Hi
I don’t know you but this letter is written for you. I don’t know what trials you have survived or what joy you have felt. We will probably never meet but I want you to know that I wish you well. With all my heart.
I am what you might call an anti-vaxxer. I do not deny your right to have a vaccine if you want one. I think it is entirely reasonable for you to want a vaccine. I respect your choice.
It is reasonable to believe all vaccines are safe. To accept that vaccines eradicated smallpox and that Jenner saved James Phipps life is a fair appraisal. It is neither stupid nor ignorant to believe that vaccines rid India of Polio or keep the measles virus at bay.
To see vaccines as one of the greatest advances in modern medicine is understandable. This view is based upon available evidence and I accept it is founded in reason.
I do not agree with you. I question your reasonable opinion because I think there is some evidence you possibly aren’t aware of. Perhaps you are, but have discounted it.
Who am I to question what you believe anyway? I am no one. I’m in no position to criticise you and this letter is not an attempt to do so.
If you think I am putting you and your children’s lives at risk by warning you against taking a vaccine, then I take your point. If I agreed with you, which I don’t, I would consider me a liability too.
If I believed that a vaccine would save lives and improve life for millions, but will only work work if everyone takes it, I too would strongly resent those who refused to comply. However, I don’t agree that the proposed vaccines will save or improve lives. I don’t think any of us need to rush to take any of them.
It seems there may be a cost to me for holding this opinion. Like anyone else, I will have to face the consequences of my actions.
I am content in my own mind that I am not doing anything to hurt anyone. In your anger, this may feel like scant consolation. In my defence, perhaps a little faith in ourselves is the best some of us can hope to achieve.
Please hear my plea. It does not come from any disregard for your health or safety. I do not wish you or anyone any harm. Quite the opposite.
I’m sure you were relieved to learn that the pharmaceutical companies have reportedly been able to develop COVID 19 vaccines. These are all said to be at least 90% effective. While none of the proposed vaccines promise to reduce the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, they will all apparently reduce the chances of people becoming ill with COVID 19 symptoms.
Like influenza, which vaccines have not eradicated, it seems you will have to get your COVID vaccines on a regular basis. Unfortunately, just like flu, vulnerable people will still die from it, though hopefully in fewer numbers than have been reported thus far. Perhaps you and I can agree that our experience of flu suggests this mortality figure is likely to fluctuate from year to year.
We are told that if you choose to have your COVID 19 vaccine you will not need to self isolate. You will be free to re-enter the new normal society because you will be able to prove your immunity status.
The vaccine won’t be mandatory but if I can’t prove my immunity status I will face continued restrictions. I may find employment impossible, my insurance refused, travel denied, any access to public services withheld and entry into some premises barred if I do not comply with my vaccine orders. Which won’t be compulsory.
It seems the vaccine truly is the only way either of us can hope to escape the COVID 19 restrictions. I fully appreciate why you are eager to get your hands on one.
However, if you are going to take your vaccine in the hope of returning to the normality we both once knew, I suspect you will be disappointed. Regardless of your immunity status, the new normal is permanent. Irrespective of our vaccinations, we will both be under continued surveillance and our activities will be controlled by the state.
I wish I shared your enthusiasm for vaccines. It seems life could be somewhat easier for me if I complied. Unfortunately, I can’t.
I am one, among many people, who doubt that the new COVID 19 vaccines will provide any perceptible health benefit. I genuinely hope I am wrong, but I don’t believe I am.
It seems to me that COVID 19 only affects a tiny proportion of the population. More than 99% of us are already able to face this virus without any undue cause for alarm.
I don’t know about you but, while I recognise how dangerous flu can be, I don’t live my life in fear of it. I see no reason to live in fear of COVID 19.
I acknowledge that this statement may prompt you to think I only care about myself and care nothing for others. That is certainly what you have been told to believe by the media and politicians.
This allegation is false. You may not agree with me, and others like me, but I ask you to try to understand what the situation looks like from my perspective.
I believe that some vaccines are detrimental to health. They contribute to people’s illness and do not offer the relief from disease claimed by the people who sell them. From my viewpoint, in advocating that all vaccines are equally brilliant, it is you who appear to have a cavalier disregard for others.
