7 Reasons to Oppose COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
The US Supreme Court blocked President Joe Biden’s vaccination or testing mandate for large businesses on January 13, 2021. These mandates are an issue dividing the country, with debate among people both in and out of the science field about whether such an authoritarian decision is necessary to save lives from COVID-19.
However, many counties across the country are implementing COVID-19 vaccine policies for their employees and customers.
Western mainstream media and several independent media outlets are telling everyone they must be “fully” vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in order to “flatten the curve” and “reach herd immunity.” It is a narrative promoted by powerful authorities in government and public health amplified by corporate-sponsored news. If we do not vaccinate everyone, according to many people who believe this narrative, then we are “anti-science” or we “do not value human life.”
Meanwhile, other medical professionals and academics and few independent media outlets, many of which are being silenced on social media, are cautioning against such mandates and vaccine policies because of unknown long-term effects for Pfizer and Moderna’s experimental mRNA vaccines, supporting body autonomy, or supporting other measures to contain the virus and limiting deaths.
Based on the research I gathered, this idea that we can vaccinate our way out of this COVID-19 pandemic is not only not supported by enough up-to-date scientific evidence, but people who say anti-mandate individuals do not value life are absolutely wrong.
There are several historical events, case studies, and scientific evidence to warrant skepticism and caution against the Big Pharma Covid-19 vaccines promoted in Western countries.
I discuss seven scientific and historically-backed reasons to oppose Covid-19 vaccine mandates.
1. Younger age groups are at virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19
It should be noted that there are vulnerable populations that are more susceptible to getting COVID-19. This disproportionately includes people over 70 years old and people crippled with comorbidities.
Data form the European Journal of Infectious Disease show that the globe’s infection fatality rate (IFR) according to 51 locations is 0.15–0.2%, of which 0.03–0.04% are people younger than 70 years. Also, variation in death rate is large because of locations across the world having different age structures and socioeconomic and healthcare structures.
On the other hand, a study in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases that examined 21 locations found that the IFR for this disease is 0.68%, with the rate varying from place to place from as low as 0.17% to 1.7%.
It is likely that COVID deaths are overestimated because of an unclear consensus of what gets counted as a Covid death and the type of testing used by some hospitals.
Politico reported on October 2021 that “more than a year and a half after the U.S. recorded its first Covid death in February 2020, there is still no consensus about the exact number of people who have been killed by the disease.” This is because there is still no standardized case definition for “Covid death.”
People who die with Covid can get lumped in with people who died from Covid. Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, said in a 2020 press conference that, “if you were in hospice and had already been given, you know, a few weeks to live and then you also were found to have Covid, that would be counted as a covid death. It means that, technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause but you had Covid at the same time, it still gets listed as a Covid death. So everyone who is listed as a Covid death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had Covid at the time of death.”
For example, a teenager in Sydney who died in August 2021 was reported on The Guardian to be the youngest child in Australia to die WITH Covid. The article mentions in a later part that the 15-year-old died “after contracting pneumococcal meningitis, and while he was also Covid-positive it was not the reason for his hospitalization or death.”
Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a method used in the US to test the presence of SARS-CoV-2, is known to have high levels of false positives when cycle thresholds (number of times DNA/RNA are replicated) are not properly adjusted. Someone who is shedding an active virus or someone who has leftover infection (small fragments of RNA from a dead virus) can receive the same positive test result despite significant differences in viral loads. Also, an increase in false positives can lead to an increase in sample contamination.
A CDC fact sheet recognizes PCR tests’ false positives potential. The WHO warned on December 14, 2020, that high cycle thresholds (Ct) can result in false positives when detecting SARS-CoV-2. Not all states enforce a Ct limit and many hospitals still use a Ct of >30, which is too high. When labs in New York and Massachusetts lowered their Ct below 30, they found a 63% and about 90% case reduction, respectively.
Despite the possible inflated cases, in children 5–9 years old, the IFR can be as low as 0.001%. In people over 80 years old, however, the IFR can be as high as 8% in some places. Nursing homes and comorbidities may play a role in the high deaths in this older age group.
You can calculate for yourself using Oxford University’s QCovid Calculator to see how low your risk of dying from COVID-19 is given some of your medical history and your age.
So why mandate vaccines on people who are not at risk of dying from this disease? Why can the more vulnerable populations not be taken care of more than the rest of the population who is not at risk, have these vulnerable individuals be informed about the pros and cons about getting vaccinated, and have them make an informed decision?
Well, won’t the disease still spread if we do not vaccinate everyone? Let’s take a look.
2. The mRNA vaccines are not reducing the spread of COVID-19
There are multiple cases throughout the US and other countries like Scotland, the UK, Iceland, Denmark, and Israel in which the spread of COVID-19 has not stopped despite Pfizer and Monderna’s vaccine rollouts and a high percentage of their populations being fully vaccinated. In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has even admitted that “the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce (COVID-19’s) transmission.”
