A Thoughtful Approach to Vaccine Decision-Making
In a world where health and wellness are at the forefront of public discourse,
understanding the nuances of vaccine science and the ethics surrounding it is more crucial than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought vaccines into sharp focus, challenging us to navigate a landscape filled with medical advancements, ethical dilemmas, and diverse viewpoints.
he Debate on Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety
There are stunningly few studies on the effectiveness of vaccines (via the medical ‘Gold Standard’ – *’Double-blind studies’), and…, fewer still, on the actual long/medium term Safety of vaccines (no money to be made doing that). What is used is ‘Statistical Studies’ which is where vaccine study data is ‘sliced & diced’ by the purveyors of the vaccines in a manner that enforces any predetermined outcome and feeds the narrative of ‘safe & effective’. Unfortunately, this is Incomplete Science – the totality of relevant data just has NOT been captured thereby fueling assumptive conclusions. A prime example of ‘Correlation does not imply causation’ (which interestingly, is the very same Correlation argument often used to dismiss discourse regarding the dangers of vaccines)
The Science and Controversy of Vaccines
The base science of vaccines is solid, vaccines can/do cause an immune response to varying degrees (this is not the same as actual immunity). Vaccines do have a place in today’s society but truly informed consent is getting bypassed. There are less controversial points regarding vaccines beyond safety and effectiveness – such as:
-the ‘one size fits all’ mindset,
-the ‘asymptomatic’ vaccinated leading to greater disease spread,
-the ‘Superman complex’ where some people feel immediately invincible & immune (can’t get the disease)
But…, one of the most concerning aspects is that there is strong and focused pushback on any folk who are vocal regarding vaccine safety. Vaccines can/do cause side effects from mild to deadly. The Incomplete Science aspect becomes doubly relevant in this case.
Post-Release Data and Ethical Concerns
It has become common practice to rely heavily on ‘post-release’ data (which is chock-full of variables that defy any reasonable, responsible, and accurate data collection and dissemination). With mRNA vaccines, sadly, women and their offspring have become the ‘Canaries in the Coal Mine’ regarding any maternal or transgenerational effects. Additionally, consequences are found and added after the decision to vaccinate has been made. No one can un-vax. It’s ludicrous to vaccinate millions in an uncontrolled ‘real world’ test yet say it’s unethical to expose volunteers to viruses during studies. There is something to be said about the difference in ‘live virus’ testing between vax and non-vax. It’s naive to put one’s head in the sand concerning long-term effects, especially while vaccines are fervently pushed over ever increasingly narrow time frames. To add insult to injury, the vaccine pushers have immunity from any accountability.
A Call for Critical Thinking
All these factors make it incredibly difficult to practice critical thinking, and accurately assess the risks. Consumers don’t have enough unbiased information to make a reasonably informed decision to vaccinate
*Understanding Double-Blind Studies
A double-blind study is one in which neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is receiving a particular treatment. This procedure is utilized to prevent bias in research results. Double-blind studies are beneficial for preventing bias due to demand characteristics or the placebo effect). In the world of ‘vaccine science’, it is common to introduce a placebo that is truly not an INERT PLACEBO such as saline but common practice is to use adjuvants or another actual vaccine which are variables that taint the accuracy of the data