Clearly we cannot both be right. I strongly suspect the truth lies somewhere between our two positions. However, I cannot pretend I agree with you.
I am less convinced by the science underpinning vaccines than you are. I won’t explore that in this letter, but can say I have read many scientific papers which bring vaccine technology into question.
I have also read many more which strongly support and advocate the use of vaccines. I appreciate that the weight of published scientific research strongly favours your position. I just don’t accept that science is a matter of consensus. It is a matter of empirical evidence and scrupulous objectivity in my view.
I understand why you would label me an anti-vaxxer. However, please allow me to briefly explain some of my concerns. I ask only that you hear them, nothing more.
I am worried that the development of a safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is extremely unlikely in the current, frenetic political and social climate. Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS or coronavirus vaccine for many decades without success. Yet now we are asked to believe they have all achieved this significant scientific breakthrough in a matter of months.
Despite using a variety of competing approaches, the claims from various manufacturers, that they have all made a scientific leap forward, have all come within a few days of each other. I do not think that is plausible.
There are other factors which give rise to my doubts. The fact that the government has given the vaccine manufacturers immunity from prosecution is alarming. Especially given that announcements about vaccine safety and effectiveness have been made long before safety trials have been completed.
Trial design appears to be heavily biased towards demonstrating success rather than identifying potential problems. Researchers, in multi million pound trials, have claimed success and then acknowledged that they had been conducting those trials using inaccurate dosage calculations. They say they were lucky that the trials indicate such startling success. I think this claim is literally unbelievable.
There are clear and significant conflicts of financial and sociopolitical interests shared between globalist philanthropists, world health authorities, the manufacturers, researchers, government scientific advisors, politicians and health regulators. I do not accept that these conflicts of interest are irrelevant and cannot influence vaccine research and development.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which oversees drug safety in the UK, has requested AI software to deal with what it calls the “high volume” of adverse drug reactions it expects from the COVID 19 vaccine. In a liability free legal environment, adverse drug reactions are far less of a concern for vaccine manufacturers. I see no public health benefit to the removal of this liability.
The proposed messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines have the potential to alter human DNA, switching targeted genes on and off. Without any possible long term studies, we have no idea what health impacts this may have. These experimental vaccines have never been used on the human population.
However, mRNA vaccines do offer the pharmaceutical corporations a considerable advantage. Once developed, they are cheap to manufacture.
I am not convinced that these vaccines won’t have a detrimental impact upon public health. We only need to look at Thalidomide to know that such disasters can and do happen. Nor am I convinced that proper, independent trials have been successfully completed, as claimed.
I can see many potential dangers associated with these vaccines. None of these concerns seem to matter to the people who insist I and my loved are injected with them. If I raise them I am attacked, abused and labelled as some sort of danger to national security. Now the state has resorted to threats in an apparent attempt to force me to take vaccines.
I recognise that you may find my views unscientific and indicative of a conspiracy theory mindset. You may think them unacceptable and agree that opinions like mine need to be silenced.
Perhaps you are among the many people who seem to support proposed legislation to make it a criminal offence to express such opinions. If this legislation passes into law, it will make any future criticism of any vaccine practically impossible.
I think you are naive if you believe a law designed to silence critical debate will stop at discussion of vaccines. Allowing the state to claim the power to police opinion is an immense risk.
None of this does anything to convince me that my concerns are unfounded. Nor does it do anything other than reduce your safety. It simply enables the people who want you to consume their products to claim that there are no scientific or medical objections to any of them. But there are.
I have no ulterior motive for expressing my views on vaccines. I have no conflict of interest. My views are genuine and are based solely upon my own limited understanding. In this regard, I humbly suggest we are the same.
I implore you to do as much research as you can before deciding whether or not you will join those who take the new COVID 19 vaccines. Please make the effort to look beyond the claims of globalist philanthropists, manufacturers, government advisors, the mainstream media and politicians.
You don’t know what you may discover. Perhaps nothing, but gathering information to inform your own opinion is never “bad.” Be wary of those who claim that it is.
They want you to believe that their knowledge is so superior to yours you are incapable of grasping it. This asserts that you can never legitimately question them. You should be sceptical of anyone who makes such a claim.
