In the Fall of 2014, Jasmine Lopez developed severe symptoms six days after the vaccinations that she felt pressured into receiving by the hospital she worked at. She was eventually diagnosed with transverse myelitis, a condition with symptoms virtually indistinguishable from some of the most severe of polio.
H/T Hear This Well
In the spirit of using this space also as an arena to think out loud, I’d like to get one thought in print regarding the traditional distrust of large corporations by the Democratic party, the party that happens to be spearheading the various vaccine mandate bills in state legislatures across the country. The rhetoric of that party has always been that of a deep-seated distrust of enormous, impersonal companies that appear to be far too cozy with the government. That distrust extends to Pharma, that globe-spanning, colossal conglomeration of corporations that mass produce deadly, insanity-inducing drugs, various Frankenstein GMO products, et cetera. Yet the distrust stops at the feet of their vaccine division And not only stops, it inverts into enthusiastic support, to the point that the Democratic party would actively push to mandate this particular pharmaceutical product. The only one that happens to be completely shielded from lawsuits, in the event that someone is injured or dies.
The cognitive dissonance must be jarring, to say the least.
Instead, the party that has always been branded as the tool of industry, the Republican party, has stepped up to oppose legislative mandates. They’ve also been the sole party to acknowledge the existence of vaccine injury, and to give recognition to the growing community of vaccine-injured U.S. citizens. The Democratic party has done neither. It’s members act as a single entity on the topic of vaccines, bizarrely. And if there ever existed a party that allowed itself to be used as a tool of industry, on the vaccine question the Democratic party is surely it.
Trump once tossed around the idea of creating a vaccine safety commission, headed by RFK Jr., that would investigate vaccine safety, something that, surprisingly to almost everyone, does not happen. He ran the idea by Gates, who, according to Gates himself, responded with:
“And I said no, that’s a dead end, that would be a bad thing, don’t do that.”
Vaccines don’t get the same scrutiny as other pharmaceuticals, and everyone involved in some way with the vaccine industry also discourages applying the same standards to vaccines, just like Gates. They are apparently afraid of what would result from a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study. This is no way to do science, or public policy. It’s reckless, and if a policy requires for its success the suppression of real independent investigation, and censorship, then it obviously needs to change. Gates appears to care more about protecting the prestige of vaccine policy in the eyes of the public, and he will defend that first, even if it means ignoring alarming rates of injury.
Posey questioned Zuckerberg on Wednesday over Facebook’s policy of treating “anti-vaccine” content in a censorious manner, with Zuckerberg responding that he believed scientific “consensus” that vaccines were safe, and that Facebook search results would conceal any group critical of vaccines. Posey then mentioned the inconvenient fact that over $4 billion has been paid out in compensation to those who have been injured or to killed by vaccines. That fact bounced off Zuckerberg, who reiterated his company’s defense of burying any content critical of vaccines. Of course, it is his company, and he has a right to do what he wants with it. But does a company cease to be “private” once it begins contracting with the government, or doing its bidding? The corporate news here in the US begins wailing and wringing hands when the media in foreign lands is bullied, censored, or co-opted, yet when it happens here, no one in power appears to bat an eye.
No private business should be compelled to testify to Congress for lawful activity. The reason Zuckerberg goes along with it? Because he wants something from them. He wants the favoritism that Congress can dole out, he wants the blind eye, the protectionism, the perks of being in their favor. This ceaseless currying of favor from government is deeply unhealthy, and the spectacle of a private businessman prostrating himself before Congress is a pathetic display.
This way of doing business now, blurring the lines between industry and government, is dangerous because it clears a path for large-scale corruption. The difference should be clearly marked. Private business should only have to answer for crimes, not lawful activity. But in the present state of business and government, crimes can be openly committed by the politically favored, while the lawful-but-unfavored competitors are railroaded as a gift to the former.
Zuck should do what he wants with his platform. But he should also be forbidden from crawling, hat in hand, to Congress when his competition puts him out of business.
I don’t know much about this, as it hasn’t been written about much at all, but from what I have been able to learn about it, it sounds fairly alarming. From the its website, the ID2020 Alliance is:
“a public-private partnership maximizing the potential of digital ID to improve lives.”
