I recently discovered a paper in my mail slot that definitely warranted a response. The sheet contained an enlarged comment from a social media post chiding those who are currently being labelled as “vaccine hesitant.” While I believe the person behind this gesture was well-intentioned, this does highlight to me what I consider a disturbing trend. With the political left exploiting the void ushered in by ejecting God from our nation, there is a boldness in their efforts to pressure dissenters they have not yet forced into compliance. Civil debate is largely a thing of the past as many people feel increasingly justified in telling others what they should do, support and even think.

This tendency is not limited to those outside the church, however, as many self-professed Christians have adopted much of the worldly mindset. Increasingly, they seem to be passive about standing up for the convictions derived from biblical standards while becoming evangelists for leftist ideologies. I am not exaggerating by telling you that there is a substantial number of those who claim to be evangelicals who are too reluctant to share their faith but would have the temerity to call out strangers for not wearing requisite Chinese face diapers. The problem lies not only in placing this message specifically in my mailbox, but the underlying assumptions contained in the missive.

We start with the title which reads, “How Antivaxxers Sound to the Rest of Us.” “Antivaxxer” itself is a loaded and derisive term meant to paint one as equivalent to an anti-science, flat-earther. The skepticism runs anywhere from concerns about the claim that vaccines can cause autism to otherwise distrusting the contents injected into our bodies. I have no clear opinion on such an issue other than to note that autism rates have indeed skyrocketed and we ought to be investing far more attention into finding out the source. The ranks of the “vaccine hesitant” have specifically become far more prevalent and mainstream uniquely with regards to the COVID “vaccine” rollout. I plan to address why this uncertainty is well founded. The premise that the comment is a reflection of how the antivax “other” sounds to the writer of the comment reveals this will be an emotional and demeaning appeal pitting one side against the other. This is hardly an invitation to comity.

Reading on: “I once almost choked to death while eating food. I did my own research and discovered that I am not alone. Thousands of people choke every year while eating, and hundreds of those people die. Thats (sic) why I don’t feed my kids. Its (sic) dangerous.” Several points here.

• The writer conflates eating (something we do for our survival, sustenance, and usually enjoyment) with having a serum injected into our bodies. Why couldn’t they find a more fitting analogy that actually has relevance to the purpose of these competing elements? That right away is a sign of a weak argument and clearly is used to inject (see what I did there) snark and insults in place of a convincing comparison.
• If we are going to make a correlation between no longer eating for fear of choking with the prospect of receiving an injection (where something is introduced into the body much like food being ingested), I believe there is a far more fitting comparison. What about, “Because many seniors and health-compromised individuals are getting very ill or dying from what is comparable to the flu in a child, we should close down schools and keep our children masked and indoors to avoid catching this flu-equivalent virus.” Or how about, “We will close down small businesses, churches, destroy the economy and heap up massive debt while causing a spike in suicides and a mental health crisis by keeping the healthy cloistered indoors.” Okay, let me take one more stab at this. “Everyone must take this experimental ‘vaccine’ with a greater likelihood of injury or death to the majority of the population than the risk of actually catching the virus because if YOU do not get a vaccine, then this risks MY health.”
• Again, staying true to the choking analogy, if the rate of severe illness or death is low for those in your demographic even if you do catch COVID, isn’t it folly to introduce an experimental “vaccine” into this population one doesn’t fear for their own health or see a risk to their child based on statistics? Does “vaccine hesitancy” make sense when the death rate – let aside serious side effects like blood clotting and Bell’s Palsy – makes the “vaccine” a higher risk catching COVID? If we compare apples to apples, we are not even talking about the level of risk people see with regards to COVID, but to the injection as a remedy to presumably prevent one from becoming a fatality. The remedy to avoid choking is not to rush, take small bites and don’t take on large undigestible portion sizes. Since this is calling for a rush to have an untested “vaccine” introduced into the body in case the worst happens shows the speciousness of the pro-vax argument.
• Notice the shift from, “I almost choked” to “That’s why I don’t feed my kids?” This transition from a personal decision for ourselves to deciding for our kids. Since this theme continues, I will have more to say on this, but for now, there can be different decisions based on individuals based on a risk-benefit analysis. Again, it requires the sweeping assumption that anyone skeptical of the vaccine is a full-blown, Alex-Jones level anti-vax conspiracy theorist or Scientologist willing to sacrifice our children for an ideology. I suggest the opposite is true.

On we go: “Now plenty of people will point out that food supposedly, ‘prevents starvation,’ and that might be true, but its not fair to completely ignore all the dangers food poses, like choking, allergies, gingivitis, and garlic breath.”