I urge you to be extremely vigilant for any potential financial and sociopolitical conflicts of interest. People who make claims about vaccines, who stand to gain from your use of them, should not easily be believed without thorough scrutiny.
Please seek out and read the numerous scientific papers and expert opinions concerning vaccines. Don’t simply dismiss the papers or opinions that question vaccines. Despite what many would have you believe, neither science nor effective medical treatments are decided by committee. Please consider the arguments made.
I trust you and your judgment. I just hope, before you consent to your COVID 19 vaccine, you make every effort to ensure your consent is genuinely informed.
It is a fools errand to rely solely upon the opinions of others. We must exercise critical thought ourselves, or we will be damned.
I have not written this letter to you because I don’t care about what happens to you or your loved ones. I have written it because I do.
I wish you well.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
The idea that refusing to be vaccinated is selfish and antisocial because one is putting the health – or even the lives of others – at risk rings a distant bell with me.
It seems to be a breakthrough for authoritarians: a compelling argument with which to force people to risk their own health – and lives – by appealing to their sense of responsibility for others. You might not be able to persuade me to submit to vaccination with an untested new concoction if the worst result were that I might die.
But taxing my conscience with the deaths of others – the elderly and sick, “Nans” and “Grannies” – might cause my resistance to buckle.
Ah yes! That’s what has been lurking at the back of my mind. The last time this technique was used on a large scale was by the Christian churches – against heretics, “unbelievers” and atheists.
Not only were those people imperilling their own immortal souls, it was argued; they were making God angry with their whole communities.
Therefore they obviously had to be burned alive. For the greater good, of course – and the glory of God.
Thanks for an excellent comment and observation.
An effective vaccine confers immunity on the vaccinated individual. It confers this immunity regardless of whether or not anyone else is vaccinated. Vaccination is a clinical treatment, it is not a public health measure.
Yes the message is often very confusing. That is how I understand vaccines are supposed to work. As these proposed COVID 19 vaccines do not reduce the likelihood of infection I cannot understand how greater numbers of us taking them will protect the most vulnerable who cannot have vaccines. This argument seems gibberish to me. If people take them safe in the knowledge that they are now protected from the likes of me, who will not take them, then I don’t see what they are worried about, nor why it is essential that everyone takes them.
The ideas that everyone is responsible for the health of the group (i.e. organism), that the “other” is infectious, and that the authority (plus the “good citizens”) is some sort of immune system, were very strong underpinnings of Nazism:
“My Movement encompasses every aspect of the entire Volk. It conceives of Germany as a corporate body, as a single organism. There is no such thing as non-responsibility in this organic being, not a single cell which is not responsible, by its very existence, for the welfare and well-being of the whole.” A.H. 1934
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/newsletter/posts/2016/2016-07-11-rak-h3.html
And I fear that the totalitarians are not going to cave with reasonable arguments. Germophobia is a primal fear that is not only present in those with authoritarian personalities, but its increase is proportional to authoritarian attitudes and behaviours. I now see people spraying tube seats…
https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/maybe-its-no-coincidence-hitler-was-a-germaphobe
All of this blends very well with (or lurks behind)the faux sense of solidarity or concern for the other with which the propaganda tries to lure the unthinking into compliance. Or as Giorgio Agamben says:
“maximum adherence to institutions of government, producing a sort of superlative good citizenship in which imposed obligations are presented as evidence of altruism and the citizen no longer has a right to health (health safety) but becomes juridically obliged to health (biosecurity).”
Always for the common good, isn´t it?
Thanks Iain for the article and this website.
Thanks for such a thought provoking and informative comment. Yes, it is “always” for the common good.
Really excellent letter that captures my own views perfectly. I’m a writer, but you said it all better than I could. I will use this to communicate with my friends and loved ones. Thank you!
You are most welcome Brent. I appreciate the encouragement.
lightpaper.co.uk would I’m sure love some of your articles…. (please?!) – I esp like this vaccine letter and the “What if conspiracy theory is true”. You were clearly ahead of the curve to have written that in Feb, was it?
