Are You a Member of the Trusting Public?
"The news, doctors, and government all said the vaccine was safe and necessary. Why would they lie? They’re here to protect us."
When the world was swept into the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us turned instinctively to trusted sources for guidance. News outlets, government authorities, and health organizations spoke with a unified voice: the virus was deadly, and the way to protect ourselves was through a new form of injectable drug—mRNA vaccines. For most, it felt like a rational response to an unprecedented crisis, a collective act of faith in science and the institutions that safeguard public health. Yet, as time has passed, some of these certainties have come into question, leaving many to wonder: Was our trust well-placed?
To unravel this, let's start with the simple matter of fact. The mRNA vaccines were developed at an extraordinary pace, reaching the public within months. Normally, vaccines undergo extensive trials over several years to ensure safety and efficacy. This is not merely a bureaucratic formality but a fundamental requirement to rule out long-term adverse effects that may not be immediately apparent. However, the urgency of the pandemic led to emergency authorizations, bypassing the usual timeline. Authorities assured the public that the benefits outweighed the risks, given the gravity of the situation.
In those early days, fear was palpable. News outlets reported daily death tolls, hospitals were strained, and images of overwhelmed ICUs flashed across screens worldwide. It was not unreasonable to want protection, to grasp at the solution presented as our best chance at survival. Is it surprising, then, that so many embraced the mRNA vaccines with a sense of relief? After all, we were told they were "safe and effective" by those we are conditioned to trust.
However, as months turned into years, a different narrative began to surface. Reports of adverse reactions, some serious, started to emerge. While it was acknowledged that no medical intervention is without risk, the frequency and severity of some reported side effects raised eyebrows. Furthermore, data began to suggest that the vaccines might not be as effective at preventing infection as initially hoped. Should we ignore these reports simply because they conflict with the narrative we've been fed? Is it not a hallmark of a free and thoughtful society to question, to seek clarity?
Let's consider a parallel scenario. Imagine being told a new car model is the safest ever produced, only to later discover that it has an unusually high rate of brake failure. Would it be irrational to question the manufacturer's initial claims? Would it be wrong to ask for a deeper investigation? If, in this situation, the manufacturer dismissed the concerns outright and continued to assert the car's safety, would this response inspire confidence or suspicion?
Similarly, with the mRNA vaccines, the emergence of conflicting data has led some to question the narrative. But the discussion does not end there. When the authorities and the media continue to assert the safety and efficacy of these injectable drugs while denying the significance of adverse reactions, are they serving the public interest, or are they protecting their stance?
Let us delve deeper into this notion of trust. Trust is built on transparency, accountability, and open dialogue. When it comes to public health, the decisions we make are often based on the information we receive. However, what happens when dissenting voices—doctors, scientists, and researchers who present data that challenge the mainstream narrative—are silenced or dismissed? If the science is settled and the data irrefutable, why is there such a concerted effort to suppress debate? Wouldn't a truly "safe and effective" intervention withstand scrutiny from all angles?
For many, trusting the mRNA vaccines was not an act of blind faith but a calculated decision based on the information available at the time. Yet, as new information arises, does it not warrant a re-evaluation of that decision? Is it not a sign of wisdom, rather than weakness, to reconsider our stance in light of new evidence?
Pharmaceutical companies are, at their core, profit-driven enterprises. It's a simple matter of fact that they are businesses with shareholders to satisfy, and their primary goal is to generate revenue. In the context of vaccines, this has historically translated into billions of dollars in earnings. Now, consider this: in an industry that profits so heavily from its products, what happens when those profits are threatened? The industry’s history offers us some insight.
Over the past 30 years, it is reasonably estimated that pharmaceutical companies have paid over $55 billion to settle claims of "false or misleading marketing." This figure includes cases where companies were accused of downplaying risks associated with their drugs; for instance, GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion to settle charges related to the safety of some of its products. Purdue Pharma, featured in the Netflix series "Painkiller," faced significant scrutiny for its aggressive marketing of the opioid OxyContin, leading to widespread addiction and the opioid crisis. In 2020, Purdue Pharma agreed to an $8.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal charges related to their marketing practices, including misleading doctors and patients about the addictive risks of OxyContin.
