This has been an unusual week for blogging. Normally, as most know, I schedule blogs on the Thursday or Friday preceding the week they appear. But this week has been unusual in many respects, not the least of which is because it has been very difficult to make a selection among the articles I have received. So, I'm "behind schedule", but this one from Mr. G.F. caught my eye, and I decided to blog about it, because of another friend of mine.
And I have to stop and tell this story about that friend, even though I do not like to engage in anecdotes or personal stories on this website: Monday morning, after being awake all night as usual, I received a phone call from that friend. I had been getting concerned, as I had not heard from him in a few weeks. Needless to say, I was worried. What had happened? He proceeded to inform me that he had been in the hospital for a couple of weeks, and had only been released about a week ago. What had happened? My friend, who had never taken a flu vaccine in his life, was persuaded to get one. He ended up collapsing at a sports event, ended up in an ICU on a respirator and in a coma... the reason? He had contracted the corona virus, a.k.a., SARS, a respiratory flu common to birds. He informed me his doctors had put him on a regime of "shock and awe" anti-biotics.
Needless to say, there's now a lawsuit from him, and from the hospital, against the manufacturer of the vaccine. His experience, I'm afraid, is not unique among those in my circle of friends and acquaintances. My own mother would always "get her flu shot,"... and end up tired and vaguely sick.
Now, what has all this to do with today's blog? it's because it now seems definite that Robert F. Kennedy Jr has accepted President Trump's request to chair a panel on vaccine safety:
Of course, the preceding article presents the usual spin we've come to expect from corporate controlled media: vaccines are "scientific" and opposing science and scientists are simply ignored or tossed aside. And perish the thought we rely on actual testimony such as my friend's experience. Recall just a few weeks ago I blogged about a study that was based on hundreds of such stories that was presented in a paper to a major medical journal, accepted for publication... until, that is, big pharma stepped in and quashed the paper, and therewith, the science. Its objection? The paper was based on anecdotal stories and not hard research. I pointed out at the time that the patients' stories are the basis on which, under normal circumstances, the diagnostic process begins. And at a certain point, stories of "my child was fine, then was vaccinated, and now she's autistic" cease being a coincidence and start being a pattern. It's that pattern that big pharma is fighting so hard to dispel through a variety of conjurations from discrete legal and medical grimoires. But in the end, it remains deception dressed in verbiage: I know what I see in those around me and what they experienced from their crud-filled vaccines.
Then comes the "it's not a significant statistical amount of the vaccinated population" argument. Readers of my and my co-author's book Rotten to the (Common) Core will recognize this as the "statistics show" argument, so useful to the corporations behind standardized testing. It is, in effect, not only an argument from authority but a limited hangout: so what if a tiny minority react adversely to vaccines(or, in its standardized testing context, "so what if a few questions on a test are bad? It's the overall Gestalt of the test that matters" &c &c). Vaccines are "still effective against the majority," &c &c.
Notice that what's avoided here is any real understanding of why that is so, and that means there's no scientific search on for the explanation. To do that would be a huge admission that those statistics could change... and we don't want that.
The problem is: juries are not panels of "scientists" bought and paid for by big pharma.
Now, I have no doubt that Mr. Kennedy's skepticism toward vaccines is sincere. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that it is not. Or let's assume that big pharma will use other methods of pressure to get an "acceptable" result from the panel (and we all know with billions of dollars at stake, they're perfectly capable of tossing articles and debate aside - after all, they're already involved in the lobbying- story suppression business - and reaching into the "Bag of Very Dirty Tricks," the blackmail control files, the wet works operators, and so on). The possibility arises that a government panel headed by a vaccine skeptic could issue a glowing report on the wonders of vaccines and the glories of Big Pharma. In that case, watch the pressure build for forced vaccination not as state policy, but national policy.
Personal experience and anecdotes be damned.
But my bet is, you'll now see a campaign of "limited hangouts" by big pharma to buy time... and lawyer up.
See you on the flip side...