Vaccines, Biosecurity, and the New Normal [Part 1]
Originally published on 23/04/21 on thecrossroads.blog
Uncomfortable Truths
“I don’t want them sitting next to me in the theatre. I don’t want them standing next to me at the theatre bar. I don’t want them next to me or anywhere near me or even in the same carriage on the train, so yeah, they can exercise their freedoms by staying at home…I think there is an obligation from government to keep us as safe as possible. We are the majority…”
Edwina Currie, 5th April 2021
Although this kind of rhetoric might sound like something you’d read in a history book about 1950s America or Apartheid South Africa, one thing we ought to remember is that we are, by definition, always living through historical times. As tautological as this statement may sound, I can assure you that it is not devoid of meaning, and going by the experiences of the last thirteen months alone, it would seem to me that many would benefit from this kind of basic reminder. Former UK Health Minister Edwina Currie is certainly one of those people, but unfortunately, she is not alone. On the contrary, she is part of a large number of individuals who, for a variety of reasons that range from desperately just wanting life to return to normal to genuinely believing that global vaccination is the only way to save humanity from this virus, have begun to think of those who consciously refuse the jab as nothing less than public enemies.
Perhaps even more concerning is the extent to which this idea is being directly and indirectly promoted by the mainstream media, governments, corporations, NGOs, certain sectors of the economy, and a variety of influencers ranging from A-list actors to musicians, and from community leaders to former politicians (many of whom have been compensated in order to spread the pro-vaccine message). Notably, the US govt. recently launched a $1.5bn PR campaign to promote vaccine acceptance across the nation.
Of course, if your only source of information throughout these lockdowns has been mainstream news, chances are that you are in agreement with this expansive (and expensive) effort to get the masses’ stamp of approval on these experimental injections. Leaving aside the rather uncomfortable fact that supposedly life-saving medical products shouldn’t require pervasive PR campaigns in order to be accepted by the public, the question about the “unvaccinated” among us is becoming an increasingly important one to address. And when I say “unvaccinated”, I don’t mean those that, for one reason or another, aren’t able to get these injections — I am talking about those who, like myself, are making a conscious, educated decision to refuse it. This is an important distinction, especially considering that many of the arguments for universal vaccination hinge on the need to protect members of the former group through herd immunity (a term whose definition the WHO recently changed in order to be made achievable solely through vaccination, as opposed to natural infection and subsequent antibody production, which would result in “unnecessary cases and deaths”).
Allow me to be as explicit as I possibly can here — the “unvaccinated” question is as follows:
What are we, as a society, going to do about the people who consciously refuse to take one of these “vaccines”?
Edwina Currie, amongst many others, fervently believes that this group represents a grave public threat, and that in order to keep her and the rest of society safe, the consciously unvaccinated “freedom-loving” minority should stay home. On the other hand, the constant outpouring of a single, unchallenged narrative about vaccines being the only possible solution to get us out of this crisis indirectly serves to bolster the very same set of ideas: if you have the chance to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and refuse, you want the pandemic to continue; your refusal to take the vaccine is putting lives in danger; or my personal favourite: anti-vaxxers and vaccine hesitancy represent the single greatest threats to global public health.
Never mind the fact that none of these injections have been shown to stop the spread of the virus, which alone would be enough to dismiss most of these claims. Or that a large numbers of doctors and medical experts have spoken out against the mass vaccine rollouts that have been implemented across many nations. Never mind the fact that the core driver of lockdown policies and of the various measures that have contributed to the ushering of the new normal, namely RT-PCR tests, have been shown to yield huge numbers of false positive results as a result of excessive amplification cycles, and are altogether not fit for purpose.
