A Dissenter's Rationale
A Dissenter’s Rationale
The following sentence does not contain a non-sequitur, nor does it contain a paradox. I am a white, privileged, Ivy-educated, multi-lingual, native San Franciscan-turned-New Yorker who recycles, composts, and believes in public education and social welfare, and I have not received a Covid-19 vaccine and never will. Why? I hope you’ll read on to find out.
Let me first lay out my terminology. Because the Covid vaccines never fulfilled the definition of a traditional vaccine I refer to them as injections. Per their FDA studies, the injections do not prevent transmission, nor infection (two supposed attributes of vaccines). Moreover, unlike childhood vaccines, they do not present a lesser, safer version of a virus to which our body can react with an immune response like the one it would to a live virus. They are effectively gene-based treatments that work by injecting messenger RNA into the body to instruct it to create a specific spike protein. The goal is to create antibodies to that spike protein so that in the future, when confronted with that exact spike protein (of the Alpha variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, not of the subsequent variants, like the Delta variant), the body will know how to fight it off.
The Covid injections do not conform with the traditional definition of a vaccine, but they have managed to inspire a change to the meaning of the word: in the last few months the CDC downgraded its definition of a vaccine from a product that prevents infection to a preparation that helps stimulate the body’s immune response. This is one in many instances of an adjustment of the narrative that I find problematic. (For supporting evidence for all my claims, see the links below.)
As you will see, there have been many examples in the past year and a half of definitions and terms being modified to fit the narrative. And while science is not static and new discoveries should allow for changes in our perception or beliefs, when vocabulary or ways of processing data are changed to fit certain political motives, we are not dealing with an honest evolution of the science but with its manipulation.
Let me state that with this essay I am not trying to convince my readers to forego the injections. Rather, I seek to prove that there is no reason for the refusal of the injections to be deemed controversial. In a world in which a whole swath of the population is having their right to free movement and livelihood limited, refusing the injections has become a political choice rather than a simple, personal health choice. I hope to show that scapegoating those who refuse the injections is unjustified, and that on the contrary, there is every reason for us to come together as a society, in spite of differing health choices.
One more thing to know about me: I am generally crunchy-granola in my attitude toward health, believing strongly in the idea of personal responsibility in regard to physical well-being; therefore I am an advocate of a mostly plant-based diet, natural remedies, the avoidance of sugar, a non-toxic household, and regular exercise. Still, I am no absolutist: my children and I have received all the usual vaccinations in the childhood schedule, and I believe that used properly, allopathic medicine can be essential and life-saving. In my experience, however, all too often it is not used properly. My mother died in her late 50s of a stroke, which could be linked to the fact that, as part of the Baby Boomer generation, she was in the first wave of contraceptives users, and was never warned of the increased hazards of smoking while on contraceptives. Another family member was misdiagnosed with an illness for which she was prescribed all sorts of medications that caused her great suffering, until she found an unconventional doctor who figured out that she simply had a thyroid disorder. Yet another family member was recently told that his cholesterol was so high he must be put on statins—but he chose to merely change his diet, and within a month and a half, he had brought down his cholesterol by 100 points. Watching my loved ones go through unnecessary trauma caused by the approaches of allopathic medicine—or choose, with great success, to avoid such trauma—has made me a healthy (literally) skeptic.
In March of 2020, like most people, I was afraid of this new virus that the media called a threat to everyone—everyone except the children. I remember always thinking with relief that, no matter what happened to my husband or me, at least the children would be spared. I had one friend (herself a good, corporate liberal) who was calling foul and was vocal in her opposition to the lockdowns, warning that once the schools closed, it was the end of normality, and her voice was the first note in my ear that never quite stopped ringing. But we all dutifully wore the masks my husband sewed up for us, and as almost everyone did, we let our world be turned upside down. My projects were canceled and my teaching went virtual, and as with so many women and mothers, my housekeeping duties quintupled—with everyone always underfoot—as we mothers became the full-time academic teachers, PE teachers, and child psychologists for children suddenly thrown into isolation. I spent the next few months in a daze.