Singanayam et al. (2021) found in their study funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and published on The Lancet that individuals who are fully vaccinated, though their personal chances of getting infected are reduced, have similar viral loads when they are infected to that of infected unvaccinated individuals. Additionally, both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with COVID-19 can similarly and efficiently transmit the virus in a household setting even to a fully vaccinated person.
In other words, if you yourself are vaccinated, according to this study, your risk of getting infected may be reduced. However, you can still get the disease from a vaccinated or unvaccinated person.
But by how much is it known for these mRNA vaccines to reduce one’s chances of getting infected?
According to Gallup, calculations for the hospitalization rate for the vaccinated population is 0.01% (or 1 in 10,914) and 0.89% (or 1 in 112) for unvaccinated people. They mention that the efficacy of vaccination is 99% at preventing hospitalization.
But hold on, 99% at reducing hospitalization but the difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals is 0.89%-0.01% = 0.88%? Does it reduce your chances of being hospitalized by 99% or 0.88%?
That 99% is based on Relative Risk Reduction, not Absolute Risk Reduction.
The absolute risk reduction would be that difference between 0.01% and 0.89%, which is a 0.88% risk reduction (less than 1%). This makes sense if you take the average of both Pfizer and Moderna’s absolute risk reductions (0.7% and 1.1%, respectively)
Ronald B Brown (2021) published a review on Medicina explaining the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials’ outcome reporting bias and how reports abstaining from mentioning the absolute risk reduction affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. It is a tactic Big Pharma uses to make their products appear more effective than they actually are. How many people would have made a different decision if they knew their risk of getting hospitalized with COVID-19 were reduced by an average of less than 1% for the Pfizer vaccine and barely over 1% for the Monderna vaccine?
In addition to Moderna’s greater absolute risk reduction when compared to Pfizer’s vaccine, it seems to pose a greater risk for adverse events, which is why it was banned in some countries like Iceland in October 2021 after growing concerns of heart inflammations.
Data from Denmark published in the Statens Serum Institute in December 2021 show that over 70% of 3,437 COVID-19’s omicron variant cases detected were among people younger than 40 years old. Within this group of cases, about 75% were in fully vaccinated individuals.
Even if the majority of the population is fully vaccinated, this shows that the virus is still escaping from vaccinated people’s immune systems.
A pro-vaccine mandate argument made is that the vaccines at least reduce hospitalizations and death. However, data from the UK Health Security Agency and Public Health Scotland from November-December 2021 reveal that may not necessarily be the case.
The three tables from UK Health Security Agency below show the number of cases (Table 8.), hospitalizations (Table 9.), and deaths (Table 10.) among people who are unlinked (National Health Service numbers were unavailable to link to the National Immunization Management System), not vaccinated, received one dose (1–20 days before specimen date), received one dose (>21 days before specimen date), and received second dose (>14 days before specimen date).
The authors for this report make a note that they believe there are high numbers in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in people who are double dosed because there is “very high vaccine coverage in the population.” We would have to compare this information in proportion to total populations vaccinated and unvaccinated in order to confirm their speculation. The argument I am making is that the vaccines are still allowing people to get sick and, in many cases, still die in higher numbers than people who are unvaccinated.
The number of recorded cases in the UK in November-December 2021, in all age groups except the Under 18 group (children who are unvaccinated), the majority of cases are found in the one dose and second dose categories combined. That is 62.5% in 18–29, 72.6% in 30–39, 84.5% in 40–49, 88.2% in 50–59, 88.3% in 60–69, 85.7% in 70–79, and 84.2% in >80. The second dose category by itself has more cases than all the other categories.
In the UK’s reported hospitalizations, the numbers are higher for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated categories combined in the Under 18 group and 18–29 group. In the 30–39 group, the numbers for unvaccinated are about the same as the number of vaccinated cases combined. In the 40–49 and older categories, however, the numbers are much higher in the vaccinated groups combined with the second dose category having numbers higher than all the other categories.
The number of reported COVID-19 deaths in the UK increases more significantly as age increases for individuals who received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine than for individuals who are unvaccinated. Very alarmingly, the number of COVID-19 deaths in the >80 group in the second dose category is over 1,100 compared to the 216 in the same age group who are unvaccinated.
Data reported in Public Health of Scotland show that from November 20 — December 17 for hospitalizations in Scotland, 27% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people and the rest are people who received at least 1 dose. Only 4% of the hospitalizations who received at least 1 dose are people who received only one dose. So, 69% of hospitalizations are people who received at least 2 doses.
There are 362 total reported deaths (Table 15). 82% of the reported COVID-19 deaths received at least one dose. I do not understand why Public Health Scotland started on November 13, 2021, for this table on number of deaths while in the table for hospitalizations they start a week later on November 20, 2021.