Thanks Hayley. Yes February the 13th. I will contact Lightpaper and offer them my articles. However, everything on Iain Davis is freely available for anyone to copy, download, share or otherwise use. I do not believe in intellectual property rights. Iain Davis is as much your property as it is mine. All I ask is that I receive credit for my work and that any changes made are clearly highlighted. So you are free to give any Iain Davis articles to Lightpaper too.
100 % agree they can shove em vaccines up.. . My body doesn’t need any of that poison
I may be called an anti vaxxer but I am not defined by the identity invested in vaccines as replacement for a belief in lack of immunity or resilience to disease processes that are misunderstood and misrepresented as pathological contagion.
I rest in being that I am, and require the vaccine lobby to provide a convincing or compelling case of the value or worthiness of vaccinating against anything.
The science as framed by fear and funded along virological underpinnings for pharmaceutical dependency and narrative control – or mind capture – is interpreting everything though – at best – a dalek’s eye view of life.
The projection of a war mind of masked inner conflicts onto our world is a war upon life in which we do this unto our Self, under belief we are fighting evils. This is how we blindly enact evils that pave the road to hell – which is not other than experience of inescapable self-hatred.
So I understand the wish to lid over and mitigate deep fear, and the willingness to reach or or accept some external solution to ‘make it go away’, but I also know this is a form of magic, such that the fear, pushed out of mind, is merely pushed benath accepted awareness by being masked over and cast out as something else – something kept at a distance. That the toxic consequence continues is merely the result of a ‘Deep State’ of dissociation within narrative manipulations.
The cold and flu season has been viscerally associated with deadly contagion regardless of evidences, such that a shaped consciousness split by terror, persists as an identity complex of compliance long after the original media shock treatment, and now a plague of false positive pcr tests drives the social mind-capture as the fear of reliving the trauma that never really happened – but was lived as emotionally invested reality.
All to herd human beings to willingly sacrifice their will to a biosecurity state that has ownership of their bodies, genetics, and corporate infrastructure of life support?
I cannot communicate a perspective to anyone who is not in readiness and willingness of uncovering and accepting another way of interpreting fear. But I can extend a witness to such perspectives as part of sharing and strengthening love of truth that uncovers the truth of love. A love so unconditionally embracing and supporting of your freedom that you can choose to live the experience of denial even of the Life that is your truth.
“And WHO told you you were naked? said the Lord”.
In this phrase is the recognition of our innate capacity to question our thought, perception and experience, to the point of recognising truth. Where there is not a resonant match, is not a true foundation from which to act or invest identity of allegiance.
The world is as we made it because we persist in externalising inner conflict of toxic debts onto our environment, each other and our bodies.
This is not a call for piling on yet more guilt to feed the sickness that blocks the awareness of a healing reintegration to life. It is a call to choose not to choose the old habit-reaction, so as to pause for life to move within you as a moment of self honesty in recognition.
The desire of pursuing solutions is to find our lives restored and realigned to live and share them. Your integrity is everything to you, for without it, nothing is truly yours.
Whatever you choose,you are the one who lives the consequence, not those who design the consent form or the framing narrative of an offer you cant refuse. Yes you can.
Thanks – but no thanks.
Jesus said ‘resist ye not evil’ because reactive opposition feeds the thing we hate to become in us. Let truth be the condition that untruth has to meet. But make no weapon or you make the truth to serve a hate – and this will have the power to kill you – because you wanted it to have that power in giving it to your perceived enemy.
It remains true that when we meet another who embodies something we hate in our self, we are tempted to hate them for our sins. There is a work of releasing the imposing of our own demands and conditions on others, to a recognition that they have and are alive in their own light, and this light shines back to denied areas of our mind that otherwise we would have remained hostage to.
The effect of denying life is to become hostage to our denials – even while thinking to have gotten away with masking over a lie. Until we see, we simply cannot see.
Forgiveness in love is not related to what anyone does or did. But to release the blocks to the freedom and gratitude of love’s awareness now.
Thank you Iain! Please keep up the excellent in-depth work and the positive mindset!
My pleasure Tim. I will.