It wasn’t until school ended for the year that I had time to start doing proper research, but early on I realized that things were not right. When in May I saw a headline in which Cuomo was meeting with Eric Schmidt and questioning why school buildings even existed, since education could easily just be taken digital, I think I emitted a loud shriek. My daughters were miserable in front of a Zoom screen. And since my younger daughter had never before owned nor used a device, and moreover, kids were constantly being thrown out of their meetings, or finding themselves unable to log on for whatever technical reasons, we were all tethered to those machines. I saw firsthand what their education became, and it was nothing to recommend. My high schooler imbibed a few facts. My little one wrote a few paragraphs and learned multiplication, sort of. Until now—since even once in-person schooling started, the children were still kept apart, masked, and educated mostly through screens—there has been almost no hands-on education, no learning through collaboration, no exchange of the joy of success and the disappointment of failure as a part of learning in a group. Moreover, I have felt troubled this whole time that while my husband and I have assiduously kept our children out of our own social media, away from the eyes of Big Tech, all of a sudden all of their assignments, all of their heart-felt stories, were being put online. In Zoom meetings, their bedroom was visible for all. I struggled with that, for sure. My sense of privacy revolted against the idea of their turning on their screens for classes and letting the world peer into our home, but my high respect for teachers and their vocation caused me to encourage them to do so, to prevent the poor instructors from speaking to a bunch of black boxes. The fact that, in order for my children to receive the education to which they had a right, I was forced to violate many of my principles regarding privacy and exposure to screen time was a first loud dissonance of this new normal.
I fully realized how lucky my children were. Not only could we afford the necessary devices, but as artists, we were home and could be present for our children to keep them physically and emotionally healthy. Thousands of children around the city were stuck in crowded homes (few New Yorkers have the luxury of space), in unhealthy situations, getting nothing that resembled an education, for lack of the ability to “log on,” but more aptly, for lack of adults able to give them the attention that white-collar workers working from home could give their children, (or pay to give their children.) It’s an all too familiar situation now, but it bears repeating: stories of domestic abuse and rising hunger proliferated.
Months later came the start of in-person schooling. New York was hailed as heroic among cities for even considering offering our children the opportunity to learn among other living people. Once school started for elementary school children (high schoolers would have to wait a full year from the start of the lockdown—a full year!) my little one was crazed with joy. She immediately fell in love with her teacher, with every other child in her “cohort.” This honeymoon lasted for a few weeks. When the November lockdown happened and we were being returned to Zoom school, she refused to log on. I didn’t force the issue. Together we did math worksheets and worked on stories and started studying Egyptians. When school started up once more, her enthusiasm had waned. I found out that a classmate came home from school every day and cried about being forced to wear a mask and about not being allowed to come near her friends. I began garnering details from my girl and found out that if they wanted to drink water, they had to go into a corner of the classroom and turn their backs to the rest to take their little sip; during lunch they were forced to watch read-aloud videos and could not utter a word, so as not to risk infecting anyone with their germs. Even outside, their masks were kept fastened to their faces, and they got only ten minutes of Mask Break in the whole five hours of school. (These new terms, “in-person school,”“mask-break,” are part of the new parlance, as if the opposite of “in-person” school were normal, as if the opposite of “mask-break” were normal.)
Unfortunately for me, I began to question the health of masks on children. I began to wonder about the effect of inhaling their own CO2 for hours on end, the effect of keeping on their countenance a piece of fabric or woven plastic that they inevitably touched with germy fingers many times a day—when they took their Mask Break, for example, or placed their mask upon their desk (and probably not inside face up) to engage in the biohazardous activity of eating. I began to read studies about bits of material from the masks being inhaled into the lungs and eventually causing fibrosis. I read studies about the risks of hypercapnia, about CO2 levels in masks being above—and O2 levels severely below—OSHA safety standards. I read the e-mails from Fauci himself that declared early on that masks have no efficacy against respiratory viruses, and then I wondered why he countered that fact publicly days later. I paused to wonder how a virus six nanometers in diameter could effectively be stopped by masks whose pores were at least 100 times that large.
Around this time, my entire in-law family in Armenia got Covid. It seems that the whole country got Covid, in the middle of the war with Azerbaidjan. Of the dozen relatives and friends of ours who got the virus, one died. Someone I loved deeply. My father-in-law was a kind, wiry old man who was always tending his garden, as well as other people’s gardens, and always laughing. When the virus hit him, it took him very fast: there was no room in the hospital for him (they would have had to remove a young soldier from a bed to accommodate him, since the war had filled the hospitals) and the effectiveness of Ivermectin had not yet been widely publicized, (yes, you heard me right, the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Are you still reading?) so he was given no treatment of any sort. A year before, in the summer of 2019, we had cried a lot at parting, knowing we might not see him again: he was 90, and had diabetes and a very serious heart condition for which he had already been hospitalized. His loss saddened us immensely; his loss also was not unexpected.