Pfizer alone, from 2000 to 2024, has paid approximately $10.27 billion in fines and settlements for various legal violations, including healthcare fraud, illegal promotion of drugs, false marketing, fraud, kickbacks, and safety violations. In the past decade alone, the fines ranged from an estimated $3 to $5 billion. Yet, these sums often represent only a fraction of the revenue generated by the products in question. If the penalties for such misconduct are consistently dwarfed by the profits earned, does this system incentivize ethical behaviour or merely treat fines as a routine cost of doing business? Consider this: would you trust a convicted thief or fraudster with your safety? If not, then why should we place blind trust in Pfizer or Moderna and their injectable drugs without demanding full transparency and accountability?
Reflect for a moment on how these companies respond to challenges. Merck, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers, once compiled a "doctor hit list" to discredit physicians who criticized its painkiller, Vioxx. Internal communications revealed plans to "destroy them where they live" if they spoke out. When such tactics are used to silence dissent, it raises a question: Are the risks associated with vaccines and drugs being fully and transparently discussed, or are they being managed to protect the industry's bottom line? What does it mean when even experts who attempt to raise valid concerns face career-threatening repercussions?
Why do bureaucrats and politicians persist in advocating for these injectable drugs despite the mounting questions met with silence or outright denial? Perhaps it's a matter of preserving the narrative they built early in the pandemic, where the mRNA vaccines were portrayed as the singular path to normalcy. Admitting doubts now would mean admitting potential fault—a risk to their credibility that many seem unwilling to take. Could it be that the fear of reputational damage outweighs the duty to re-evaluate a course that affects millions? Then there’s the undeniable influence of financial and political interests. With billions at stake and vaccination rates tied to political success, can we honestly say that the information we receive is untainted by bias? Is it possible that this silence is a calculated move to protect both the narrative and the immense profits tied to it?
Moreover, what does it say about our society when dissenting voices—doctors, scientists, and concerned citizens—are dismissed without discussion? Is the aim to preserve public trust, or is it to maintain control over a narrative that benefits those in power? The silence itself becomes a statement: a refusal to engage in debate, a denial of the complexities involved. Is it simply easier for those in power to stay the course, rather than face the unsettling possibility that their decisions could have caused harm? And if they were to confront this, what would it reveal about the very system we've been told to trust? In the end, we must ask ourselves: are we being shielded from chaos, or are we being kept in the dark for reasons that have little to do with our well-being?
Now, let's consider the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in this context. These injectable drugs were developed rapidly and promoted aggressively, with companies and governments heavily invested in their success. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain billions, and governments equate high vaccination rates with effective pandemic management. Could these financial and political interests shape the narrative we hear? Could they lead to an environment where the potential benefits are emphasized while risks are downplayed or dismissed?
If past behaviour is any indicator, it invites us to ask: Is the information we receive about these vaccines being filtered through a lens of profit and policy? When dissenting voices—scientists, doctors, or journalists—are systematically silenced or discredited, should we not question why? If a product is truly safe and effective, would it not withstand open and honest debate?
By reflecting on the industry's history and the patterns of behaviour it exhibits when profits are on the line, we must carefully consider the narrative around the COVID-19 vaccines. This is not to assert a definitive conclusion but to provoke thoughtful inquiry. In a world where business interests can wield such influence, it is only reasonable to ask these questions. After all, if a business stands to gain billions, how might it react to anything that threatens that revenue stream? And what does that mean for us, the public, who rely on these products for our well-being?
Recently, crucial facts have emerged about the COVID-19 injections, indicating that their risks were never fully disclosed despite being widely promoted as "safe and effective." Independent laboratories around the world have uncovered the presence of dangerous genetic contamination in mRNA vaccines. Scientists like Kevin McKernan and David Speicher found contamination levels in Pfizer and Moderna vials far exceeding accepted safety limits, sparking concerns about potential genetic disruptions and an increased risk of cancer. Yet, regulatory agencies such as the FDA, Health Canada, and Australia's TGA dismissed these findings, denying safety risks without conducting thorough testing. This raises another fundamental issue: these injections fit the definition of gene therapies—products that require meticulous regulation to ensure public safety. If Pfizer and Moderna bypassed such rigorous scrutiny, as suggested by the Fidge v. Pfizer and Moderna case, the question remains: If the risks were known, why were they not communicated? And how could these products have been approved without comprehensive safety assessments?
It is not the intention here to declare guilt or to provide a simple answer. Rather, it is to pose questions that invite reflection. If the mRNA vaccines are truly as safe and effective as initially claimed, would they not withstand rigorous scrutiny without the need for censorship or dismissal of dissenting voices? And if they are not, then what does that mean for the decisions we have made and for the trust we place in those who guide us? We were told to trust without hesitation, to follow the guidance of those who claimed to have our best interests at heart. But trust, once given, should not mean blind obedience.
