By Peter W. Dunn, PhD
This week I saw a Toronto woman who got Bell’s Palsy after a COVID 19 vaccine (video shared below). She said she got the vaccine because she wanted to go back to normal. And indeed, here in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford has tied reopening with vaccination rates. We are being bullied to get these vaccines with our own freedom.
And so this leads me back to a post I did on Facebook before the pandemic, in which I called these bullies vaccine apologists. There are many people that come from an unflinching commitment to vaccines that I call “apologetic”; the holders of this position are “apologists”. How can you tell if you are dealing with a Vaccine Apologist?
(1) Vaccine apologists call vaccines “safe”.
Safe is pharma-speak for “nothing is going to happen to you”. This is clearly bullying from the outset. Every person must weigh the risk for themselves, and some people are already at higher risk of an adverse reaction. Hence, such people would be screened from vaccine trials so that the results from the trial would be skewed as compared to an actual vaccination campaign.
(2) Vaccine apologists deny the dangers of vaccines and only talk about the millions of lives that the apologists claim have been saved.
But humanity survived without vaccines and achieved herd immunity, the same as every animal species out there, long before vaccines had ever been invented. Vaccines on the other hand do have serious adverse events, including paralysis and death.
(3) Vaccine apologists mischaracterize those who have any questions about vaccines as liars or lunatics; and especially as “science deniers”.
The vaccine hesitant are actually much better informed than the vaccine apologists or people who have been scared or otherwise bullied into getting a vaccine. The vaccine hesitant are also better scientists, because they don’t deny the eye-test. If you see someone harmed by a vaccine, even killed by them, the vaccine hesitant will not claim that they would have died anyways.
(4) Vaccine apologists often insist that choice in vaccination should be taken away, in violation of multiple principles of bioethics (and principles of liberty and democracy for that matter).
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
Vaccines are preventatives. If you take a person’s right to informed dissent from a vaccine, you have become a human rights violator. This includes the following: governments or public education institutions requiring vaccines for students to attend school); employers requiring vaccines for adults to work; the cruise lines that require their staff and their passengers to be vaccinated; stadiums, cinemas, etc. that require vaccines to attend a sporting event. We have accepted mask mandates, which is also a medical intervention. Thus, we have been so trained to accept the imposition of medical interventions. Very few us realize that we have accepted tyranny and human rights abuse, just by wearing a mask into a store or to any other place where there are these unethical mask mandates.
(5) Vaccine apologists support the suppression and censorship of anti-vaccine sources.
When you do a Google search of a leading voice in vaccine hesitancy (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), the hit pieces against that person will be the top search results. This is because Google is a vaccine company (partner with GSK). Facebook and Nextdoor and other social media platforms regularly censor any anti-vaccine sources, designating them “misinformation” which is begging the question (petitio principii). This is because their goal is to sell advertising space to vaccine companies. I even shared CTV interview of a pro-vaccine MD censored from Nextdoor (easily the worst social media platform that I know of when it comes to censorship) and was given a 31 day suspension. And this was for citing a mainstream media source!!!!
(6) Vaccine apologists deny any wrong doing by the pharmaceutical and vaccine companies which have profited billions from the proliferation of vaccines.
It is true that these vaccine companies have a been found guilty of serious crimes and made to pay billions in fines. But still, we are supposed to believe them about COVID 19 vaccines, even though they are well known to use data manipulation and fraud to portray their products as “safe”.
(7) Vaccine apologists characterizes the unvaccinated as a major threat to society.
This is a major canard. When the Nth COVID 19 wave arrives in November at the beginning of cold and flu season, the governments, media, and the mob will blame the unvaccinated and anti-maskers for the variants. But virology 101 says that viruses that have barriers, whether they be masks, social distance or vaccines, will adapt, and natural selection will favor variants that will be able escape those barriers. Top level virologists have warned about this, including Nobel Laureat Luc Montagnier. True epidemiologists, immunologists and virologists maintain that the healthy are of no danger and that asymptomatic transmission is not a thing. So unless you have any real proof, shut your mouth about the unvaccinated being a danger to vaccinated. It is incoherent to claim that everyone should be vaccinated, but that the vaccinated are in danger from the unvaccinated. It means that you don’t believe your vaccine works, and if that’s the case, why are you insisting that every must have it? Please, I insist on coherence, not incoherent bullying.
(8) Vaccine apologists characterizes dangers of vaccines as conspiracy theories or myths.
Empiricism is the basis of science. The vaccine hesistant believe their eyes, and don’t believe the specious arguments that vaccines are safe. We’ve read the scientific papers that do in fact admit that there are real dangers to vaccines. Consider that COVID 19 can cause immediate anaphylaxis—it would be difficult to argue that that person would have died of shock even without the vaccine.
In case of vaccines, the burden of proof is not on those who observe death or injury post vaccine. It is on the vaccine companies and vaccine apologist to prove that the vaccine DID NOT cause the death or injury. This is what is called an “abundance of caution”. But only lip service is actually given to caution and so the deaths and injuries continue.
The following is the report from Health Canada about adverse events from this “safe” vaccine.
The first lie is in this statistic is that 1,391 serious events is probably only the tip of the iceberg, and that it can only represent at most 10% of the total serious adverse events and probably not a lot more than 1% of the total. Thus the 0.005% stat may actually represent 0.5%. And since it is also a lie to talk about 0.005% of all doses administered when it should be talking about people instead of “doses”. Since most people are getting two doses, the stat could be as high as 1% serious adverse events per people vaccinated. These are simple and justifiable calculations that I’ve done.
Now there is zero reason to think that more than 1% of adverse events are reported. A BC physician, Charles D. Hoffe talks about adverse reactions (see @29:00) and the difficulty with reporting them: It takes 30 minutes of unpaid office time to fill out a adverse event report, and most physicians do not get patient feedback about adverse events–it’s only if they come back complaining about something and even then it would only be attributed to the vaccine if the physician is astute and acting in a professional and ethical manner.
But when you have all these pop-up clinics, your family physician who would normally report the event is probably not even aware that you had a vaccine, still less an adverse reaction, even death, if someone doesn’t come back to the office and report the death and insist that Health Canada be informed. So these numbers that Health Canada is putting on their website are just rubbish.
Now here is the death stat that’s important (COVID 19):
25914 (deaths)/37600000(population of Canada)*100=0.06%
So if you are Canadian, at 0.1% (assuming an astounding 10% of adverse events are reported), you are pretty much twice as likely to have a serious adverse event from the vaccine as you are to die of COVID 19. Mind you t=time is also a factor. I.e., COVID has had 17 months to harm people and the vaccines was only rolled out about year after the “pandemic” started. This is an important concern when adverse reactions are counted per dose. Because that will give the vaccine more and more time to harm people, as people will have to receive yet more shots in the future and probably a annual shot in the future. This is the gift that just keeps giving—for those making money off every single does administered.
So please don’t give into the bullies, the Vaccine Apologists, that are everywhere and are not doing good science, but allow the vaccine companies to guide them with fraudulent information about the safety of vaccine. May God help us all.
This speech was delivered at the Vaughan lockdown protest at Bathurst and Rutherford on June 13, 2021.
@6:45 Eric Clapton talks about his serious vaccine injury.