Free Will in a Covid-Vaccinated World
Are we headed for a dystopian split between Covid-compliant and Covid-skeptic societies?
If not the vaccine, then what? It is a question that anyone holding the line against the onrush of Pfizer-mania will inevitably be asked. So here I go.
Firstly: if you want the vaccine, take it. In a well functioning society that gives appropriate consideration to individual free will, each of us would be left to make our own informed decisions on such an important matter, without government coercion and shaming from fellow citizens (something which is now occurring on both sides). But it is now well apparent that our society is far from this state.
I won’t be taking it, but that’s my choice, based on my own personal circumstances and beliefs. Whether by my own decisions or simply the grace of God, I appear to have a better immune system than most. I’m also fortunate enough to have no pressing external factors (e.g. financial, employment, family, travel) that might otherwise force my hand. I’m not overly concerned about side effects, i’m just drawing a line here (a line that I believe everyone will have to draw at their own point of choosing at some stage) against what I see as a broader opportunistic push from our superiors towards medical and health tyranny under the guise of a pandemic. You might think that is an overreaction, but you also aren’t as far down the wombat hole as I am.
I’m also not in the slightest concerned about any judgement that comes my way as a result of this choice. Because I also have no judgement on anyone who does get the jab, especially given the degree that we have been relentlessly conditioned to think there is no way out from this dystopian, virus-laden hellscape without it. That is why I will try my best from hereon-in to avoid contributing to a culture of irrational fear around this vaccine, given it has been the creation of irrational fear around the virus that has lead us down this unfortunate path.
Should you take it? Again, it is no-one’s decision but your own. But everyone should at least have the opportunity to be reliably informed about what they are signing up for — and if you weren’t already aware, you will be signing up for the largest vaccination trial in history. And providing such reliable information is what I aim to do here: about the vaccine, about its alternatives, and about the role of free will in the world that we are being ushered towards.
So what do we know about the Pfizer vaccine, given it is the vaccine currently being rolled out in Australia? This Conversation article is the most detailed and balanced I have found in mainstream outlets. For a more skeptical viewpoint, the Physicians for Informed Consent fact sheet gives an succinct 2-page overview of both the vaccine itself and the official clinical research that has been conducted on it. This is what it says about the vaccine:
“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is made from synthetic genetic material that is immersed in fatty substances, including cholesterol and polyethylene glycol (PEG). More specifically, modified RNA molecules that encode for a mutated spike (S) protein antigen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that can cause COVID-19, are immersed in lipid nanoparticles. The drug is administered in two intramuscular doses, 21 days apart.”
Based on some definitions of a vaccine — which specify them as the injection of weakened or dead micro-organisms to elicit an immune response — it could be argued that this is not in traditional sense a vaccine. Some have argued it is actually a form of gene therapy, but that is a distinction that doesn’t seem worth getting sidetracked by.
The ‘vaccine’ is still in the initial stages of clinical trial on humans, building on previous testing on rats and primates, however was able to be fast-tracked thanks to an emergency use authorisation. Based on the initial randomised control trial (RCT) that has been published from the offical clinical trial, which you can find here, this is what we know so far about its effectiveness and safety.
Based on the data from the sample of just shy of 40,000 individuals, it is highly likely you will receive some sort of protection from Covid in the short term: for ages 18-64 the efficacy was 89-98%, based on 8 confirmed Covid cases in the vaccinated group versus 149 cases in the unvaccinated group. Such short term protection is now being supported by initial data coming out of early uptake nations including Israel and the UK.
This is unqualified good news — anyone expecting me to be disappointed that the vaccine is working misunderstands why I write about these controversial topics. Why I do write them is to bring what I think is a necessary degree of skepticism to otherwise sacred cows.
One could wager that even a placebo would have produced promising results, such is the anticipation many people have had to get the shot (the placebo effect is certainly a real phenomena, not to mention the health promoting properties of reduced stress and peace of mind). Having said that, this isn’t a placebo, and injecting this type of experimental concoction is going to have some effect, whether good or bad. So what about the bad?
According to the RCT, you more than likely won’t have any immediate side effects, but the prospect is certainly real: the rate of severe adverse reactions in the vaccinated group was almost twice the number of those in the unvaccinated group (240 to 139), which equates to just over 1% of this vaccinated group.
Of course, we also have the non-peer reviewed anecdotal data, which is where things get messy and contested (and that’s without even considering the flurry of social media posts being shared cataloging the apparent demise of previously healthy but recently jabbed individuals). As of February 12, there have been almost 16,000 serious adverse vaccine reactions reported through the CDC’s official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. This includes almost 1000 deaths. Bear in mind that the VAERS is a passive reporting system, and there is no way to prove that these ailments were caused directly by the vaccine.
In fact, as we witness the vaccine proponents do damage control over the numerous reports of severe adverse effects and deaths from around the world, we will be reminded that there is no way to conclusively tell if any of these ailments were the result of the vaccine. For example, as the ABC were very quick to tell us, we shouldn’t rush to judgement in concluding that several dozen nursing home deaths in Norway, which occurred directly after the vaccine was administered, were actually caused by the vaccine. They were, we are told, already “very old and frail”. If only they would apply the same caution and rationale to Covid deaths as well!