In the final week of 04 December 2021–10 December 2021, 9.31 out of 100,000 for 2 doses is almost double of the people who received 0 doses at 5.51 out of 100,000.
In September 2021, soon after the distribution of the third dose of COVID-19 vaccines in Israel for Israelis, a graph using data from Our World in Data showed that Israel had the highest number of daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people compared to some Western countries with high numbers of people who were double vaccinated.
5 months later, trends for COVID-19 cases in Israel and these Western countries rose after reports of the more transmissible omicron variant and after these other countries distributed the third dose to more of their people. However, deaths in late 2021 — January 2022 are lower than they were in 2020 and early — mid 2021 when putting all these countries together.
For the most part, when looking at two countries in the same region, the number of cases is lower for the mainly unvaccinated Palestine population than it is for the mainly vaccinated Israel population all throughout the pandemic. In January 2022, however, the cases for the mainly fully vaccinated Israel have skyrocketed while the cases for the mainly unvaccinated Palestine remain low.
Despite Palestinians living in harsher conditions than Israelis, as acknowledged by Human Rights Watch, the number of COVID-19 deaths between the two countries have remained relatively the same since 2020.
Subramanian & Kumar (2021) investigated the relationship between increases in COVID-19 to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2,947 counties in the US and found no discernable relationship between percentage of fully vaccinated people in a population and new cases of COVID-19 in the last 7 days.
Despite months of fully vaccinating large portions of their populations, evidence gathered from these countries reveal that the rate of the COVID-19 virus spread is not stopping. Cases increase seasonally and in many individuals the effects of the vaccine have already waned if we accept that the studies from Israel, Qatar, and the US showing these mRNA vaccines wane after a few months are true.
Well, if the effects of the vaccines wane, including the booster shots against the more transmissible omicron, why don’t we vaccinate everyone every few months?
Boosters, or third, fourth, etc. mRNA doses may only boost antibody quantity, but not quality, according to a study by several scientists from The Rockefeller University. So there will be a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity as a result of vaccination, but the qualitative advantage against variants will not be obtained this way. In fact, they found that antibodies gained from natural infection from Covid have a greater potency and breadth than the vaccine-elicited antibodies (more on that in reason 7).
The New York Times even acknowledged scientists warning about too many shots actually harming the body’s ability to fight coronavirus as the fourth Covid vaccine dose awaits its distribution in Israel.
Eyal Leshem, infectious disease specialist at the Sheba Medical Center, told CNBC that the decision for rolling out a fourth COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was based on “expert opinion” as opposed to “robust data.” Shouldn’t such decisions be based on evidence rather than subjective opinions? What if the experts are challenged by other experts with evidence but they get censored by entities with conflicts of interest?
I would say the best thing to do is allow people to look at all the evidence and let them decide what they think is best.
Even if boosters helped with protecting people more and hypothetically did not cause harm to the body, the rate at which they are being administered will never catch up to the rate the virus evolves to escape such vaccines. That is, unless, according to a study by Nature, lockdown and other non-prophylactic measures are taken.
What this study does not take into account is that shelter-in-place/lockdown orders have no detectable health benefits, according to a review by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and The Lancet study that showed vaccinated and unvaccinated people carry similar viral loads and can transmit it to even fully vaccinated people.
Not only that, but lockdowns have negatively impacted children across the world, with UNICEF reporting that 150 million additional children fell into poverty, and half the world’s workers are at risk of losing their livelihoods following lockdowns.
As these virus variants keep evolving and keep breaking through these imperfect, leaky vaccines (leaky because individuals who are fully vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus), this viral evolution may be occurring because of the imperfect vaccines.
Research by Read et al (2015) found that imperfect vaccination against Marek’s disease in chickens enhanced the fitness of more virulent strains. This means that vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions for virus strains to emerge and cause more severe disease. We can speculate that this may be happening to SARS-CoV-2 with respect to the imperfect mRNA vaccines and boosters.
Going forward, we should ask if the new variants are first reported in fully vaccinated individuals or in airports or countries in which unvaccinated people are not allowed to leave or enter. If it is true that these imperfect leaky vaccines are helping to create new strains of the COVID-19 virus, then not only are these vaccines not effective in preventing the spread of the disease, but they may also be counterproductive.
3. Potential harm to people’s health
When we consider the above information and what will be presented in this section, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective” are inconclusive and subjective.
The CDC mentions the thousands of adverse events and deaths reported on VAERS caused by anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccination, Gullain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccination, myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, and other conditions. And they state that “serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but may occur” (last updated January 12, 2022).
Despite the acknowledgement of what they trivialize as just “rare” events that may have been caused by the vaccines, they along with the COVID-19 vaccine companies and several politicians still urge people to get vaccinated because “the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Such a statement is inconclusive because the long-term effects for these vaccines are still not known since the clinical trials for full approval for these vaccines do not end until May 15, 2023 for Pfizer and October 27, 2022 for Moderna.
