Earlier, my aversion to anti-vaxxers has been weakened after discussions on Facebook (thanks to the tenacity and convincing substantiation of Muriel van Koppen) and, I admit, reading some articles on the site of Critical Pricking and also -or should I even say- on that of foundation vaccine-free. There they also fly out of control, but of course you always have to look critically, even if it concerns criticism. More than a year ago I discovered that there were actually a surprising number of sensible noises there. I still keep that sympathy away from discussions because I don't want to disqualify myself immediately: anti-vaxxers are not taken seriously because they are anti-vaxxers and they have no arguments, only gut feelings.
"Anti-vaxxers refuse to follow science" you hear.
However, now that it appears that our governments and health institutes have rolled out draconian policies against every scientific insight through lies, deception and manipulation, the limit has been reached for me. I can no longer see that fight as "science against anti-vax". Evidence has now been provided that governments and doctors are "pro-vaxxers" who turn away from science. It is precisely they who want to fight their own functioning with unshakable misconceptions, if necessary unscientifically, at the expense of others. Many, many others.
Actually, I think it's a shame to have to speak in terms of "pro-vax" and "anti-vax". Vaccinations are not categorically good or bad at all. Each vaccine should stand on its own. Given the massive impact of mass vaccinations, it will have to be proven over and over again, with every vaccine, that a vaccination can do absolutely no harm. After all, it is administered to healthy people, children and even babies. Every life that is lost to side effects in precisely those groups is one too many, even if it is counterbalanced by the rescue of a vulnerable or perhaps terminal patient.
Are some lives worth more than others? Unfortunately, that is the case. A commonly used scale for this is QALY, which estimates the number of expected years of life for each patient. So when your time has come and you have lived your life, you are in a different position than a brand new world citizen who still has to learn to walk. "Being worth something" is therefore not a correct term, it is more about accepting the life cycle. When you're old, you've been worth as much as what that baby still has to become. But yes, how does it work: in the end everything has to be quantified anyway because there has to be scheduling, distributing, budgeting.
I just want to say: one vaccination is not the other. I have nothing to do with people who are fundamentally for or against "vaccinations" in general.
Looking for a better narrative
Now that it appears that we can no longer believe what we have learned from governments, regulators and other controlling systems, this makes room to take a critical look at other possible "truths" and not the truth that is presented to us on the state media.
For example, I saw a piece about how it went with 'getting it down together' of smallpox. I had already heard about it from the anti-vax corner. It therefore had the disadvantage of the doubt. In the meantime, that has turned into the benefit of the doubt for me. All the facts that are put down are so easily verifiable that they must be broadly correct. The 'facts' surrounding the Covid fight, on the other hand, are shrouded in smokescreens and demonstrable inaccuracies. But yes, smallpox, that was precisely that success story with that inoculation of cowpox...
First a video that I wanted to share before, below is a piece that prompted this post: a Substack article about smallpox – of which I really don't know any better than that is a very effective vaccination. Of course it is only an article on Substack, but because we have been lied to so unambiguously, we will have to find out somewhere how it is. We don't want to rely on the RIVM, CBS, broadcasters or other government agencies, that much is clear.
And then smallpox. Pay special attention to the parallels with what we have experienced now. Lessons learned? I wonder.
Excerpt from the Substack article of "A Midwestern Doctor":
Historic public protest from 1885 against compulsory smallpox vaccination
As widespread skepticism about the vaccination increased, so did the enforcement of the vaccination mandate without there being a legal possibility of obtaining an exemption, regardless of the situation or a doctor's judgment. Around the world, there were numerous reports of vaccine refusers being fined and jailed or forcibly vaccinated. Parents often chose to undergo the punishment if it allowed them to protect their children from vaccination.
There were attacks on officials who forced vaccination and riots broke out regularly. This quote from 1874 by emeritus professor F.W. Newman sums up the atmosphere of that time:"I can't think of decent and acceptable terms to describe what would have seemed impossible to us thirty years ago: the mandatory administration of a vaccine to the second child of a family, while the first had died from that same vaccination, and then sending the father to prison for refusal."Many reports on the horrific enforcement of these mandates and the resistance to them within the United States can be found in chapters 8 and 9 of Dissolving Illusions (bol.com). The most striking story, however, took place in England.