1) You make reference to Thalidomide. You could mention the side effects from the 2009 swine flu pandemic vaccination. Not so long time ago, but almost forgotten. In particular the side effects from GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine, e.g. causing a narcolepsy epidemic among young people in Sweden and Finland.
2) It is beyond me why there is so little going on with profylactic measures. It is a relevant hypothesis to be tested whether boosting the immune system could be as or even more effective than a vaccine at least for the 99%. Those who dare speak up about D-vitamine or worse about ivermectin are ridiculed and shunned my the MSM and censored on youtube (I have noted that UK and Denmark and perhaps other countries have new recommendations on D-vitamine supplements, but it is not linked to Covid). Does the pharmaceutical industry really hold such control over our politicians and MSM that cure always comes before prevention? (follow the money?). This brings me to my final comment:
3) I came to your blog for your article “what is conspiracy theories are true”. It was excellent, and the final paragraf is an important reminder also to question the state sponsored and MSM delivered ‘propaganda’.
Greetings from Denmark.
Thanks Michael. I’m glad you mentioned “What If Conspiracy Theory Is True” – https://iaindavis.com/what-if-conspiracy-theory-is-true/
It isn’t very popular posts but I recommend it to all ITT subscribers.
If only more anti-vaxxers presented as reasonable a set of arguments as you do (even if I happen to reject some of your premises and your ultimate conclusion), I would be more willing to support their views, or at least the legitimacy of hearing them out. Alas, that is not the case, most of them are absolute know-nothing cranks.
Thanks Bernd. Everyone has a different level of understanding on every subject. I know nothing about far more subjects than the few I know something about. For my part it never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to be injected with substances they literally know nothing about. Ultimately I guess it all boils down to individual sovereignty and the absolute right to choose.
Your words are the thoughts in my head and infinitely better executed on paper than I could have hoped to achieve! It has been encouraging and life-affirming to discover your website today and to see that I perhaps am NOT mad – others do think and feel as I do. However, it is without doubt that we Covid-19 vaccination sceptics are a minority voice – amongst my tribe I fear I am a lone voice and therefore I also fear that it is only a matter of time before I will be ‘coerced’ into taking the vaccine; life without travel, galleries, restaurants etc., doesn’t feel like much of a life. Thank you, keep up the good work Iain!
Thanks Sarah. I know how you feel and empathise. However hold firm because I suggest all is not as bad as you are being led to believe. Firstly at the moment the governmnet are giving the impression that they can remove freedoms, via the corporate backdoor, easily. they can’t. there are numerous legal hurdles to overcome if they tried or corporations tried to do so.
It all comes down to how many people refuse. I think it is entirely possible that more than 10% of the population will decline the vaccines. The State will then have a problem because that will mean removing the freedom of more than 6 million people (in fact they are removing it from everyone it is just that the vaccinated don’t know it.)
Therefore they will create a sizeable market for the unvaccinated in the UK. There will be plenty of businesses looking to cater to that market. The battle is not lost and the war has only just begun.
A great piece, Iain.Thank you. Unfortunately, I could not persuade my wife not to have the vaccine (first dose). But as you have pointed out, fully informed consent is all that we can ask for everyone. We all have our own worldview, values and all the rest, and who am I to say that anyone is wrong in making their own risk/benefit assessment and deciding that is is worth the risk of the treatment because the guarantee of travel abroad on holiday (or even total domestic freedom) is so central to their enjoyment of life? I won’t pretend that I am not concerned for my partner’s well-being in the medium- to long-term, but we all must have the choice. I also completely agree that the ability of this or any other democratically elected government to introduce the sort of restrictions being threatened is largely bluff. It would be a human rights lawyers’ paradise apart from anything else, as the recent European legislation has made any coercive measures completely actionable. Not to mention as you say the creation of a sizeable market for us non-recipients.
Thanks James. Yes it’s tricky. My mother took the vaccine and while I managed to steer her away from the mRNA she opted for Az. She’s elderly and I worry, but I guess that’s normal. I note the UK government won’t let go of their immunity passport idea. If resistance in Israel (though a very different culture) is anything to go by, I am hopeful that the numbers declining might be significant. That will certainly make things interesting. If that were the case, and they persist with immunity passports, we would be looking inevitably at a form of biosecurity apartheid. I doubt they will go down that route, but it looks like a possibility at this juncture.