Their emergency use authorization (EUA) documentation from 2020 even admits that long-term effects are not known, including “the risk of vaccine enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity” and that further evaluation in clinical trials and observational studies is needed FOLLOWING authorization and licensure.
What the CDC also fails to consider is an HHS/Harvard University study from June 2006 — October 2009 showing how the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), co-managed by the CDC and the FDA and established in 1987, severely underestimates the number of actual adverse events. This study found that fewer than 1% of adverse events following a vaccination get reported. That means 99% of adverse events are not reported because people either fail to make a connection of an adverse event and their vaccination or fail to report it at all for one reason or another.
In the US, vaccine programs were shot down after just a few cases were reported. For example, in 1976 vaccine programs were halted in 9 states after 3 deaths after swine flu vaccinations were reported. These states wanted to be cautious and transparent with people based on the POSSIBILITY of a negative reaction like that. If it mattered then, then why doesn’t it matter now when thousands of cases are being reported?
The World Health Organization (WHO) has their own website in which people around the world report adverse events post-vaccination. You can type in “covid-19 vaccine” in the search engine to see how many adverse events were reported. Though out of the over 4 million reported events, some of these include adverse events that occurred after using other COVID-19 vaccines that are not used in the US.
If several countries have already banned the Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines because of a concerning number of reported deaths following vaccination and links to other adverse events, why have authority figures in the US at the very least not caution people about the possibility of negative adverse events to these and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines?
Alberta’s top doctor, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, recommends that people aged 12–29 should avoid the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because of the “rare side effect” of myocarditis.
Even if her claim that the risk for myocarditis is less in people who took the Pfizer vaccine than in those who took the Moderna vaccine, if her logic was consistent, why would she not also recommend 12 to 29 year-olds to avoid the Pfizer vaccine if the risk for myocarditis is also “rare?”
An Israeli study funded by Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute found that excess risk of myocarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine is 1 to 5 events per 100,000 people. This is still considered “rare” and is just one type of adverse event out of several others.
Additionally, a nationwide study published in JAMA Cardiology linked “acute chest pain” and myocarditis in previously healthy male American soldiers to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
An article by the American Heart Association in November 2021 expressed concerns about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increasing inflammation in the endothelium and T cell infiltration of the cardiac muscle. The authors also found that these vaccines likely increase thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events.
Antibody dependent enhancement, a process in which antibodies that fight against a certain disease in a body can cause an over-reaction against the disease by the immune system when the body encounters the disease again, is also possible. The concern for antibody dependent enhancement for rushed vaccines was pointed out by at least 5 different scientific articles published in 2020 and early 2021: articles in PNAS and Science, two literature reviews in Nature, a study in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity by Dr. James Lyons Weiler (2020), and another study in Frontiers in Immunology by Dr. Aristo Vojdani et al. (2021).
Lyons-Weiler (2020) and Vojdani et al (2021) demonstrate similarities in SARS-CoV-2’s spike proteins and other SARS-CoV-2 proteins with human tissue antigens and how this can lead to autoimmunity, i.e., your immune system attacks your own cells because it cannot tell the difference between the intruding SARS-CoV-2 proteins and your own cells. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine uses an mRNA sequence that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Another study on The Journal of Infection in August 2021 found that infection-enhancing antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan strain and the Delta strain, raising concerns about the potential risk of antibody dependent enhancement by vaccines using spike protein formulations.
Several studies are also finding mRNA vaccines may be causing more adverse events in people who previously had COVID-19. This information suggests that the body may be overreacting to whatever the mRNA vaccines are introducing or reintroducing to the immune system that already experienced SARS-CoV-2. Previously COVID-19 infected people may be better off not taking these vaccines if their risk for adverse events increase and they already gained natural immunity.
Another issue the CDC fails to consider despite their claim of these vaccines being “safe and effective” is menstrual disruption/disorders. Marcie Smith Parenti noted on The Grayzone in August 2021 the thousands of reports to VAERS regarding menstrual disorders most related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines:
There had been 1,624 reports of “menstruation irregular” logged; 1,352 reports of “menstrual disorder”; 563 reports of “menstruation delayed”; 803 reports of “vaginal hemorrhaging”; 239 reports of “postmenopausal hemorrhage”; 95 reports of “hemorrhage urinary tract”; 57 reports of “abnormal uterine bleeding”; and 41 reports of “hemorrhage in pregnancy.” Even more seriously, there were 691 reports of “abortion spontaneous”; 88 reports of “fetal death”; and 25 reports of “stillbirth.” The CDC claims rates of miscarriage by vaccinated women is within the normal range.