So that’s what we know so far, through a combination of both official and crowd-sourced data. But this is the kicker, and something that has to be kept in mind as you see reports flooding in of real world data apparently ‘proving’ the vaccine is effective: these are short term results only. As the data from the RCT only tracked participants up to two months, any protective or adverse effects beyond that time period is unknown (the first stage of completion of the official clinical trial is August this year, and final completion in 2023).
In short, we don’t know how long this immune protection will last, we don’t know what kind of ongoing vaccination regime might be required to maintain it (especially given it already looks like the vaccine is less effective against mutant strains), and we don’t know what medium-to-long-term adverse impacts will result from ongoing vaccination. Until then, then, as our Health Minister Greg Hunt put it in a surprisingly succinct and honest statement:
“We have to look at what is called ‘the longevity’ of the protection with regards to the antibodies that are developed. The world doesn’t know that answer. The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”.
This is the information that underlies the basic risk/benefit equation everyone should be aware of when they make their decision about whether to take part in this trial. Age is of course also a relevant consideration, with best estimates of the infection fatality rate ranging from below 0.01% for those 25 and under (that is: less than 1 death per 10,000 people infected) up to 1% and beyond for people older than 65.
So, back to the original question: if not the vaccine, then what?
We remain in largely unknown territory, that much is obvious. We are forced to take — in trust and good faith — the words and motives of the Big Pharma behemoth that is Pfizer (a company with an incredibly chequered history of safety and ethical failings) on a vaccine that is a departure from the traditional definition of a vaccine. Several intellectual and moral hooligans have made some slightly more pessimistic assessments about their behind-the-scenes practices, as well as the likely effectiveness of this vaccine and the adverse side effects it might bring about. That includes no-one’s favourite discussion point of fertility.
Taking these warnings seriously or not — if you were to make the entirely reasonable choice that this vaccine isn’t for you, what options are left? Is there any other hope on the horizon, aside from backing in our immune systems as we wait for the gradually approaching but still distant spectre of herd immunity?
Thankfully, there is. Or, at least, there should be. Yep, you already know where I am going with this.
I’ve banged on about both Hydroxycholoroquine and Ivermectin ad nauseam as early interventions for Covid — I find it unnerving and frustrating when I come across clearly rational and intelligent people who are still convinced otherwise.
That’s not to say I don’t get the resistance, because of course I do. If both drugs do in fact work, then the level and nature of the corruption that is holding them back is truly horrifying. There is no other way to put it, and it makes sense to avoid that conclusion until there is no other option. So while I will keep going hard on anyone who I believe is mistaken in their views on this subject, given what is at stake, it should not be taken personally.
The situation is also difficult to navigate for a newcomer. I have discussed how Trump and the ingrained hatred that his very existence evokes in many people played a major role in convincing people that HCQ was a dud. But this was also combined with some incredibly shady science that produced a series of seemingly damning studies — all of which were in fact fatally flawed in their design. People may call this simply poor and/or rushed science, but it truly stretches belief that there was not a nefarious agenda behind it.
And to be fair, it is not like the science is completely one way on HCQ. According to what I have found to be the only up-to-date aggregating site of all peer-reviewed studies on HCQ, there have been multiple (and from what I can tell well-designed) studies that have found no positive effective on Covid patients. But, when we combine the virtually unanimous positive findings of early intervention studies with the still undisputed real world data from Switzerland and other (mainly non-Western) nations, the overall trend becomes hard to argue: HCQ is making people who are sick — mainly those who have very recently become sick — much healthier in a short amount of time. This should not really surprise us, given the drug’s functional compound quinine has long been understood and used as medicine — it is the main ingredient of tonic water — and can be easily made at home.
But what about Ivermectin? This really is a strange one, as we don’t have Trump or faulty science to blame for the continued resistance. Australia’s very own Dr. Thomas Borody was the main early champion of Ivermectin, and has developed a three-stage, ‘triple-therapy’ protocol in combination with Doxycycline and zinc. The research is still rolling out and seems increasingly conclusive: according to the same aggregating site, every study on Ivermectin has shown some degree of positive results. That’s 42 out of 42 studies, half of which are the much-feted RCTs that skeptics of HCQ will continue to point towards as being absent.
As far as I can tell, the resistance in Australia comes down to the advice of our esteemed health bureaucracy, who are still refusing to budge — combined with the weaponisation of public opinion against now independent politician Craig Kelly, who has been the most vocal public figure promoting Ivermectin. Truly, irrational hatred of Mr Kelly and the automatic dismissal of Ivermectin that results is our very own Trump Derangement Syndrome, down-under style.
We really are in a clown world, where even one of the manufacturers of the drug, Merck, is still stating — despite the clear scientific support — that the drug has not been proven for either effectiveness or safety. It requires concise and articulate videos such as this one to explain just why the company is saying this, and why it is not actually in the company’s best interests to be recommending its own product. Clown world, as I said.