These uncomfortable truths rarely seem to make it to the mainstream conversation nowadays, but the unfortunate reality is that they barely scratch the surface when it comes to questioning the gaping holes in the overarching, quasi-religious narrative that has captured much of the public’s imagination over the past year. There is something else here I’ve been attempting to grapple with — when, and most importantly who decided that the only way out of this situation is global vaccination? Might it have something to do with the huge financial interests that lie behind the production of vaccines, exemplified by the shameless revolving doors and conflicts of interests between big-pharma companies, supposedly philanthropic organisations, and public health bodies? Perhaps, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture here — this decision was made, and the space for disagreement may as well be non-existent. You either want the jab, or you’re a selfish anti-vaxer. You’re anti-science. This is where we have arrived, but is it really where it ends?
If we were to follow Mrs. Currie’s logic, those who belong to this group should be forced to stay home indefinitely. Aside from highlighting her level of confidence in the effectiveness of these vaccines, this approach clearly won’t do — to my knowledge, despite being anti-human disease carriers, jab-refusers still need to eat once in a while. What are we going to do then, starve them out? At this point nothing really surprises me, so I’ll refrain from ruling out that option just yet.
Alright, perhaps I am being slightly facetious here, but hopefully you get my point. If there is one thing I’ve learned over the past thirteen months it’s the extent to which people are willing to go in order to feel safe and secure. At the beginning of the pandemic, stories about people in Wuhan being welded shut into their own homes by the police in order to stop the spread of Covid made headlines around the world. If most people in the so-called civilised West reacted with horror back then, it would be interesting to find how many have become sympathetic to this sort of heavy handed approach over the course of a year. Not many, you say? Alright then, simply replace the word “people” with the terms “anti-vaxers”, “germ-spreaders”, or better, “anti-mask asymptomatic carriers” when asking the question. You’d be surprised by how much a tiny sprinkle of linguistic propaganda can affect public opinion, especially if continuously repeated.
One thing we ought to never forget is that some of the greatest atrocities in human history have been perpetrated and ultimately justified on the grounds of “the greater good”. Interestingly, when asked about the damage of lockdowns and of the serious dangers that the government’s response to covid posed to Americans’ civil liberties, Dr. Anthony Fauci casually dismissed the concern, arguing that his priority was public health. “I don’t look at this as a liberty thing”, he stated apathetically. In this regard, I think it’s safe to say that “public health” and “greater good” have become essentially interchangeable terms, yet another subtle but extraordinarily important development from this past year. Because really, how far is too far when it comes to protecting public health the greater good?
The answer to this question is clear by now: extremely far. The damage of lockdowns to society’s physical and mental health is indisputable; and the medium to long-term consequences of economic shutdowns will inevitably dwarf those directly caused by this virus, which will, in turn, hurt us even more. Already in July 2020, the Lancet warned about the dire consequences of lockdowns and supply chain disruptions, especially for women and children in low and middle-income countries. In South Asia alone, the UN estimates that 228,000 children have died as a result of covid disruptions — an absolutely staggering figure that only becomes more disturbing when juxtaposed to the daily “cases” and “deaths” we are repeatedly bombarded with by the Western media establishment.
Of course, as many of you know by now, the reality is that these are just manufactured crises that will ultimately serve to usher in the technocratic Reset that is currently being pushed by some of the most powerful institutions and corporations on the planet. If you are skeptical of this sort of conspiratorial analysis, don’t take my word for it. Just purchase a copy of Klaus Schwab’s most recent book, Covid-19: The Great Reset, and read what he has to say for yourself. Alternatively, just head over to the World Economic Forum’s website and take a look at the corporations, banks, industrial conglomerates, energy companies, tech and pharmaceutical firms that have partnered up to design the future of humanity.
Have you ever wondered why all of these extremely powerful institutions seem to be in agreement with one another when it comes to the management of the covid crisis? Could it possibly be because they have something to gain from all of this?
The question we ought to ask ourselves is not how far we are wiling to go in order to protect public health the greater good. The real question is what happens when the greater good is being decided by governments and unaccountable special interests whose sole concerns are profit and power.