On August 30, 2021, the NIH began funding studies to assess COVID-19 vaccination’s potential effects on menstruation in response to the thousands of reported events. It is unfortunate that this is only happening after US authorities urged people to take these vaccines without the transparency of not fully knowing the long-term negative effects on menstruation and pregnancy.
Steve Kirsch discusses in his article the over 60 times increase in serious adverse events in athletes after the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts as of November 13, 2021. These events include cardiac arrests, heart attacks, collapses, and deaths.
The numbers (as documented below) shows that there have been more “events” over a recent 4 month period than in over 20 years, which is more than a 60-fold increase in event rate.
All of these are in full public view so there is no “reporting bias” involved. And the numbers are big enough that nobody can say “oh, that’s just statistical noise.” Not a chance. It’s just too hard to explain.
Also noted is that none of the athletes had COVID since they all have to get tested before they play. This is also based on speculation with respect to the overwhelming correlation between the COVID-19 vaccine injections in athletes and adverse events. Correlation is not causation, but it is important to consider the likelihood. What other factor could have caused this overwhelming increase in athlete adverse events?
Research published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science looked at how myocarditis caused death after the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which American cardiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough, claims this similar pathology is seen in male athletes who suffered sudden death while playing in 2021.
As more negative adverse events post-vaccination to COVID-19 get reported by the day, I think government officials and the Big-Pharma-funded mainstream media should be transparent with people about these negative adverse events and let people choose if they want to take these vaccines rather than urge or shame people into taking them.
4. Bodily autonomy/integrity
People have a right to choose whether to put something in their body or not. Even if we were to accept that their risk for getting sick is reduced, The Lancet study by Singanayam et al. (2021) shows that similar viral loads are found in people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated and they can still transmit it to even fully vaccinated people. What difference does it make if someone can get COVID-19 from a vaccinated or unvaccinated person and then their risk for dying is less than 0.05% if they are younger than 70?
If we want to protect the vulnerable people from getting sick, then proper measures like early treatment and staying away from them when you are sick should be taken.
As far as putting a substance whose long-term effects are not known and the possibility for negative adverse effects exists, it should be one’s choice. I personally go by guilty until proven innocent when it comes to putting something in my body. And anyone forcing someone to put something in their body is violating that person’s bodily autonomy.
The Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs also states very clearly in Article 5 in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights what is constituted as autonomy and individual responsibility.
I will reiterate for the people who say, “you will get me sick if you are not vaccinated:” the vaccine is for you, you can still get it form a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. Also consider all the other information I present in this article which politicians, the CDC, and the FDA minimize or do not acknowledge.
Trivializing or not mentioning information about negative adverse events of vaccines, their waning effects, and highlighting the vaccine’s relative risk reduction over the absolute risk reduction is not respecting one’s informed consent. Article 6 explains what consent is in regards to medical interventions.
I would add that proper consent is lacking if people’s livelihoods and healthcare are threatened similarly to a hostage situation if they do not agree to such medical interventions.
Let’s also be reminded that clinical trials for these vaccines are still ongoing. Researchers are still collecting data while the vaccines only have EUA.
Article 7 elaborates more about consent.
Though I still believe people can still refuse to take a substance that has received full approval by the FDA, I think that a substance that was only given EUA is even more reason to respect a person’s refusal to take part.
If someone refuses to take part in consuming a substance, I think that information should also be up to them if they want to share it. So with places like in New York, California, DC and Maryland ramping up “proof of vaccination,” I want to also point to Article 9, 10 and 11, which explain privacy and confidentiality; equality, justice and equity; and non-discrimination and non-stigmatization; respectively.
For those that would make the argument that this is “for the good of everyone/society,” Article 3 agrees with my moral belief that personal choice, welfare or interest of the individual is more important than what society wants for that individual.
This also brings me to Article 4, which considers how benefits should be maximized and harm should be minimized. If a person believes their body may have a negative adverse event in response to a substance, given what they know about their body, it is within their right to choose not to consume that substance. The same is true for such experimental vaccines whose long-term effects are not fully known.
I would also emphasize that it is within everyone’s right to question authority, especially those closely tied with institutions that have a history of corruption.
5. Big Pharma’s corruption and public-private partnerships
“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
- John F Kennedy
It is no secret that our politicians receive donations from big money interests. Whether Democrat or Republican, vaccine makers funneled undisclosed cash to these politicians’ campaigns in 2020. President Joe Biden was one of the largest recipients of Big Pharma. There is also a myriad of examples of people who went from having a high-paying position in government to then having a high-paying position in the private sector and vice-versa.
Decisions made by our government, claims made by the institutions manufacturing the vaccines, and the public sectors like the CDC and the FDA who are supposed to oversee the private sector should all be questioned.
A big portion of the FDA’s funding comes from private entities. The private entities can also sit in meeting and influence FDA policy regarding approval and regulation of products.