Possibly the most divisive problem currently around. I have publicized this article and have added it to my specialist filter on my site below but the specific link is https://covid-unmasked.net/category/vaccines-adverse-reactions/ Good luck everyone. We need it.
Thanks Brian. Yep it is currently being associated with far right “hateful extremism.” Check out my latest here at UK Column if your interested: – https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hate-creep
I totally agree with you, but sadly I took the first vaccine against my instincts. I refuse to have the second vaccine and if I am not permitted to leave my own country I don’t care, I live in Scotland and its the most beautiful country in the world (along with NZ). I also don’t care what others think I KNOW I should never have felt coerced into the first vaccine, I’ve said all along they aren’t safe. You put into words what I was thinking, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you Beah from the bottom of mine. That is why I write, so I really appreciate hearing from someone who has found some value in what I do.
Thanks for a great informative article, sadly I was unable to stop some family members taking these experimental jabs. Wish you could go on telly so more people were informed before going to the vaccination centres which all give you the fact sheet just before vaccination so no time to read, digest and decide. Very sad world we are now living in.
Unfortunately Jenny6 I have the perfect face for radio.. you are right. It is sad.
It says it is a letter to the vaccinated, but it has paragraphs assuming the choice to vax has not yet been made.
I think another letter would be beneficial…written to he who has definitely taken the vaccine, but might want to help society avert the coming tyranny of vax crow/apartheid. Such a resistance movement could benefit from the support of “exvaxxers”.
Thank Susan. Good idea
Hi Iain
I live in the U.K. where healthcare is ‘free’ via the NHS. Of course the NHS is funded by the tax payer. The NHS response to the pandemic is a vaccination program. If an individual chooses not to take the vaccine but then contracts COVID, needing hospital treatment, should that individual maintain the right to treatment via the NHS at the expense of (mostly) vaccinated tax payers?
I respect your right to not take the
Hi Ian. The NHS response to the pandemic was to re-orientate to a practically COVID-only service. This had a dramatic impact upon every other health condition and has seen the waiting list rise to a current 5 million projected to rise to 13 million in the next year or so. GP services have practically shut down, especially for the most vulnerable, ambulance response times soared and more and more people have been dying in their own homes without receiving the medical attention they need. A&E and hospital bed occupancy rates at the heights of the alleged “waves” were at an all time low, bed availability was reduced by 13,000 in “preparation” for a global pandemic.
The vaccines are the government’s, the pharmaceutical companies and the philanthropic foundation’s response to COVID 19. The NHS are tasked with doling them out but increasingly this is being done by private contractors, at your local supermarket for example. If we are going deny people healthcare for conditions based upon their behaviour then why not deny heart care treatment for the overweight or renal treatments for alcoholics? Similarly if we do decide deny tax payers treatment presumably they will no longer need to pay tax for a service they don’t get?
There is very little evidence that the vaccines reduce infection or transmission risks and so far the risk benefit analysis has taken no account of the large number of reported adverse reactions and fatalities following the vaccines.
I respect your right to take it. However, the government have now voted to coerce people (health care workers) to take the vaccine. It appears we are heading towards compulsory vaccination so unfortunately it appears that the government do not respect people’s right to choose.
Hi Iain
Not sure you answered my question. I respect a persons right to not take the vaccine despite my belief that it has a detrimental impact on wider society. However, I think it is unreasonable to decline the solution chosen by wider society (wether via NHS/GOV/MHRA or whatever) but then expect wider society to pick up the bill for treatment that would not have been required had the vaccine been taken.
The argument about alcoholics doesn’t offer an answer. It just widens and the question and obfuscates. Let’s stick to vaccines since it is a clear binary decision and an extraordinary situation. .
Thanks Ian. I fail to see how the point I raised about overweight people and alcoholics is irrelevant. There is a clear and obvious correlation there. If you are going to deny people access to COVID treatment because they “chose” not to get the vaccine then why would you not also deny people heart treatment because they “chose” not to live a healthy lifestyle or alcoholics renal treatment because they “chose” not to drink safely? It is exactly the argument you are suggesting, is it not?