I began to think about the virus and the number of people I knew personally who had gone through it. I counted well over forty friends who had had it, and of them, three had suffered lingering symptoms which finally disappeared after five months; my father-in-law was the only one I knew personally who had died of it. I started hearing about treatments being used in other countries to great effect. Friends in Colombia were given Ivermectin, and though one friend was seventy, frail, a smoker, and with the beginnings of a possible cancer, she recovered completely within a couple of weeks and was back to tending her garden. I started listening to the doctors testifying in front of the Senate about the efficacy of Ivermectin and other off-patent drugs, and wondered why they were given no publicity. I began to see the logic of the fact that in countries in which some of these off-patent drugs were in common use (Ivermectin, whose discoverers earned the Nobel prize in 2015, has been used for decades as a cure for river-blindness in developing countries, hydroxycloroquine for malaria), Covid was rare. I paid attention to the fact that the state of Uttar Pradesh in India had minimal Covid deaths and dispensed Ivermectin liberally. And okay, yes, with my above-stated skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry, I found it highly suspicious that no off-patent (read, unprofitable) drugs were being promoted by the government and the pharmaceutical companies (though many doctors were desperately begging to have them put into mainstream use) while the “vaccine” rollout dominated the news. One friend counted that the word “vaccine” was used about once every ten minutes on NPR.
It didn’t take much research to find out that, under the law, the Covid “vaccines” could not be put on the market under an Emergency Use Authorization if any effective treatments for the disease were available. Hence, Ivermectin was not allowed in New York (some families sued hospitals to get their loved ones treated with it), and doctors were prohibited from prescribing hydroxycloroquine. (It was not hard to convince people that hydroxycloroquine must be the devil’s drug. Trump had touted it. If Trump said anything, the opposite must be true. Early on I myself played this game. And though I despise the man, I’m subtle enough to know that the world is not so black and white. The guy who gave us Operation Warp Speed also told us hydroxycloroquine worked against the virus. This latter bit—a truth spoken by someone no one in their right mind is supposed to believe—was highly convenient for the promoters of the Covid injections.)
I begged my children to wear their masks as low on their faces as possible, and my little one ripped it off as soon as she exited the school building to go play in the park with her friends. Before the experimental injection rollout began, I started speaking out on social media about why I wouldn’t go near it, while encouraging those who felt they needed it to receive it. (As I have said, I am no absolutist. I fervently believe that different people have different physical and emotional needs, and freedom of choice is paramount.) A former college colleague accused me of racism for being against the experimental injections. Forgive me if I have trouble retracing the logic that said that for not allowing myself to be injected with something that had not undergone the full testing period (which officially goes until the end of 2022, whereas most vaccines are tested for more years even than that), for not allowing myself to be injected with a technology that had never been widely used in humans before (and for which the animal studies were far from reassuring), for not allowing myself to be injected with something that other effective off-patent treatments rendered unnecessary, I was racist. Forgive me if I do find that, actually, to be a complete non-sequitur. When I realized that this was the discourse among educated people, I realized we were in trouble. There was a fundamental fear-induced lack of rationality that was becoming normalized and that was criminalizing the idea of independent thought. (Though I would never have thought that opposing having my body used as a test subject for the pharmaceutical companies by allowing for its injection with something that had not even been approved by the FDA—only authorized for emergency use because of the repression of effective treatments—would be considered abnormal. Wasn’t it in character for a good leftist to question corporations? I had read the FDA study of the “vaccines” that explicitly states that they do not prevent transmission, nor infection, nor long-term effects, nor death. Moreover, the Nuremberg Code demands informed consent for the application of experimental treatments. For being informed and not giving my consent, I was all of a sudden in the wrong?)