I question if this influence private entities, like Pfizer, have helped influence the FDA’s original stance of fully revealing all documents related to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine licensing until 75 years, which a US District Court of Texas judge recently reduced that time frame down to 8 months.
The WHO is also funded in large part by pharmaceutical corporations.
I do not think it is hard to accept that Pfizer and Moderna have profit-motive interests that may be prioritized over people’s well-being. However, some people consider these COVID-19 vaccines an exception to putting profit over people’s safety because they are “free” and we are also, so they claim, benefiting from this.
These vaccines are as “free” as anything we pay with our taxes. And despite the vaccines being “free,” Big Parma corporations are raking in billions of dollars thanks to these rushed COVID-19 vaccines. I would also argue that we cannot truly know how much this is benefitting us when these corporations have a history of corruption and dishonesty as well as power to influence the narrative about their products.
Even though these vaccines are distributed “for free” right now, these companies are already planning to commercialize the COVID-19 vaccines later on.
But regardless of whether these vaccines are free or commercialized, we should consider these companies’ histories to see if this justifies why some people are skeptical about these vaccines.
Pfizer has a violation penalty that sums up to over $10 billion since 2000. Such offenses are related to safety, healthcare, government-contract, competition, and environment. The types of offenses include drug or safety equipment safety violation, off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products, False Claims Act and related, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and environmental violation.
When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer was putting countries like Brazil and Argentina in a stranglehold in 2020. Pfizer wanted the government to put up sovereign assets which include embassy buildings, federal bank reserves, and military bases. Pfizer also did not want to be held accountable for “rare” adverse events in exchange for the distribution of their COVID-19 vaccine.
Not only did Pfizer want immunity in foreign countries, but the Prep Act in the US grants companies manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines liability immunity from February 4, 2020 — October 1, 2024.
Brook Jackson, a former regional director for the clinical research group committed to safety and ethics in medicine, known as Ventavia Research Group (VRG), blew the whistle on Pfizer to the British Medical Journal in November 2021. Jackson exposed Pfizer’s malpractices during phase three of the COVID-19 vaccine trials. These malpractices include falsifying data, unblinded patients, employing inadequately trained staffers, and being slow to follow up on adverse events. As the regional director, Jackson reported these problems to VRG repeatedly until she emailed a complaint to the FDA and was then fired.
Moderna is a newer pharmaceutical company that does not have a violation tracker like Pfizer. However, recent practices related to their mRNA COVID-19 vaccine research are concerning.
Moderna cut corners in 2020 by skipping animal trials to rush out their mRNA vaccine.
After withholding key data for the COVID-19 vaccine trials, Moderna defended its preservation of this data in a press release in June 2020. They then went on to say in October 2021 that they rushed their data out in order to prevent themselves from “losing” the COVID-19 vaccine race.
Investigative journalist, Whitney Webb, examined Moderna’s miraculous success during the COVID-19 crisis in a written series. The company’s history, involvement with powerful Wall St figures and the World Economic Forum (WEF), and persistent safety concerns raises questions about the company’s integrity and their products’ safety on our health.
Big Pharma is among the two of the biggest industries that senators and congress members are profiting off of during the COVID-19 pandemic, the other being Big Tech. At least 75 of these federal lawmakers invested and sold stocks in Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson at the start of the pandemic in 2020. It is my educated guess that this is why companies like Moderna and Pfizer were able to cut corners and have such influence on what they cannot be held accountable for.
Pfizer and Moderna’s top investors include Black Rock and The Vanguard Group, two investment management companies that also own all major mainstream news outlets in the US. Thus, why should we not question these outlets especially those proudly sponsored by Pfizer?
Rather than being allowed to question these outlets and narratives, Big Tech companies and major news outlets with cross-investors have teamed up to form censorship conglomerates like the Trusted News Initiative (TNI).
The TNI brings together AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, and The Washington Post.
The TNI’s focus is on combatting the spread of “harmful vaccine disinformation.” Tim Davie, BBC’s new director general said
“The Trusted News Initiative partners will continue to work together to ensure legitimate concerns about future vaccinations are heard whilst harmful disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks.”
Such measures for combatting “disinformation” would include “fact-checking” social media posts and articles and giving warnings, strikes, shadowbanning, and banning people from their platforms.
We should consider that “fact checkers” are just writing op-eds/opinion pieces. Facebook made the case that the third parties they use to “fact-check” people have “protected opinion” in a court lawsuit by investigative journalist John Stossel.
However, even though “fact-checkers” are operating on “protected opinion,” we cannot challenge claims made by the outlets and companies that are part of the TNI with more evidence or else we will be penalized on their outlets and ultimately removed if we are persistent. So, we have to accept their authoritative decision on what is fact or “disinformation” even if their claims go against reality if we want to remain on their platforms.
It would not surprise me if many “fact checkers” may try to straw man, cherry pick, and misrepresent parts of this article.