So, I’m guessing the writer assumes that the “vaccines” “prevent” one from catching COVID. That belief of itself shows how uninformed this critic is about the claims from the manufacturers themselves. They assert, not that those getting the needle will be protected against COVID, but recipients won’t experience the symptoms as severely. It should be stressed that the injections have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, so this itself invites another analogy. Let’s imagine that government is pushing for a new food that is intended to boost your health, but it has not undergone testing. Is it smarter to wait until you see both that it lives up to its promise and is safe, or should you jump in just in case? Could it be wiser to eat foods known to be healthy and inspected? In the realm of COVID, prophylaxes such as Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D and zinc are far more reliable known quantities.

Rounding out this dog’s breakfast of spurious comparisons, we read, “I’m just saying, do your own research and decide what you think is best for your kids. If you choose to give your kids potentially deadly food, thats (sic) your problem, but as a parent, I don’t think the government has any right to tell me that I need to feed my kids.” Again, we’ll need to break this down under several points.

• Encouraging people to do their own research is the only point the comment writer gets correct about skeptics. Of course, this has been made much harder not only by the social pressure, but the threats to fire employees and medical professionals, restrict travel, and censor any critics of any aspect of the COVID response. Trying to highlight the basis for these reservations is marginalized not because they come from the fringe, but because the managing of information allows only one narrative and this moves legitimate critics to the margins. That is how things work under a state-run media. I’m open to any examples of where such societies (China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea) are more accurate sources those with a genuinely free press. Since social media platforms are acting as gatekeepers in perfect compliance with the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party, I have trust issues.
• On the issue of “dangerous foods,” I feel like the cynical arguments being made are making my point. The “vaccine” was rushed and bypassed the years of animal, then human trials to warrant approval. Keep in mind, this is a system that up to that point and doubtless going forward will not approve a drug for cancer or any number of life-threatening circumstances without years of thorough testing practises before granting approval. Why is a fast-tracked drug meant to reduce the symptoms of a condition that for most of the population is essentially indistinguishable from the flu not cause for hesitancy? I would ask, should this removal of safeguards in general be lifted for the greater good? Does it depend on whether or not the government gives it a thumbs up? Does your unmitigated trust in the jab mean that the only reason others may not share your enthusiasm may run deeper than assuming others hate their children or are simply (again, excuse the pun) bat crazy?
• Do pro-vaxxers believe that the only explanation is that skeptical parents are either flat-earth conspiracy-minded morons who don’t care or lack the judgment to parent their children or could there be another explanation? As to the scope of the government’s role to dictate what we do with our children, do they believe they are qualified to tell students what ideology they must embrace, what school they must attend, what they must wear when they visit and under what circumstances they are permitted to see their parents? I’ll grant that those who believe the government is better qualified to determine where they may go, who they may visit, under what conditions, how to spend their money and how to raise their children are probably right, but I don’t happen to fall under that category. In fact, those cheerleading for the jab are far more likely to believe that schools must provide breakfast and lunches for their children while detractors believe it to be the job of parents, so again the analogy falls flat. BTW, given the claims of these advocates of school meal programs, what is the death toll of kids from starvation due to the lockdowns?
• Champions of the “vaccine” are actually the ones who believe government has the right to dictate to parents about the health and wellbeing of our own children. They now feel justified in riding roughshod over parental rights by insisting that schools and medical staff have the right to induce children to give consent without the knowledge of the parents. This has already included social pressure, promises of treats and a chance to be spared second-class treatment for not being among the masked and vaccinated. In short, parents and children are being coerced into compliance by the carrot and the stick and this handout is yet another example of the stick.

Note that in no way have or would I impose my beliefs on those who want to take the jab. They are free to decide for themselves while many of them conversely feel justified to act as coercive agents of the state. This is an especially curious position to take considering that the needle is supposed to protect the recipient, so why exactly do pro-vaxxers feel justified in trying to impose personal health decisions on others? Is it a lack of knowledge regarding how vaccines work, irrational fear, or a need to compel everyone to bend the knee – or extend the arm – to Caesar?

Now that I have thoroughly responded to the content of this sardonic diatribe, I will offer some further details that should shed more light on why you can paint me “vaccine hesitant.” I do provide links, but know we are living in a time where journalistic integrity has become an oxymoron, I invite scrutiny. Do keep in mind that while sources on the political right too have a bias, it is undeniably true that mainstream sources not only skew left, but go to great lengths to prevent even challenging prevailing narratives. This alone is reason to distrust anything about COVID and I’d much rather live in a world where such hyper-skepticism was not only necessary, but the only reasonable response. After checking my claims and sources, look for your own and be sure to not just look for opinion pieces from either side, but hard data. I will be finishing up with a series of facts and questions that should be part of the calculus for deciding whether you personally want the needle or, even more so, plan to subject your child to receiving it.