Another thing that concerned me was the changing of definitions. Whereas science had always said that once you recovered from an illness you developed immunity to it (how many of us had our mothers shove us into play with kids covered in spots, hoping we contracted chicken pox early and got it over with?) the WHO changed the definition of immunity in June 2020 to being something achieved only through vaccination. When I read this, I further understood that our society was being rewritten in Orwellian terms. Change the definition of things in order to change the perception of reality, and then you can change reality itself. All of a sudden, all those who had gone through the virus (or who had, like me, slept in the same bed as someone who had, since my husband had Covid early on in the pandemic) and come out fine, were still susceptible to it and must be injected with a “vaccine” that had not fulfilled its testing period. The idea of natural immunity was balderdash, because Dr. Fauci said so, and if you didn’t believe Dr. Fauci you were against science itself. (I will refrain from commenting too much on the obvious personality disorders of those who have been calling the shots in this pandemic. Trump is not the only narcissist we’re dealing with, by far.) And speaking of the science of Dr. Fauci et al., it is impossible not to address the question of the tests that defined this pandemic. The PCR test was created by Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel prize for it in the 1980s. He created a test that could magnify what would be found in a viral sample, but he warned against its ever being used to diagnose an infection. He specifically said it was not a tool for diagnosing an infection. Moreover, above a certain cycle threshold, the remnants of almost anything could be found in a sample, so that RNA from viruses long fought off—or even other coronaviruses unrelated to SARS-CoV-2—could spark a positive test (which then becomes a “case,” according to the government and the media, though no infection is present). The cycle threshold in Europe and the States for most of the pandemic was around 45, a threshold that can cause a false positivity rate through the roof. Fauci changed the cycle threshold this spring to 28 — for vaccinated people only. Another fascinating change of course meant to affect the narrative…
Not only was the changing of long-held definitions problematic to me, but it was part of an infantilizing of the citizenry that distressed me greatly. Tell the people to be terrified of a virus that, according to one of the foremost epidemiologists in the world, has an IFR (infection fatality rate) just slightly higher than the flu, and that really only takes as victims people with 2.6 co-morbidities, (according to the CDC, 94 percent of all Covid deaths were in people who suffered from at least 2.6 serious health conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, cancer, advanced age, etc., meaning, 94 percent of the hundreds of thousands of what were reported as Covid deaths were deaths “with Covid” rather than deaths “from Covid”), tell them that there is absolutely nothing to be done against this virus, even though allopathic drugs like Ivermectin and hydroxycloroquine do work, and homeopathic treatments and good metabolic health and high doses of vitamin D can just about guarantee you will not be a victim, and you can get people to believe whatever you want. “There is nothing to fear but fear itself”—except for the societal amnesia that causes us to forget that fear is so dangerous. I can condemn our societal stupidity because I was a part of it for a while. I wish I could say I was a dissenter from the first, but the fear affected my thinking for a long time until the build-up of cognitive dissonance became too great.
In the fall I met up with an Eastern European friend who refused to have a temperature check done on his forehead but insisted on having it done on his wrist. As we began talking and discovered we were very much on the same page regarding the mainstream narrative, he stated that the way in which we were made to be muzzled by masks and then have gun-like objects periodically held to our heads was too disturbing and demeaning to be tolerated. Another friend, Latino, pointed out the propagandistic nature of the public health messaging—often so condescending as to be… infantilizing. Perhaps the messaging was actually directed at children, he said, in order to make them the enforcers of this new reality—a grim thought. Either way, my friends who had grown up under authoritarian regimes recognized the symbols and tropes of this new normal and were essential in directing my attention to them.
It struck me last fall that of the many dissenters that I was collecting—friends old and new who were questioning the prevailing narrative—very few were American-born; of those who were, very few were white. I wondered if there was something about those who had grown up “other” in this culture—by being black or Latino, for example—or who had grown up in other cultures—like Eastern Europe or the Middle East, where authoritarianism is very familiar—that caused them to question in a way that white Americans, less familiar with other political and societal structures, didn’t as easily. You can imagine that the whole narrative of helping Blacks overcome their vaccine hesitancy (as of July 2021, only 33 percent of black New Yorkers had received the injection) because the narrative that states “while we understand that their history makes them wary, we need to help them understand the truth” makes me bristle on behalf of my friends of color and all people who are familiar with oppression. It was stunning to me to read such condescension in social media and in the New York Times—again, such blatant infantilization of a part of the population. Oh, yes, they say, Black people have had a hard history and should be suspicious of the medical system, but in this case, let’s make them the first population we target with the injections, and then let us characterize all people who are against the injections as uneducated and misinformed. In the case of white anti-vaxxers (pejorative labeling is key to dividing a population) it’s because they’re all horrible Trumpers; in the case of people of color, it’s because, well, they just don’t know… (as much as educated white folk, is what is implied). I would call that serious infantilization and worse.