The call here is not for immediate action but for thoughtful consideration. The truth, whatever it may be, deserves to be explored openly and honestly. For those who put their trust in the mRNA vaccines, this is not about assigning blame, but about understanding. How can we move forward as a society if we cannot question openly and seek answers without fear of reprisal? What does it say about our society if questioning the narrative invites dismissal or ridicule instead of open dialogue?
The narrative is anything but static; it shifts and twists, often in ways that suit those in power. To be a trusting member of the public does not mean to be a silent follower or an unquestioning believer. It is a call to arms for your mind—a demand that you dissect the information you’re fed, hold it up against reality, and confront uncomfortable truths. Passivity in the face of manipulation is surrender. If we fail to do so, we risk becoming mere pawns in a game where our well-being is secondary to agendas we may never fully see. Shouldn't we, as individuals and as a society, strive to fiercely pursue the truth for ourselves?
By daring to ask these difficult questions, we are not merely challenging the narrative; we are defending our right to transparency, accountability, and, ultimately, our right to make informed choices about our health.
A well put arguement for the unaware to contemplate.
Unfortunately some are just sooooooo asleep... They don't even know that there's a problem or issue with the jabs... Even worse some do, but don't realise some of the adverse reactions are worse than public officials have communicated. "Yeah, I know two blokes with myocarditis" someone said to me at a party, seemingly unaware of the implications of myocarditis as the news and officials call it "rare", and "transient"... Geez you know two people with it mate, that's not sounding that rare to me... and I don't think it actually ever goes away even if symptoms seem "transient".
...I'm hoping I have this wrong but according to this research "indolent" myocarditis has less than a 55% survival rate over 10 years. Noting that patients with myocarditis are currently underdiagnosed, and myocarditis may result in a dilated cardiomyopathy requiring heart transplantation! This research is from 2019, so luckily published before any need to skew the narrative towards pharma's interests.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30637834/
Speaking of heart transplants I remember this story from WA...
This girl is almost certainly vaxxed... The doctors only discovered what had caused this young girls HEART to suddenly fail after they REMOVED IT, her immune system was attacking the heart due to a "previous infection"... ??
Hmmmm... Previous infection??
I may have it wrong but I suspect this is a classic covid vaccine injury?...
Swept under the carpet deliberately or through cognitive dissonance or fear? ...
(I'll allow a one in one million chance this was a real "infection" it happens)...
But given her AGE and the SUDDEN onset this seems very sus (one would think she'd have been experiencing a MASSIVE cold and heart problems onset for a while if it were via natural infection?! Slowly fading as she couldn't shake a cold? Not a vibrant active girl out dancing and suddenly not feeling right????)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/heart-transplant-technology-viable-donor-recipient-hevp/101870978
So many are unaware that if you didn't take the potion you were sacked...the average person in the street doesn't seem to be paying any attention beyond their mortgage or the football (some sense something vaguely odd is happening at least, but not enough to be concerned) ...
One guy at another party last year was in shock that I'd been sacked for not taking the Kool Aid...
He was like, WTF?? They can't do that! You should get a lawyer...
He was in further shock as I told him it had happened around the country, and the courts are siding with the companies that did it.
This was guy fully vaxxed so had no reason to be on my side here... But this issue of no vax no job has totally eluded him.
He was still living in the old world of bodily autonomy and human rights, he had just chosen to be vaxxed with no other thoughts on it, so he was unaware that bodily autonomy was under threat, and the judiciary is siding with the pharma fiends.
But the people who should have known better, at my workplace, the middle managers were so proud of themselves, so deep in the psyop, so stupid to not know history and the dangers of new experimental medication, not smart enough to stop even when an employee had confirmed vaccine induced pericarditis... This is how convinced/brainwashed they were that everyone MUST drink the Jonestown Kool Aid. Even when presented with scientific evidence that the Kool Aid didn't prevent transmission or infection.
These morons will never know what they did was wrong, or against human rights, because they believed they were doing "the right thing"... and they exist in an echo chamber of similar morons... This echo chamber is perpetuated by the media.
The only thing that would make them suddenly "think", is to be put on trial, then they'd have been "just following orders", and even then I doubt they'd have paid enough attention in school history class to draw parallels with WW2 Germany.
Great article Gaz, well put.
Yeah sounds great. Except we don't have any rights.