As many have pointed out, the term “public-private partnership” is a public relations euphemism to describe the age-old phenomenon of powerful corporations using the government as a tool to fleece the public. It’s been known by many names: corporatism, mercantilism, fascism, and others. The result is the same. “Public-private partnership” is a nice way of saying that government is allowing itself to be bought by industry.
Now, what organizations does this “alliance” consist of? Microsoft, The Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI Vaccine Alliance, Accenture, and IDEO, an “international design and consulting firm”. These players should of course raise eyebrows, as any alliance between them isn’t going to produce anything of value for the public.
These organizations have a habit of hiding behind a philanthropic facade, and in this instance their ostensible goal is to create some type of “secure digital identity”, but what is the real goal here? What it appears to be, on the surface, is to create a system of perfect, absolute surveillance, which the “alliance” will use to their advantage. Browsing around on the website itself, what can only be described as a cartel of powerful organizations is selling this ID as “privacy-protecting”, and it appears that they will soon beta test it on 35,000 residents of Thailand. From the website:
“Through their digital identities, participants will be able to not only access improved healthcare services but also securely store educational and professional credentials.”
So the most important personal information will be stored on these IDs in a database. How anyone would believe that this would protect privacy is beyond me, but these organizations do have a habit of testing out all their technocratic delusions on the vulnerable citizens of the Third World.
GAVI, another public-private alliance, peddles vaccines to the Third World, so this ID will certainly be linked up with the ID-holder’s vaccination history.
This will obviously not end well, particularly for the unwitting test subjects of the Third World. But if it succeeds there, it will then be attempted here. Before it is, though, we’ll be subjected to a propaganda campaign touting the necessity of such an ID, or our REAL ID cards will just be swapped out without our ever knowing it happened.
Most people are pro-vaccine by default. We’ve been fed a constant diet of industry-created propaganda our entire lives, dutifully lining up for our shots. It’s not until someone experiences first-hand the harm that a vaccine is capable of that they begin to rid themselves of the notion that vaccines are safe and effective for everyone. It usually comes as a total shock to learn that the federal vaccine injury compensation program has paid out over $4 billion over the past thirty years for vaccine injuries and deaths. It also comes as a shock to learn that vaccine manufacturers enjoy complete legal immunity, meaning that they can’t be sued in the event that someone either suffers an injury or dies from their vaccine.
These are facts that contemptible parasites such as Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier would prefer to remain hidden from as many people as possible. In his televised appearance today, he lamented the rapid spread of these inconvenient facts, which to him appear as “misinformation”. The internet, he believes, requires curation, code for censorship. This is to prevent establishment narratives from falling apart so quickly, as tends to be the case when information is free, easily accessed, and easily spread. Too many people are picking apart the narratives peddled by the Political Class, their schemes derailing before they can get their payoff. I’m sure it’s extremely irritating, that fleecing the public is getting harder now that the public can figure out the scams more quickly.
But I’m not even sure why anyone is taking him seriously, as he has a financial stake in the masses accepting their vaccines in a compliant, unresisting manner. Why not curate him? He goes on to say that “anti-vaxxers” are a “threat to democracy”. Excuse me, but exercising our freedom of speech is only a threat to nothing more than your bottom line. And if your products require censorship and mandates in order to turn a profit, you’re peddling a bad product.
That question always makes me laugh, but it’s been posed to me more than once, and I try to make the person posing the question understand what they’re really saying when they speak about “belief” in a product created by a pharmaceutical corporation. Do I “believe” in a pharmaceutical product in the way a Catholic believes in the immaculate conception, or any member of a religion or cult “believes” in their particular doctrine? It’s dangerous to speak about a pharmaceutical product in terms of religious “belief”, as if vaccines are exempt from scrutiny and can only be discussed in theological terms. The vibe surrounding vaccine policy closely aligns with fundamentalist religion in many ways: a perception that “disbelievers” are damned, the censorship of critics, the inquisition and excommunication of heretics, the belief that society is doomed unless the majority accept vaccine policy into their hearts, et cetera.
We humans are hardwired for religion, and if we aren’t careful we let all sorts of beliefs fill that need. This includes vaccines, apparently. And it’s amazing what people will do when in the grips of religious fanaticism.