What the mainstream media is not going to say is that one of the reasons so many poor people of color have been victims of Covid-19 in this country is that a lack of vitamin D is one of the foremost risk factors. Also, Covid-19 affects people with 2.6 co-morbidities (obesity, diabetes, heart-disease, etc), and our communities of color have been overwhelmingly neglected by the medical system and a system of good access to nutrition. In many poor communities in this country we have food deserts, where no proper grocery stores can be found for miles. In general, in this country we do not have a traditional diet that is adhered to as a construct of basic health, as they do in other parts of the world. In Africa or Asia, there are traditional diets based on the grains and vegetables and proteins found in that area, and people eat foods similar to what their grandparents ate. In this country our food system is as bought-out by big agro-business as our medical system is bought-out by the pharmaceutical industry. Consequently, the poorer the community, the lower the general health, and the less access there is to good care. And this is the most criminal part of this whole pandemic: if people had been told, through a public health campaign, that vitamin D deficiency was one of the biggest factors in contracting Covid and supplements had been distributed in the winter months (especially to people with darker skin who absorb less vitamin D in the winter than people with lighter skin); if there had been a public health campaign encouraging people to improve their BMI and turn to more plant-based, low-sugar diets; if Ivermectin and hydroxycloroquine had been used in all hospitals or even as a prophylactic for people at risk, then thousands of lives could have been saved. The fact that people with Covid were told to stay at home, for fear of infecting others, until they were so oxygen-deficient that they were beyond salvation, is absolutely criminal. From the spring of 2020, doctors were begging for off-patent drugs to be used on patients in order to treat people in the early stages of the disease (and many were in fact using them, in spite of hospital directives—and saving lives). Leaving people untreated until they got so sick they needed ventilators was, mostly, a death sentence. Many doctors have been calling out for months that the narrative that Covid-19 is mostly untreatable is a lie. And many people in the health field have been calling out for months that telling people there is nothing they can do preventatively is also a lie. And those lies have cost many lives—both in victims to the disease, victims to the misery caused by the lockdowns, and now victims to the “vaccines.”
I happen to know a family whose child was injured by childhood vaccines in France. Unlike his sisters, this little boy did not receive his childhood vaccines spaced out over months and years, as had been the norm in the country. When he was two months old, he was injected with a cocktail of vaccines all at once, per a new change in the French vaccine schedule. He immediately fell very sick and his parents spent the next three years trying to cure him of his eczema that had him bleeding through his sheets every day. (Happily they were able to find an effective protocol, and he is now fine.) Negative reactions to vaccines are not the norm, but they do happen, and the CDC has a system for reporting them. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, is a site that is part of the CDC. It is a voluntary reporting system for adverse events to vaccines. It is notoriously badly designed and hard to navigate. According to the CDC itself, VAERS reports represent only between 1 percent and 10 percent of all adverse events, because people don’t know to report their injuries, or their doctors decline to do so, or the reports are not properly filed… Whatever the reasons, the CDC itself admits that the numbers in VAERS represent only between 1 percent and 10 percent of all incidents. Considering this, the fact that, as of October 15, 2021, VAERS has reported 17,129 deaths to the Covid-19 injections, and over 818,044 adverse events, should give anyone pause. Those 17,129 deaths, according to the CDC itself, are a very large undercount, and this is just in the first nine months of the vaccine rollout. There are also many serious adverse events being reported, of adolescents developing myocarditis, for example, thereby having their lives horribly affected by a “vaccine” for a disease for which youngsters have a 99.997 percent survival rate.
The vilification of resistants to the injections rests on the idea that by not accepting them we are contributing to the infection of others. But the FDA studies of the Covid injections clearly state that they do not prevent infection, transmission, death, or long-term effects from Covid. In Israel, 60 percent of those who have been hospitalized with Covid in 2021 were doubly vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. (In another change of definition, being “fully vaccinated” in Israel now means three shots, rather than just two, as resistance to the virus has waned in the vaccinated and people are encouraged to take boosters.) And the CDC itself admitted this past summer that vaccinated people transmit the Delta variant as much as do the unvaccinated. Considering that obviously there is no long-term proof of the effectiveness of experimental treatments that have only been out for a matter of months, to claim that the Covid injections offer more protection than the natural immunity many of us have already acquired is more than disingenuous: it is dishonest. And it is this dishonesty that has pervaded the entire narrative we have been subjected to for the last year and a half.