Moving on past simply reiterating where the research on both drugs is overwhelmingly pointing, I have switched to explaining how it exposes the scientifically irrational faith we have placed in other protective measures, including the vaccine. Technically, this might not seem like a fair comparison: the vaccine is proactive, while an early intervention treatment is reactive. But what if they also functioned as prophylactics?
And this is the good news: it looks like they might. This is what we know.
According the same aggregating site, there have been 43 studies on the potential for HCQ to act as a prophylactic: 37 pre-exposure and 6 post exposure. 34 of these studies, over 75%, showed positive effects. It is not conclusive by any stretch, but it is certainly positive and encouraging.
Ivermectin looks even more promising. 11 studies on the drug’s prophylactic benefits have all found positive results. This includes, most recently, studies from Argentina finding an 85% reduction in developing Covid, and a study from Bangladesh finding a 90% reduction.
This meta-analysis of all prophylactic studies estimates an overall 89% reduction in development of Covid-19: bang on where we can currently place the Pfizer vaccine. A recently accepted review paper emphasises these findings, while also noting its strong safety record and rarity of side effects. And this is the main point to drill home, and why this analysis offers such a stark comparison with the Pfizer vaccine: both HCQ and Ivermectin have been used safely and without controversy at their prescribed doses for decades.
In the spirit of full disclosure, one thing that should be made clear is that the sample sizes for the RCTs on HCQ and Ivermectin do not compare to the RCT for the Pfizer vaccine. But of course they don’t: these are two still marginalised and demonised drugs, compared to one being pushed by Big Pharma and the Government of virtually every developed nation in the world. It was never a fair fight. Thus, leaving everything else aside, this much has to be clear: there is simply no reason why large-scale trials of these two drugs are not being undertaken in the same way as the vaccine.
So, in summary: alternatives to the vaccine — by all measures safe and effective treatments — are there. They aren’t perfect, and they aren’t ‘cures’. They would have to be taken repeatedly, most likely, but then we may well end up being in the same position with the vaccine, especially if it proves ineffective against new strains.
If we were to roll these drugs out, prescribe them as prophylactics in the correct combinations according to established best practice, would there still be a need for a vaccine to get us towards herd immunity? We will never know, because that reality is so very much detached from our current one. The vaccine is here to stay, but that doesn’t mean, like tacos, that we can’t have both (or all three, even).
Hopefully, eventually, the authoritative gaslighting-as-directives of compromised health bureaucrats, the lamentable lies of too-far-gone pollies like our esteemed Shadow Health Minister and face fit for a prison cell Chris Bowen, the gasbags in the media and comments sections who are still oblivious to how ridiculous they look when they mock people for simply pointing to expert opinions and scientific research — all of this noise will eventually dissipate once enough people wake up to the reality of the corruption that is being laid out in front of us, and once they start demanding an end to it. As always with free will: the buck stops with each of us, when each of us chooses it to.
But what if it doesn’t? What if we continue down this road, where the compliant stay compliant and enough people continue to push for restriction on the health freedoms of others? This is the part where I get a bit more controversial.
It should be noted that the official Pfizer vaccine RCT was not designed to test the effectiveness of the vaccine in stopping the spread of Covid from asymptomatic infections. There is, as far as I can see, no evidence for this fact yet. As such, we currently have no scientific justification for those Comrades still pushing for the vaccine to be mandatory — especially when you remember that, given we are all taking part in the vaccine trial in real time, we will continue to need a control group that does not take the vaccine. You are welcome!
But they are’t making it mandatory, you say! Really?
Firstly, surely the Covid propaganda hasn’t dumbed us down to the the extent that we are now taking serially dishonest politicians on their word. Our own Prime Minister was initially completely upfront in stating that he wished it to be made “as mandatory as possible”, before walking it back immediately due to the public backlash. Who really trusts Scomo and his rhyming-slang-nicknamed Health Minister Mr. Hunt to stick to this promise if they think they can get away with it?
Secondly, it is not just about it being strictly ‘mandatory’, it is about creating a world that normalises the dirty unvaccinated having their liberties restricted. We can see clear steps being taken in this direction in the UK and Europe with vaccine passports, a policy that is being openly floated by globalist organisations such as the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organisation. And without Government intervention to prevent such discrimination, it will be open slather for private businesses to bring in similar measures, including ‘no jab no job’ conditions for employment.
But hey: if that’s the world you want, I believe you should have it. I have a radical proposal: if you want mandatory-ish vaccines, to go with the normalisation of mask wearing, social distancing and perennial lockdown measures — which are still in our reality even with the vaccine — that can be what cities are for (or at least the big cities). You can have all that, and even feel self-righteous and superior at the same time! The rest of us can take our chances out in nature like the filthy heathens that we are. You are welcome to visit, if you don’t mind the mandatory quarantine on return.
I say this slightly tongue in cheek, but also slightly seriously; anyone familiar with the novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’ will know that this split has been predicted and prepared for by many libertarian-leaning individuals for some time. To preserve a world that respects free will as one of its fundamental guiding principles, such a division seems unavoidable on our current trajectory. It would take either a pronounced shift in the value we place on free will in our society, otherwise some external, drastic form of intervention is all that would be left.
Where’s Orange Man when we need him?