• These “vaccines” are, by definition, experimental. Any assurances about the safety – especially to humans – is unfounded. It was developed over a matter of months and hurried out to the public as an emergency measure. To me, this should lead one to consider what level of risk is there in not taking the injection as opposed to receiving it under these conditions. Note that “fact checkers” have attempted to refute the fact that animal testing was not carried out, but they leave out details. They deny the claim that animal testing trials were stopped because the animals were dying, but give no evidence. They only state that the animal testing continues while the “vaccines” are being rolled out and injected. By definition, this means that the “vaccines” have not been tested and this is true whether or not animals died and, if they didn’t, wouldn’t these companies and “journalists” broadcast the proof?
• I have put “vaccine” in quotation marks for a good reason. Two of the injections being offered are not merely experimental, but are also gene therapies. This involved modifying the RNA of the host body rather than giving a lower dose version of the virus that is standard for all other vaccines. This has been a focus of research, but it is the first time being given extensively to humans. This includes ModeRNA (which spells out that it modifies the RNA right in the name) and Pfizer’s BioNTech. https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/03/16/covid-19-vaccines-are-gene-therapy/
• A large percentage of health care professionals on the front-line of the “COVID wars” are refusing to get the injection (reported to be at 27%). This is hardly an inconsequential number. Presumably, while being the most at risk and having greater knowledge of the medical implications, it’s tough to write them off as a bunch of conspiracy theory crazies. In fact, several doctors and nurses who have opposed the “vaccines” have been fired, thus showing both the level of their conviction and the pressure being brought to bear. Note that this is from the Huffington Post which is a very left-leaning website. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/health-care-workers-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy_n_601881ebc5b622df90f61167
• There have been very high numbers of people suffering severe side effects or even dying after receiving the jab. The deleterious effects are far worse than they are for previous vaccines on the market. It is difficult to get accurate numbers from the CDC (Centres for Disease Control) and apologists have insisted that the deaths within hours or weeks of getting the needle are not proof that this was the cause. Note that this is the inverse of how “COVID case numbers” (used to justify endless lockdowns) are calculated since they conflate the stats including by adding those who died “with” COVID with the number of those who died “from” COVID. I will address this more thoroughly in future posts, but suffice to say, they are hiding and/or downplaying the numbers of deaths from the injections. http://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/11042/20210304/reports-indicate-vaccines-causing-more-injuries-deaths-than-natural-covid-19-infections.htm
• Different countries have suspended or halted the use of the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca “vaccines” due to concerns over blood clotting. Note that these were promoted as completely safe with government’s advocating taking the first shot available based on a sweeping assumption that all were safe. They now want to be trusted as they quietly remove these options out of circulation that there is nothing to see here and they can be completely trusted. This has primarily impacted women of child-bearing years. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-we-know-on-blood-clots-linked-to-astrazeneca-j-j-vaccines-2412889 Also, post-menopausal women state that they are again having periods or are having heavier periods. Again, defenders merely speculate that there may be no causal relationship, but give no reason for dismissing the connection. https://www.the-sun.com/news/2687439/women-periods-heavier-after-covid-vaccine-when-see-gp/
• The government has granted all those companies who have offered COVID-19 injections immunity from prosecution. I’ll leave that right here. https://globalnews.ca/news/7521148/coronavirus-vaccine-safety-liability-government-anand-pfizer/

Now for a number of questions for those annoyed by those who may have “vaccine hesitancy” – that is, in addition to all of the above:

