Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Former National Post & Toronto Star columnist, past vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Is the public good guiding government decisions? It doesn’t look like it.
Watch the full 52-minute interview (or read the transcript) HERE
The Epoch Times recently taped a 52-minute interview with evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, titled Forbidden Questions. Weinstein is a sober, careful thinker who has grave concerns about the promotion of COVID-19 vaccines and our refusal to talk openly about post vaccine problems. Those concerns are shared by many of us.
Many aspects of these vaccine rollouts simply don’t add up. They make no sense. The early trial data collected by Pfizer and Moderna tell us what happens when these vaccines are given 3 to 4 weeks apart. Yet governments have decided to administer the shots months apart. Not because there’s any data that indicates this is wise. Health bureaucrats have merely assumed it’ll be OK. They’ve decided to gamble. With the health of millions of people.
Pregnant women were excluded from the vaccine trials. Based on little more than wishful thinking, governments have nevertheless proclaimed these vaccines safe for pregnant women.
More recently, Pfizer tested its vaccine on 1,100 kids aged 12-15. In the words of cardiologist John Mandrola, that’s not a large enough number “to inform the safety of a vaccine that will be given to many millions.” A life-altering side effect that hits 1 in 5,000 kids is unlikely to show up in a trial that small, but would disable 2,000 kids out of every million who get the shots. Are governments worried about long term, unintended complications? Apparently not. We’re full speed ahead with vaccinating teenagers.
When public health decisions look reckless again and again, when they don’t appear to have been made calmly and rationally, when the evidence they rest upon is sparse or non-existent, alarm bells should be bleeping ringing.
Above is an 8-minute clip of the Weinstein interview. The full enchilada appears here, accompanied by a complete transcript for those who’d prefer to read the interview rather than watch/listen to it. Here are a few of Weinstein’s remarks from that transcript:
three years ago, if we had asked people whether or not they trust the pharmaceutical industry not to corrupt lawmakers…most people would have recognized that there was some danger from these corporations having undue influence over government. Somehow in the context of the pandemic, people have forgotten this…
We are currently vaccinating people who have already had COVID-19. There is no medical justification for doing that…Every time we vaccinate somebody who doesn’t need it in order to simplify our policy and they die, they are leaving a family bereft. They may be leaving a family struggling to figure out how to get by in the world. The harm done by a single death is so substantial that we cannot justify exposing people to that risk to simplify a policy.
A choice was made not to collect the data [about post vaccine problems], which I find quite alarming…we are exposing a huge fraction of the population to what is in effect, a scientific experiment, except that it isn’t a scientific experiment because we are deliberately avoiding collecting data that would allow us to evaluate the impact. I find that shocking…These are brand new technologies. They have many different ways in which they could fail, and it is our obligation, especially to the people who receive these vaccines, that we collect the data on what happened.
I freely admit it appears that these vaccines work in the short term. That does not mean that they are a net benefit in the long term. There are ways that these vaccines could go wrong and indications that some of these things may be happening.
…on YouTube, the discussion of evidence that has been peer reviewed and delivered within the scientific literature is forbidden because it contradicts the CDC’s view…
…the tech sector, the social media platforms, have now taken the CDC recommendations and encoded them as the basis for their censorship policy…The danger that that poses is that we can’t have a conversation about the capture of the public health agencies, even when it is urgent that we do so.
This blog isn’t cluttered with intrusive ads –
which means no income is earned in that manner.
If what you’ve just read is useful or helpful,
please consider making a donation :-)