authorization is not same as normal use
Anthony Fauci once said in an MSNBC interview:
‘Attacks on me are quite frankly, attacks on science.’ ‘if you are trying to get at me… you are really not attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science’.
That’s a nice way to get away with saying whatever one wants with impunity.
Does seem a bit odd.
Video: Fauci Responds To Attacks From Republicans
The same video has a comment:
“It stops being science and becomes a cult when we can’t question it.”
Galileo was severely condemned for saying that Earth moved around Sun and not vice versa. But in this case financial motives may also be involved.
Scientists are not incorruptible
Isn’t corruption among scientists a possibility?
Especially the visible scientists? Because if they are visible, it’s because some media outlets made them visible. And most mainstream media outlets may be (just may be) owned or heavily influenced by people high up who may have their own interests.
Corporates can control scientific research
They have the power to determine what gets published and what doesn’t.
The money for funding scientific research often comes from corporate companies.
Remember that tobacco industry quite successfully funded research saying that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. And that was almost a century ago. I doubt the scale of such activities went down (in fact, it most probably scaled up).
Aaron Swartz is said to have found a link between research publications and funding from giant companies (before his suicide due to legal trouble ensuing from that among other things), leading to biased results. .
Check out the documentary Internet’s own boy about Swartz (somewhere around 55:00, they mention this), if you got time.
The conspiracy theorist ‘brand’
Branding everyone who speak against a vaccine mandate with a ‘conspiracy theorist’ brand is an attempt destroy their credibility.
So that people will think they are talking nonsense before they hear them speak. It’s more effective than it sounds.
There may be people who are hard to reason with. But not everyone is like that.
Classic propaganda tactic
Remember what Herman Goering, highest ranking Nazi guy tried at the Nuremberg trials, said:
“people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Couldn’t this be what’s happening now?
This works perfectly well even now (as exemplified by the Afghan war).
PR issue for organizations
Information (via awareness campaigns or propaganda, if you like to call it that), has been spread such that no organization can afford to look like they oppose a (hasty) vaccine mandate.
The need to look good for the media means they will do whatever they can to look as if they are pro-vaccine mandate. Even if it means forcing its employees to get shots against their will (or risk losing their jobs).
Sadly, this is applicable even to educational institutions. You wanna continue studying here, get vaccine. That’s not a great attitude to say the least.
Anti vaccine-mandate is not same as anti-vaxx
Being against a vaccine mandate with medicine whose side effects are still not clear is not same as being against all vaccines.
People should be knowing what they are signing up for.
Job security and vaccine
If you look like you are against a vaccine mandate, your organization’s management might think that’s potentially bad PR.
So you got to look like you wholeheartedly agree with vaccine mandates even if you have your doubts.
Politicians have an easy time thanks to corona
Just create some racket about corona and vaccine and they can look like they are doing something.
And risk of spreading corona can be used as an excuse to prevent people gathering together for things including protests.
No protest means people in power are happy.
Social media like Facebook and Twitter are actively policed.
Easy time for government
Governments and politicians have an easier time because of corona. It’s understandable if they don’t want the pandemic to end.
Because of corona, they don’t have to appear to be tackling important issues. Just make some noise about corona and look like they are doing something about it, make some statements, announce restricts, and that’s it.
At least, that’s what it looks like to a common person.
A way to divide people
The so called ‘vax/anti-vaxx’ debate is being used to create divisions in the society.
So that people will keep fighting over something while people higher up in the hierarchy can get away with doing what they want.
So that an average person would ‘miss the forest for the trees’ as the proverb goes.
Such divisions, natural and artificial, are being used as a way to distract people.
Something along this line:
“If you don’t get vaccinated, you are not only endangering yourselves, but also my children. You are such a selfish person!”
Pharma giants are silently making outrageous profits
And nobody notices. I doubt pharma giants would like the pandemic (or at least the fear of it) to end soon.
It’s in the pharma giants interests to keep the vaccination campaigns going. Because more vaccinations means more money for them.
Echo chambers: Importance of blending in
Once heard a joke about high school sex. Everybody says that they do it, but none may be doing it.
That’s the importance of blending in.
People have to look they are supportive of vaccine mandates or risk sticking out in the crowd and become possible targets of the ardent followers of the official stance.
Fear of being the nail that sticks out. “The nail that sticks out gets hammered”.
It’s not mandatory, but highly encouraged!
Vaccine has not been made officially compulsory for all citizens.
But governments of many countries seem to be taking steps in the direction of making life impossible without a vaccination.
So technically, it’s not mandatory. But you can’t enter a shop, eat at a restaurant and what not, if you aren’t vaccination.
What’s the difference between such a situation and making vaccination mandatory by law?
Don’t people have a right over their own bodies when it comes to vaccine?
People are being pressured to take the vaccine as soon as possible. Some people even face the threat of being fired from their jobs if they don’t take vaccine.
Is consent (manufactured or otherwise) not needed anyone? Is this a feature of democracy?
Marijuana and guns as rewards for vaccination? Really?
In addition to other offers like money, some authorities even offered marijuana and guns as rewards for getting vaccinated.
For example, the US state of Washington offered Marijuana as a reward for getting vaccination. See ‘joints for jabs’.
Some vaccine lottery involved guns as prize.
Also see Must we be bribed with free weed and beer to get vaxxed?.
Media controlled by corporates
Many newspapers, TV stations and of course, all social media, are under the control of some powerful people who can decide what information gets disseminated and what does not.
We can’t rely on them to do what’s best for the people.
For instance, Washington Post, with its legacy of exposing the Watergate scandal, is now owned by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.
The articles (1,2,3,4) portrayed in this meme, which I had initially taken for a complete joke, is not really a joke.
A way to put down China
The former US president, Donald Trump, made a point to associate the corona virus with China. Calling the virus ‘the Chinese virus’ to further emphasize that.
The corona virus outbreak was used very well by several governments to turn most of the world against China.
China is growing at a rate that could allow it to outgrow USA. Quite conveniently, corona virus broke out in China and has been used by some to create a negative image of China to limit its influence growing. To astonishingly profound effect, I might add.
I hope people won’t develop a negative attitude towards the Chinese people and culture, whatever the Chinese government may or may not have done.
How long is the vaccine protection good for?
A Lancet publication seem to suggest that the protection afforded by vaccines dropped drastically within a span of mere months.
- Pfizer, Astra vaccine antibody levels may decline after 2-3 months: Lancet
- Pfizer, AstraZeneca vaccine antibodies may reduce by 50% after 2-3 months: Lancet study
I suppose that means another round of shots for the world. And of course, that means more sales for pharma giants and hence more profit (for them).
At first they said two doses. When a lot of people got it, they began talking about a ‘booster’ dose. What would after that? A ‘booster dose’ to boost the first ‘booster dose’?
Is there an end in sight?
Is this more about for pharma giants to make a profit rather than to help the people?
Russian and Cuban vaccines are inherently bad
Sputnik was apparently the first covid vaccine to come out. But since it was made by Russia a lot of countries refused to accept it. Similarly with Cuban vaccines.
But vaccines backed by some companies were readily accepted as soon as they came out.
So is this about politics and money or people’s welfare?
Updates wrt news
FDA approves Pfizer
Okay, but has Pfizer stopped asking for indemnity against potential side-effects of their covid vaccine? If not, why?
View update history of this page at https://github.com/unpopop/unpopop.github.io