by Kieron McFadden
The vaccine industry, which just so happens to have bazillions of pounds and dollars riding on its ability to convince everyone and his cousin to get vaccinated against this, that and the other, likes to silence dissenting or questioning voices.
Once of the tricks in its arsenal is that of labelling anyone and everyone (and they are indeed legion) who dares to ask awkward questions such as “are they really safe?” and “do the benefits really outweight the risks?” as rabidly against anyone getting vaccinated for anything ever, presumably out of sheer bloody-mindedness, a dislike of seeing people not get diseases or a belief in space aliens or something or other.
Most “anti-vaxxwers” are not actually anti-vax.
Even the film “Vaxxed” is not against vaccines in general, as a trechnology.
What the so-called anti-vaxxers are is a mix of people with various legitimate concerns and questions about vaccines. Many are certain the vaccine industry cannot be trusted to operate with integrity and honesty. The vaccine industry’s propaganda machine disingenuously lumps them all together under the broad “anti” generality.
But concern about or criticism of a vaccine or the behaviour of a vaccine manufacturer or the invention of a fake pandemic to generate vaccine sales is NOT an argument against vaccines.
One could say, if one is of the view as I am that vaccine technolgy per se – if not mucked about with and corrupted by unscrupulous profiteers – IS workable and useful as one string to our bow in the war against disease, the following:
Someone came up with a decent bit of technology that, properly and responsibly deployed, produced good results.
Along with other technologies such as sanitation and hygiene it helped tremendously in the fight against illness.
Because it was effective it made money. Eventually, the effort to make money out of it brought about an over-use of the technology and various disingenuous efforts to maximise its use, even when not particularly needed.
This led to unethical conduct in its testing, production and marketing.
It is also raised the question as to what effect, if any, does the over-use or excessive use of vaccines have upon human health.
Is there a limit to how many vaccines a person should be injected with? (Three, ten, three hundred?)
Is it harmful in the long-term to over-rely on vaccines and does their excessive use have a damaging effect on the natural immune system’s ability to fight off disease?
The fact is we do not know. It has not been studied and the industry seems reluctant to study it.
But these questions SHOULD be asked, considered and, hopefully, answered.
This aspect of the over-injection of people with various vaccines really has to be addressed – particularly as modern vaccines are now made with toxic additives such as aluminium and mercury and so on.
There HAVE been many cases of particular vaccines causing all manner of health problems and. again, this does not necessarily invalidate the entire technology but highlights the need to thoroughly examine each vaccine on its own individual merits.
The correct thing to do alongside this would be to make the manufacturers MORE responsible for the safety of their products and the truthfulness of their marketing claims, not less.
Indemnifying manufacturers against prosecution or having the taxpayer foot the bill when they are successfully sued for damages is the wrong way to go. It removes the incentive to be ethical.
Again, it is not anti-vaccine to demand that the manufacturers behave in an ethical and responsible manner towards the consumer or raise the alarm when they don’t. It is merely anti-criminality because lives are at stake.
Best way to illustrate this is through an analogy.
The technology of building cars is pretty good. The industry is capable of producing some very fine cars. There is no doubt that the technology behind the automobile is workable.
One day, a car manufacturer (let’s call it Pandemic Motors) produces a new model called the “Vaccinator.” As with all new cars, the Pandemic Vaccinator is supposed to be rigorously tested to ensure it is safe and roadworthy.
But somebody notices that the brakes were not as thoroughly tested as they should have been and there are doubts as to whether the Pandemic Vaccinator is as roadworthy as it should be.
So protests are raised that the Vaccinator isn’t safe and people should beware of the potentially lethal issue with its brakes.
The correct response of the manufacturer, if it is innocent of the charges, should be to invite open scrutiny of its braking system so that everyone can see for themselves that it is good.
However the manufacturer has a few safety issues it has managed to conceal and is keeping quiet about – a few shortcuts taken to get the new model on the market fast and thus maximize profits whilst paring costs down to the bone.
So the manufacturer responds with an effort to shut up or discredit its critics by labelling everyone who raised doubts about the safety and roadworthiness of the Vaccinator as “anti-car”.
It seeks to create the impression that its detractors are against cars in general and believe we should all return to riding carts and waggons or some such thing.
Having managed to label everyone who questions the safety and suitability of the Vaccinator as anti-car and – because our civilisation is largely based on the automobile – anti-social, they then persuade their friends and proxies in government to pass laws that make any criticism of any vehicle illegal.
This of course is a huge mistake.
There is nothing more guaranteed to cement in the public mind the idea that you are guilty than forbidding anyone to discuss the subject.
You want to make certain that something or other will bring about your downfall? Tell people they forbidden to talk about it.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.