Speaking of fact checkers, several of them are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has a lot of influence on our media in addition to our public health. Bill Gates’s Microsoft own large stakes in Comcast, AT&T, and the WHO. The Gates Foundation also has contributed $49 million to the BBC’s Media Action program, over $9 million to the British newspaper, over $3 million to NBC Universal, over $4.5 million to NPR, and plenty more to other outlets. Gates even supports the Guardian’s entire Global Development section.
The Gates Foundation can unofficially vet policy initiatives or normative standards before the WHO announces them and sources have admitted that these two entities share common priorities.
What could go wrong? Surely, Bill Gates cares about our health and is investing in these institutions out of the kindness of his heart, right?
Gates’s Foundation has helped shape health policies in Africa and Southeast Asia. This includes African countries being financially incentivized to use out-of-date whole-cell pertussis in DTP vaccines linked to brain damage, seizures, and death by one of the Gates Foundation’s top investments, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI).
Consequently, a Danish study in 2017 found that more African children died from the out-of-date vaccine than from the disease it is intended to prevent by about 4-fold in boys and 10-fold in girls.
Similarly, the oral polio vaccine (OPV) that the foundation invested over $1 billion in has paralyzed more children than the wild polio virus itself. Countries like Congo in 2018 and China, Egypt, Haiti, and Madagascar in 2005 experienced polio outbreaks that were likely caused by the OPV. Did Bill Gates and the WHO not get the memo that the US halted its OPV use on people in 2000? Why is it still being distributed in countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia?
Given all this history and current cross-investments, it stands to reason that these decisions made by public-private partnerships (aka fascism) to push people into taking these vaccines should be questioned.
https://odysee.com/@Squelchsquatch:2/60Minutes-Swine-Flu:9
6. Such mandates are racist and anti-worker
Considering the information thus far, an employee’s decision to not take a COVID-19 vaccine that does not show to reduce transmission is within their right. Taking away a person’s job and healthcare for not taking it at the behest of the employer’s misinformed fear of getting themselves or their workers sick is a threat on that person’s wellbeing.
A large percentage of poor workers in the US are people of color. Not only will these people of color who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 lose their jobs, but in many states and counties they will be denied services like eating at restaurants or entering stores, movie theaters, museums, etc.
In New York City, 28% of young black Americans were vaccinated as of October 2021. With vaccine mandates/passports, 72% of the NYC black community are denied services.
Trahern Crews, member of the US Green Party Black Caucus made the argument on independent news media, The Convo Couch, in December 2021 that “mandates are racist because if you know a large percentage of black Americans don’t want to get vaccinated because they mistrust the government and those vaccinating them, then you’re basically putting an economic sanction on them… basically like segregation.”
Why would black Americans not trust the government or pharmaceuticals and health authorities urging mass vaccinations?
From 1932–1972, the Tuskegee experiments occurred in which black men were unknowingly used as test subjects by the government. The government did this to understand the effects of syphilis at the expense of these people’s human rights.
Agent Orange experiments from 1956–1966 were conducted on black prisoners. Black prisoners were lied to and told that this was just dermatology research.
Cold War radiation experiments were performed on poor black cancer patients from 1960–1971 to see how much radiation the human body can take. Patients were told that this would help cure their cancer.
So can you blame black people for being skeptical and not wanting to be forced to take an experimental vaccine?
Why would someone be ok with the government forcing vaccination on a lineage of people that are traumatized by forced experimentation? Don’t Black Lives Matter?
I make this argument to white liberals who claim to care about black people but are not understanding of their skepticism. These mandates will affect poor white, Latino, Asian, and all other races as well. This may ultimately affect the workforce as some working-class people will fail to be coerced into vaccination.
As of October 14, 2021, the NY COVID-19 vaccine mandates already reduced the health care workforce by at least 3%.
7. Natural immunity and other personal measures exist
A mounting of evidence shows that natural immunity after COVID-19 is durable and robust, yet public health authorities still say everyone should be vaccinated.
A study published on Nature in May 2021 acknowledges that antibodies may be produced for a lifetime after you’ve had COVID-19. The study by Turner et al (2021) showed that convalescent individuals who had mild SARS-CoV-2 infections had robust antigen specific and long-lived bone marrow plasma cells and immune memory of the disease.
Another study, which the NIH and WHO agree with, found that broad and effective immunity persists longitudinally for up to 8 months in recovered patients. The immunity may last longer than 8 months since this is the longest time that passed since the patients had COVID-19 up until the time this study concluded. This study by Cohen et al (2021) showed that Spike memory B cells increase and persist after infection and T cells recognize distinct viral epitope regions.
A study published in Science by a team of international scientists identified SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from convalescent donors that recognize 23 different variants of the virus. This study by Wang et al (2021) also found that in vitro the combinations of these antibodies reduced the risk of having escape mutants of the virus. This means that the evolutionary rate of the virus may be slower if natural immunity produces less escape mutants than the leaky mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
This long-lasting and robust natural immunity should be compared to the immunity gained from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that wane after a few months and are seemingly not as effective against newer variants.
