This post is my attempt to list and summarize the issues I’m aware of around the Covid vaccine rollout from late 2020 to early 2023.
I believe that myself, and millions of others, were coerced into taking a vaccine that may not be as safe and effective as was advertised.
It’s a whole topic in and of itself as to the vaccine safety and efficacy – but questionmarks around its safety and efficacy is the hypothesis that this article is working under.
This article takes stock of what happened with the vaccine rollout, and tries to learn from it for the future.
It’s focused largely on the USA & UK, as those are the two countries I have most awareness of.
Firstly, if I were to construct 3 key takeaways, after reflecting on all that has happened, they would be:
- Manage Fear – If you recognize that you’re making a decision based on fear, then remember to heavily audit and analyze that decision. Fear can be a powerful force that makes us do things we otherwise would not.
I don’t have better advice on fear at this stage, but am aware it’s something I need to learn better to manage.
- Acknowledge Non-aligned Interests – Remember that government and big business do not have your best interests at heart. Government tends to optimize for optics and utilitarian outcomes. Big business optimizes for profit. If big business has managed to infiltrate the decision making arm of government, then government also optimizes for big business profit. Sadly.
- Fight Weaponized Statistics – Learn to better interpret, analyze and pick apart statistics. They may be weaponized against you, and you need to be able to defend yourself. A good example is the original paper that described the efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine. They quoted 95% efficacy in preventing Covid versus the placebo, up to 14 weeks after vaccination. However, they omitted to mention the absolute risk of dying from Covid for various age groups, and then to show the reduced absolute risk post-vaccination. These statistics would sound less impressive than the 95% efficacy mentioned.
Ok, so now let’s look at the many different issues that have occurred over time. I will cite some sources, but won’t add citations for everything.
This is because I anticipate next to no-one reading this, so it’s more for my own recollection/learning. However, if you read this and want a source for something I’ve listed, let me know in the comments.
- The vaccine companies got emergency use authorization, with complete legal indemnity against side effects.
At the time this seemed acceptable, given the speed with which they were rushing through the vaccine, and the perceived risk that we were under. However, in retrospect this was a cop-out. And at the very least, those in *not at risk* groups should probably have waited until the vaccine was out of the “emergency use” category and the pharmaceutical companies were willing to stand behind their product and risk legal repercussions.
- Under the FDA’s requirements for emergency use authorization is the stipulation that:
“there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition”.
To find that exact wording in the link, scroll down to “d. No Alternatives“.
The unintended consequence of this rule is that pharmaceutical companies hoping to get their product approved under an EUA have a financial and business incentive to ensure that there are no adequate, approved and available alternatives.
This then raises question-marks over products like Ivermectin, which was used by a number of countries, including India. With evidence showing Ivermectin is an effective Covid-19 prophylactic, and an effective treatment. In addition to having a long history of use and safety. Was there an intentional smear campaign to discredit the efficacy of Ivermectin? I don’t know, but I think it’s a question worth asking. If Ivermectin had been accepted as an adequate, approved and available treatment, then by the FDA’s own definition, vaccines could not have been granted emergency use authorization, and with that, the legal immunity of the pharmaceutical companies would have not been granted.
Vaccine incentives may also have played into why other things, such as vitamin D and Zinc, were not given as much attention as they should have. Despite, for example, vitamin D being shown to protect people from Covid-19 related hospitalization.
- Governments rolled out the vaccine to people in very low risk groups, such as under 60s, and also to pregnant women.
- They rolled it out to very young people, under the age of 18, and also to pregnant women.
- The raw data behind, for example, the Pfzer vaccine phase 3 trial, has still not been made public for the public to analyze.
- The studies on the vaccines only mentioned relevant risk, not absolute risk.
- They didn’t maintain a placebo group to compare against beyond the length of the (few month) study, as the placebo group later received a vaccine, and then no longer are the placebo group.
- It became clear in 2022 that there was no data in the original tests that showed that the vaccines block transmission. This should have been made clear from the start.
- Governments used the argument that you should get vaccinated to protect others, despite there being no evidence that transmission was blocked.
- Governments got behind the push for people to get vaccinated, such as staff risking losing their jobs or not being able to travel if they didn’t get vaccinated. For example, in the UK, most healthcare professionals were required to get vaccinated by April 2022, otherwise they were told they would lose their job.
- Governments did not update their guidelines on vaccinations as the risk from the Covid diminished. For example, end of 2021, the UK did a hard push for people to get booster jabs, despite the Omicron variant becoming the prevalent variant and being significantly less dangerous than the original Wuhan strain.
- It appears that a tight alignment between pharmaceutical companies and certain governments took place. Which brought into question whether policy was purely about “the science” or if other motives had sneaked in.
- There has been no pause on the Pfizer vaccine, even after heart inflammation issues have become commonplace, and simultaneously there is a yet to be understood rise in all cause mortality.
- The US’s medical agency, the FDA, and the UK’s MHRA appear to have a conflict of interest because a large part of their funding now comes from pharmaceutical companies. The BMJ has an article in the public domain which suggests the MHRA receives 86% of its funding from industry and the FDA receives 65%.
- There appears to be strong links between pharmaceutical companies and “fact checking” websites, designed to squash misinformation. This may result in new types of misinformation.
- According to the Twitter files, organizations that are linked to pharmaceutical companies were involved in direct censorship of viewpoints that are counter to the pharmaceuticals preferred interests.
- There has been a weaponizing of the term “anti vaxxers”, when in fact the issues are much more nuanced than pro-vax or anti-vax. For example the mRNA vaccines used a novel mechanism that was largely untested, and it’s not wrong to be cautious of that.
- Mainstream media and governments, through their media channels, have managed to polarize society in such a way that people are scared to speak out against the Covid-19 vaccines. This interferes with there being an open dialog on their safety and efficacy. The documentary Safe & Effective – A Second Opinion, at 41 minutes, looks at how the UK government used psychology to “nudge” peoples behaviors to their desired outcomes.
These are the main issues that come to mind for now.