You are saying that health treatment should be rationed based upon our health choices. You say that this is the choice of wider society and is therefore, I presume, justifiable. I disagree. If the will of the majority is the basis for healthcare provision then you are advocating a very different NHS from the one we currently have.
I am confused by your “pick up the bill” analogy. Don’t the unvaccinated pay tax too? Aren’t they equally paying for the health service? What about the people who are injured by the vaccine? Should the unvaccinated refuse to pay for their treatment?
This brings me to my other point. If, as you suggest, some people could be denied health services based upon their own health choices then why should they pay for services they don’t receive? Perhaps the appropriate tax rebate will help them to afford the private health care they will need in a system such as the one you envisage.
With respect, you are assuming that people won’t require COVID 19 treatment if they have been vaccinated. SAGE estimate that approximately 70% of COVID 19 mortality will be among those vaccinated. There is very little evidence to support that contention that the vaccinated won’t constitute the bulk of those hospitalised with COVID 19. I recently wrote an article for UK Column exploring this issue if you are interested.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/why-we-must-question-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety-claims
I look forward to your follow up explanation as to what happened to polio etc, your interpretation of the vast amount of information on the flu virus and it’s properties and with great interest as to the mechanism you suggest that mRNA can cause genes to switch on and off (and what that might mean if it could). I’m all ears.
Thanks Charty. I’ve already addressed addressed many of those issues. Please see these posts:
https://iaindavis.com/vaccines-part-1/
https://iaindavis.com/vaccines-part-2/
https://iaindavis.com/vaccines-part-3/
https://iaindavis.com/vaccines-part-4/
Or you can download the series in a free e-book here: – https://iaindavis.com/books/
As for how mRNA can alter gene expression I think BioNTech (Pfizer vaccine partners) explain it well here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210611134439/https://biontech.de/covid-19-portal/mrna-vaccines
Gene expression is the process by which the information encoded in a gene is used to direct the assembly of a protein. mRNA vaccines manipulate gene expression. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) offer the following definition of gene therapy:
“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene.”
So perhaps we shouldn’t really call mRNA jabs vaccines. Gene therapy seems more accurate.
JUST 3 LITTLE YOUTUBE VIDEOS THAT EXPLAIN A LOT!
YOUTUBE: The Putin Cult is a Suicidal Cult Christopher Jon Bjerknes
YOUTUBE: How Voting Machines Can be Hacked to Alter Results of Paper Ballots
Nov 3, 2016
The Truth Movement
This video shows how easy it is for even paper ballot counting machines to process ballots with false results. Leaked graphic of election results.
YOUTUBE: Hillary Clinton Accidentally TOLD THEIR PLAN IN 2018
Sep 28, 2021
The Officer Tatum
Hillary Clinton Accidentally TOLD THEIR PLAN IN 2018
And now I have your blog, Iain, I have the rest of the NWO script.
Without this information, we can be manipulated by the MSM and Banker parasites.
Question?
Will 5G play a part in the worldwide cull, activating the graphene that is in the vaccines?
The Georgia Guidestones were eventually unveiled on March 22, 1980. It stated:
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”.
Thanks PIP. I had to strip the links they weren’t formatted and had unknown DAEMON’s linked.
Your statements, ” To see vaccines as one of the greatest advances in modern medicine is understandable. This view is based upon available evidence and I accept it is founded in reason.”
I disagree with the vaccine narrative in almost all cases. Recommend you read “Dissolving Illusions” by Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Byatrianyk. Dr. Jenner’s work has for the most part been discredited.
One of my favorite quotes that was brought to my attention was in this book: “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest , but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” John Fizgerald Kennedy (1917 – 1963)
Good point which I largely accept. However, the purpose of the letter is to reach out to the vaccinated. It is difficult to do this if your starting position is that they are irrational and don’t know what they are talking about. That is why, having hopefully assuaged any antagonism, the next statement reads:
“I do not agree with you. I question your reasonable opinion because I think there is some evidence you possibly aren’t aware of. Perhaps you are, but have discounted it. Who am I to question what you believe anyway? I am no one. I’m in no position to criticise you and this letter is not an attempt to do so.”