I can’t resist coming back to the character who actually has referred to himself as “the science.” Dr. Fauci and his cohorts, Dascak, Baric, et al, decried the idea of the SARS-CoV-2 virus being leaked from the lab in Wuhan, calling it preposterous. We needed to believe that the virus was zoonotic, somehow caused by, you know, the nasty habit of eating wild animals in China. (Witness again who are actually the feeders of the racist narratives.) Meanwhile, Dr. Fauci has been involved in gain of function research for a couple of decades (“gain of function” referring to the scientific manipulation of pathogens to render them more lethal), continuing it even beyond the moratorium instated by Obama in 2014, and then lifted by Trump in 2017. Forgive me if, due to my strong code of ethics, I see nothing morally justifiable in tampering with a virus to make it more dangerous to humans (which is why more than two hundred scientists urged Obama to issue that moratorium). Obviously, Fauci and I don’t adhere to the same moral code. Therefore, I think I have a right to question anything he says. Especially if questioning him means questioning “the science.” Because as any upright scientist will tell you, science is not infallible, and the very scientific process demands the idea of questioning. Questioning is the basis of science, it is how ideas evolve, how theories evolve and change. And in the realm of medical and pharmaceutical science, there are tenets of safety and the precautionary principle that need to be respected. Remember when DDT was deemed safe? How about Thalidomide and asbestos? Remember Vioxx? How about glyphosate? Neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical industry have clean track records when it comes to keeping the public safe from substances that should never have entered our bodies. So questioning gene-based injections that have been rolled out at “Warp Speed” by companies that have no liability should not raise eyebrows.
I might have forgotten to mention that crucial fact—that thanks to 1980’s legislation, signed by Reagan, vaccine manufacturers have no liability for their products. Anyone injured by vaccines can be compensated only by limited public funds. (Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies making these so-called vaccines are making billions this year, on those injections alone.) The PREP Act of April 2020 further indemnifies any creators of vaccines or medical devices used in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. This means that for any injury I might incur from a Covid injection—a blood clot or an inflamed heart, say—I can get no compensation from the pharmaceutical companies (only limited compensation from a government fund, referred to below). Indeed, thousands of people are having their health and finances ruined by adverse events to the injections, and the mainstream media has not even had the decency to acknowledge their suffering. (I know of at least four friends-of-friends who died the day after receiving the vaccine, one woman who went blind the day after her second injection, and one youngster close to me who is long-suffering subsequent to a psychotic break the day after the second injection. I also know many people who contracted Covid after they had received the injection.)
There is another fact that has come out recently that must make any critically thinking consumer wary. While the FDA did approve the Pfizer injection, therefore allowing it be used outside of Emergency Use Authorization, the injection that was approved was Pfizer's Cominarty injection. The Cominarty injection will not be available to the public for another year or so. It is, however, according to the FDA and Pfizer, interchangeable with the BNT162b2, which is the only Pfizer Covid shot currently available. So if it’s interchangeable with the injection currently available, why does this matter? It matters very much if you happen to believe that humans (and corporations) are fallible and injury from a so-called vaccine is possible. Because if you are injured by an FDA approved vaccine, you can appeal for compensation to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has paid out—for more than 6,000 vaccine injury claims—over $4 billion in the last 22 years. But if you are injured by something like the BNT162b2 injection, only authorized under an EUA, your only recourse in case of injury is to appeal to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which has only compensated 29 people in the last 15 years, to the amount of around $6 million. Hence the desirability for Pfizer of keeping its approved injection off the market for as long as possible, and allowing people to continue to receive an injection still under Emergency Use Authorization. The fewer people compensated for injury due to its shots, the more easily Pfizer can claim that its shots are safe and effective.
While I am on the subject of indecency and deceit, having explained the problematic nature of the PCR test for diagnosing infection, I will go back to my struggles as a mother, specifically as the mother of children being subjected to arbitrary medical procedures in school. Because my children were desperate to go back to “in-person” school, I was forced to sign the DOE’s consent form for random PCR testing. But I specified that I did so under duress, and I contacted the principals of my daughters’ schools, explaining that while I apparently could not oppose the testing of my children, I demanded to be present for such testing. As their guardian, I have the right to be with them for any medical intervention performed on their person. (I have included my letter to the district superintendent at the end of the notes below.) The only waiver I sign is in the instance of medical emergency, in which case they are to be tended to by a medical professional. Because a random PCR test that can incur harm (see the risk of meningitis found by the Académie de Médicine de France) is not a medical emergency, I have the right to demand to be present for it. One principal refused to respect these wishes. I found out after the fact, and I sobbed my despair into the branches of the trees above me… despair that even this amount of common decency—moreover in the person of an educator—should have been eroded by these times.