The manufacturing city of Leicester was subject to the English Act of 1840 requiring immunization, and the Act of 1859 mandated that every child be vaccinated within 3 months of birth. Because refusal to vaccinate could be punished with fines or imprisonment or both, many vaccine refusers agreed to vaccination anyway. Despite the high vaccination rate, a smallpox epidemic of 1871-1872 occurred, with 3,000 cases of which 358 died, leading to growing skepticism about vaccination and increasing enforcement of vaccination mandates. In 1869, 2 criminal prosecutions took place against vaccine refusers. In 1881, there were 1,100 (in the entire period of persecution, there were a total of 6,000, with 64 prison sentences and 193 property seizures against those who were too poor to pay the fines).
By 1884, 5,000 subpoenas had been issued against the unvaccinated, a case that completely overburdened the legal system. Letters in the local newspaper at the time revealed widespread disregard for the irrationality of the procedure and the medical profession's steadfast defense of a dangerous practice that had clearly failed over the past 80 years.
Tensions reached a boiling point and on March 23, 1885, a large protest broke out, estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 people. Citizens of all professions from all over England took part and they received support from citizens from all over Europe. The procession was two miles long, with protest signs and banners making clear the crowd's sentiments against vaccination. The demonstration was successful and the local government agreed with and acknowledged their demands for freedom.
The demonstration was successful and the local government agreed with and acknowledged their demands for freedom.
[Actually the most special sentence in the whole story (AT)]
The Leicester model
Mr. Alderman Butcher of Leicester addressed the protest. He mentioned the growing opinion that the best way to get rid of smallpox and deadly infectious diseases: to use a lot of water, to eat well, to live in light and airy houses, while it was the best way to do the job of the municipality to keep the streets clean and the sewerage system in order. He stressed that if this was not done, it was unlikely that a law of Parliament or vaccination could prevent the diseases.
That year, after the protest, the government was replaced, mandates were terminated, and by 1887, the vaccination rate had dropped to 10%. To replace the vaccination model, the Leicester activists proposed a system to immediately quarantine smallpox patients, disinfect their homes and quarantine their contacts, in addition to improving public sanitation.
The medical community vehemently rejected this model, zealously predicting that Leicester's "giant experiment" would soon result in a terrible "massacre," especially among the unprotected children, who were considered by government doctors to be "bags of gunpowder" that could easily be blown up in schools (along with a lot of other hateful and hyperbolic rhetoric directed at them). This smallpox apocalypse would forever serve as a lesson against vaccine refusal that the medical profession is betting on.
Because the predicted catastrophe failed to materialize and Leicester had dramatically lower smallpox rates than other fully vaccinated cities (ranging from 1/2 to 1/32). Various rationalizations were put forward to explain this, but as the decades passed, there was a gradual public acceptance of Leicester's methods, but even 30 years later, an article in the New York Times still predicted disaster around the corner and it was imperative that Leicester change their methods. Fortunately, the value of Leicester's new approach to quarantine and improving public hygiene was recognised and gradually adopted around the world, leading to the eventual eradication of smallpox. Because smallpox is usually6-7 days need close contact for transfer, it seems plausible that a quarantine approach could be the primary approach responsible for smallpox eradication.
So there is nothing new under the sun as far as the vaccination obligation is concerned, now technologically supplemented with digital certificates. Governments and medical toppers certainly do not have a monopoly on wisdom. They just do something, if you put them next to the line of science. The question remains how this will ever be properly arranged... Who can be trusted? Who has integrity? Is it at all possible to move with advancing science and not lose out in a democracy because of shaky policy? Don't people just want 100% certainty, while science mainly raises questions?
Democratie staat op gespannen voet met wetenschappelijk verantwoord beleid. Wat verzinnen we daarop? Overheidsinstituten blijken in elk geval niet het antwoord te zijn. Moeten we gaan denken in de richting van crowd sourcing?