My speculation for why natural immunity may be better is because the body is exposed to the entire virus instead of just the spike protein. Naturally, our immune cells form different combinations of antibodies to fight off specific viruses that carry several proteins as opposed to only recognizing one protein from a virus. That one protein may eventually become a Trojan horse because of some similarities that viral protein may have to proteins found on our own cells.
This then may lead to antibody dependent enhancement and then your own cells get attacked because your immune cells get confused: they cannot tell the difference between your own cells with similar proteins to the virus and the viral protein.
So if all these sources including Nature, the WHO, and the NIH, all show information about how natural immunity to COVID-19 is long-lasting and robust, what is the point in getting vaccinated if someone already has natural immunity?
When schools demand children to provide proof of vaccination for other diseases like measles, a child does not need a vaccine if they already recovered from the disease. COVID-19 is also more prevalent and harder to contain than diseases like measles, but it is less deadly.
Several scientists agree that herd immunity will one day be reached anyway.
I am not advocating for everyone to purposely get sick. What me and other anti-mandate people advocate for is healthier lifestyles, early treatments, and informed consent.
In the most recent decades there has been an exponential rise in autoimmune diseases and other comorbidities that increase susceptibility to severer COVID-19 symptoms and death.
The rise in these comorbidities is likely because of an overconsumption of chemicals in our environment that the human body is not used to. This is largely the fault of our underregulated capitalist system that puts profit over safety, treatments over cures, and keeps collective consciousness low because of the lobbyist-controlled mainstream media and education system. This system is quite literally killing us.
The autoimmune disease epidemic affects over 23.5 million Americans. Such diseases like Graves’ disease, celiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, Type 1 diabetes, Chron’s disease, lupus and many others are caused by toxins in our diet, exposure to heavy metals and chemicals, and unprecedented stress.
Obesity is a comorbidity prevalent in the US at 42.4% of its population in 2017–2018. A 2015 study published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practices found that adults today have it harder to maintain their weight as adults had it 20 to 30 years prior despite physical lifestyle similarities and eating the same quantities of macronutrients.
One of the study’s researchers and professor of kinesiology and health science at Toronto’s York University, Jennifer Kuk, said in an interview that she believes the reason for these results are likely because of increased pesticides, flame retardants, artificial sweeteners, and food packaging substances affecting hormones associated with weight gain; an increased use of prescription drugs linked to weight gain; and/or an increased use of hormones and antibiotics that may affect our gut bacteria in accumulating ways over time.
The CDC’s Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, in January 2022 publicly referenced a study that found over 75% of COVID deaths in vaccinated people had at least 4 comorbidities. If we want to save more lives, then why not focus on a root of the problem which is an increasingly unhealthy population that existed before the pandemic?
For starters, Vitamin D3 deficiency is correlated to COVID-19 mortality. Worldwide, about 1 billion people are vitamin D deficient and about 50% of the population is vitamin D insufficient. Vitamin D deficiency is 35% higher in obese people and in the US, 50–60% of people in nursing homes and people hospitalized have vitamin D deficiency. The US’s adult population is 35% vitamin D deficient, and its elderly population is 61% vitamin D deficient.
Vitamin D3 generally helps our immune system and cells and several studies found this vitamin to significantly help reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. A French study demonstrated that high-dose vitamin D decreased mortality by 89% in nursing home patients shortly before or during COVID-19 infection. A British study found an 80% reduction in mortality in COVID-19 patients after administering high-dose vitamin D. A Spanish study saw a 96% reduction in susceptibility for intensive care for COVID-19 in patients who received high-dose vitamin D.
Even though Vitamin D shows that it helps reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients and is important for our immune system, US Department of Justice courts ordered Georgia defendants in January 2021 to stop selling Vitamin D products as treatment for COVID-19. The federal court referred to vitamin D, an essential micronutrient, as an “unapproved” treatment for the disease.
Several studies, meta-analyses, and reviews examine the effectiveness of other early treatments used in several countries for COVID-19 if they are used the right way and at the right time. I leave it up to the reader to examine the treatments cited in the database for vitamin D, ivermectin, zinc, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, bromhexine, budesonide, and more. Hopefully you examine at least some of the studies for yourselves instead of jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and/or narratives set by some public health authorities, mainstream media, and even some independent media.
If such early treatments exist, if focusing on root problems like our capitalist system exacerbating our health crisis even before Covid can help save lives, if certain age groups are not at risk, and if natural immunity is indeed long-lasting and robust, I think it is fair to give people a right to have informed consent and to not have their livelihoods threatened by public-private partnership authorities who subjectively say the product they promote is “safe and effective.”
Stay informed,
Franc Analysis