Perhaps this is one of the parts of this whole tragic story that saddens me beyond words. In the last year and a half, I have felt an erosion of empathy that necessarily comes of our separating ourselves from each other. As humans, we thrive on interpersonal connection. The power of live art, for example, comes from the exchange of energy between performers and audience, from the exchange of energy between audience members—that intangible but perceptible energy that we only feel when in the physical presence of others. In this year and a half, interpersonal connection—and the wisdom that comes of it—has been discouraged. We have been cut off from each other, and this distancing, this social distancing, has been glorified, but its glorification comes at the expense of emotional happiness. (The children of two friends-of-friends committed suicide this year, one 14, the other 11.) I have been struggling to understand how people close to me, whose intellectual intelligence is unparalleled, can refuse to question the cognitive dissonances I have listed above. I know that fear is the main factor: fear blocks the ability to think rationally. And if you listen to the mainstream media, you are assaulted with messages of fear. But I also wonder if the exaltation of intellectualism, of science and technology, above the messier, less tangible, but just-as-important wisdom that is lodged in art, in spirituality, in nature, has perhaps been a factor in distancing highly intelligent people from the intuition that would have saved them from inordinate fear, from the labeling and discrimination that are now defining our society. The exploration of reason and intuition is a topic for a whole other essay, but I will end with my own fear, that has only grown in these last months: I fear the suffering of the perpetrators and of the victims of the new medical apartheid that is being instituted around the world, and notably in my city of choice and in my city of birth. In light of the science that has always said—but has only recently been declared by the CDC and others—that the Covid injections do not prevent the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor infection by said virus, excluding people who do not consent to the “vaccine” from restaurants, concerts, performances, and gyms, is as illogical as it is immoral. I fear for the suffering of those who give in to this way of thinking as much as I fear for those who will be discriminated against. Because unfounded hatred is a force for destruction: it is the undoing of beauty and of love.
I am lucky that my world is crowded with friends, old and new, who have refused to indulge in this emotional and physical distancing. But I want us all to be crowded in together in resistance to a narrative that has harmed us and will continue to harm us. I want us to tune down our fear in order to tune into our ability to reason and to love. I want us all to find the roots of our humanity—and of our dissent.
Here are some links in support of the points above:
Change of definition of vaccine:
As of September 1,2021: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Compensation for vaccine injury:
Cuomo and Eric Schmidt regarding education:
Gain of function:
“However, VAERS suffers from under-reporting so we do not know the true number of cases occurring after vaccination but rather the number reported to VAERS (reported rate).”
FDA study of Pfizer vaccine:
Sen. Ron Johnson with families on adverse reactions to COVID vaccine
Warnings from doctors:
Doctors to the EMA:
https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/vaccines/vaccines-09-00693/article_deploy/vaccines-09-00693-v2.pdf “Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.”
Petition to the FDA:
The Nuremberg Code:
Transmissibility of virus in vaccinated:
Families sue to use Ivermectin: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html
Moratorium on gain of function research:
Source for interesting info on Fauci:
Fauci and Gilead, the creator of Remdesivir, the only (ineffective) drug pushed by the government to treat Covid:
Kary Mullis interview:
CDC changes guidelines on counting breakthrough cases:
“In general, people are considered fully vaccinated: ±
2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or
2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
If you don’t meet these requirements, regardless of your age, you are NOT fully vaccinated. Keep taking all precautions until you are fully vaccinated.” Meaning, if you get Covid after one dose of a Pfizer or Moderna injection, you were an “unvaccinated” case.
NIH co-owns patent on Moderna vaccine:
Pfizer’s trial and children:
Fuellmich and Martin:
Possible change of definition of “vaccinated”:
Myocarditis in young men:
Site of people injured by vaccines:
The PREP Act:
Vaccine producers’ immunity:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm The CDC’s own study cites percentage differences effected by mask-wearing that are statistically insignificant. Add to that the problematic nature of the PCR test to begin with and the the certainty expressed in this study goes down to 0.
Vaccines can cause pathogens to evolve:
PEG’s in Moderna injection:
Page 33: “Most of our investigational medicines are formulated and administered in an LNP which may lead to systemic side effects related to the components of the LNP which may not have ever been tested in humans. While we have continued to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.”