• Canada moved forward with giving the first of a 2 dose “vaccine” to huge swaths of the population while failing to provide the second dose according to the manufacturer’s established timelines. Were these mere suggestions or were they expected to be followed? What is the efficacy of receiving a single dose? How effective is a second dose given at a far later date? Is mixing and matching these gene therapies acceptable and, if not, why is it happening? Is there a health risk for not keeping to the dosing schedule? How do we know any of the above?
• Given the “variants,” what does this mean for the current crop of “vaccines?” Does this potentially make this costly venture largely moot since the presumed protection will not be there for the new strain? Should we all remain on permanent lockdown as we keep playing catch up and wait for the eternal next viral incarnation to come along?
• Why does Canada allow bodily autonomy as justification for the dismemberment and skull crushing of an innocent child in the womb, but not as a safeguard against an experimental vaccine being introduced into our bodies?
• Since the statistical risk of injury or death to healthy children is virtually non-existent, what is the rationale for pushing an experimental “vaccine” on them? If teachers are maintaining it is unsafe for them to return to the classroom unless the children are “vaccinated;” should they no longer be permitted to teach because this means they understand neither science nor logic?
• A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for email communications from Anthony Fauci was just released and revealed several significant points. First, he knew early on that masks were ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus. Secondly, he knew that the virus was not being passed on through children or asymptomatic spread. Thirdly, he knew that it was more than likely that the virus came, not from a wet market, but a Wuhan lab that he directed funding to and that the lab was carrying out gain of function research – a process which weaponizes viruses. There was also a redacted exchange between Fauci and Mark Zuckerberg (head of Facebook) and Zuckerberg censored anyone who insisted the virus came from a lab leak. Given all the above, why should we trust any purported “expert” especially since the one at the very top was engaging in a deliberate misinformation campaign that cost lives and livelihoods.
• The medical community has largely participated in several anti-scientific and medically unsound and baseless premises (i.e., it is good practise to give children hormone blockers and mutilate healthy body parts because someone expresses feelings about being “in the wrong body,” preborn babies are disposable and without value or rights because they are a clump of cells rather than living human beings from conception, it is acceptable for doctors to participate in taking the life of a patient through euthanasia based on subjective determinations about their quality of life). What reason is there to trust that they would not participate in yet another evil or even questionable actions in violation of their Hippocratic Oath, especially under intense pressure? How can the medical community be trusted when threats and coercion are applied to keep them in line?
• Considering natural herd immunity has historically been the best remedy to viral outbreaks, why was this objective not raised outside of conservative media sources until the “vaccines” emerged? Natural immunization has proven to be the safest and best protection not only against COVID-19, but also any variants, so why inject an untested serum when people have caught COVID and died after receiving the shot? Why are they not doing antibody testing to determine whether one already has natural immunity to COVID before jabbing them? Why are those with natural immunity not counted in the numbers they demand to reopen and instead insist on reaching that level with these untested “vaccines?”

So, I ask, in light of all of the above, is this some knee-jerk tin-foil hat conspiracy that is endangering our children and society, or is there cause for concern? In fact, Ivermectin has been credited with the end of the COVID death spiral in India. Testing has shown that Hydroxychloroquine showed a 200% increase in survival rates over those who did not receive it. What is the good explanation for keeping people from accessing these effective and cheap options? What bothers me is the inherent assumption that those who dissent are part of some brainwashed cult. Why was there no consideration that government, big pharma and an exceedingly biased media may not have an agenda? I guarantee you that skeptics are far more aware of the larger picture than are those making emotional pleas to go along in order to save society. People are being taught to be incurious and the response to this pandemic has demonstrated how effective their campaign has been.

Just before writing this, I also stumbled across an article from an immunologist from the University of Guelph sounding the alarm after realizing the spike protein in the gene therapies was itself a toxin. Consequently, this has grave implications regarding blood clotting, heart disease, brain damage and impact to reproduction for many people. The belief was that the spike protein would remain in the site of the injection, but was found in the bloodstream of patients. This compounds the unknown risks not only in current cases, but long down the road and could also be passed on through the mother’s breastmilk into babies. My concern is heightened when I consider that many doctors will be motivated to, bury their mistakes and triple down on the harm rather than risk admitting culpability. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vaccine-researcher-admits-big-mistake-says-spike-protein-is-dangerous-toxin?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=73716d8290-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520Canada_COPY_1045&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-73716d8290-400687981

As mentioned, I am happy to address substance, but any emotional or visceral response to the points and questions I logically laid out only demonstrates that I am the one dealing with scientific considerations and pro-vaxxers are simply placing their full faith in the government and their hand-picked experts. What disturbs me most of all is that they are willing to offer up their children and mine as pawns in yet another social experiment.

I believe that God designed our immune system for a purpose and the idea of introducing a substance that alters how this naturally created and designed system works is an act of folly and hubris. Admittedly, I could be wrong, but I am content that I am taking the path that is most reasonable to me and I believe that those who want to go a different way will not have the audacity to place a duty on me or impugn my intellect or parenting for refusing to follow their decision. Instead of carrying on with the new favoured pastime brought about by the radical left of vilifying dissent from their orthodoxy, perhaps my critics can demonstrate some Christian humility.