Moderna’s safety failures:
The PCR test that has been used until now has had its EUA revoked because it can apparently not differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza:
“If SARS-CoV-2 sequencing will not be performed locally and a specimen is available, the state public health laboratory should request the residual clinical respiratory specimen for subsequent shipping to CDC.
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing.
If the Ct value is not known (e.g., positive by antigen test only or by a molecular test that does not provide a Ct value), the positive specimen may still be submitted to CDC for RT-PCR and potential sequencing.”
Elimination of control group:
WHO Bulletin by Ioannidis, no longer available on WHO site:
My letter to the Superintendent:
I am writing to you as a concerned parent and citizen.
I was told by my principal that the District __ guidelines do not allow me to be present for the PCR testing for my child. I would like to see the official directives that state that I am not allowed to be present for a non-emergency medical intervention upon my child. I also want the documentation proving that the company performing the diagnostic test will in no way collect any genetic information from my child’s sample, since I am aware that the testing companies used by the DOE are private entities. I also want to know how many cycles are performed on the test samples, since PCR tests that use 30 cycles or more have very high false-positive rates. (See the quote below from the WHO website that says that a PCR test must be given by a physician who takes into account, among other things, a patient’s history, contact, and epidemiological information. My child is a minor. As her guardian, I must be present to provide such information.)
We lost my father-in-law to the virus. We are sure that my husband had the virus and therefore we have all been exposed. We take the virus seriously, but I also take very seriously the idea that the DOE seems to want to abrogate my daughters’ sovereignty over their own bodies, and in the name of imperfect science.
My daughter has a right to a public education, and to in-person education (because remote education is not a proper education, and all good teachers and parents know it). As a student in excellent academic standing and who has always shown respect and discipline vis a vis her teachers, she has more than upheld her end of the social contract between student and educators.
It is against what is stated by the CDC itself for the DOE to coerce children into being tested against their will. This is from the CDC site:
"Ethical considerations for school-based testing
Testing should not be conducted without informed consent from the individual being tested (if an adult) or the individual’s parent or guardian (if a minor). Informed consent requires disclosure, understanding, and free choice and is necessary for teachers and staff (who are employees of a school) and students’ families to act independently and make choices according to their values, goals, and preferences. Differences in position and authority (i.e., workplace hierarchies), as well as employment and educational status, can affect an individual’s ability to make free decisions. CDC provides guidance and information related to consent for COVID-19 testing among employees. These considerations also apply and can be adapted to school-based testing."
Furthermore, this has just been released by the Académie Nationale de Médecine of France:
"Nasopharyngeal swabs are not risk-free
Press release of the French National Academy of Medicine April 8, 2021
Nasopharyngeal swabbing followed by detection of the viral genome with RT- PCR has become the gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A nasal swab is also required for antigenic testing. In view of the multiplication and repetition of this procedure for getting samples, sometimes carried out under unsuitable conditions, it is important to remember the precautions to be observed and the risks incurred. While some complications can be considered benign (discomfort, pain or bleeding), serious complications have started to be described in the medical literature in recent weeks, especially breaches of the anterior skull base associated with a risk of meningitis [1-3]. […]
in children, to give preference to salivary samples for their safety and acceptability; "
The idea that our children are being made to undergo such a procedure in exchange for the education to which they have a right is horrifying to any moral person.
Under duress, I will consent to my daughter’s being tested by having her offer a salivary sample. Under no condition is the sanctity of her body to be violated by anyone; a forced nasal swab constitutes an invasion of her physical person. And now that the risk has been put out in the public, there is absolutely nothing acceptable about it.
Indeed, the teachers and staff of the DOE should be demanding that if Covid testing continues to happen, it ONLY be through salivary samples. Our children should be put at no sort of physical risk in these times. It should also not be mandatory. Other states, like Massachusetts, do NOT mandate it for attendance.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Compelling essay about scapegoating:
Find more invaluable information check out:
Thanks for writing this...now I have something to send to a few friends who are potentially salvageable Covidians.
(Maybe change 'resistor' to 'resister'? You can dis a diode all day long and run down a capacitor as far as you like, but resistors are typically immune to vilification.)
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen🙄Crazy that you think this mash of anecdotal evidence, gut feelings and misleading, thinly strung arguments is more valid than actual scientists who study this stuff. Oh and lol you probably killed a few ppl by spreading this info.. awkward