“Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” — John F. Kennedy
The core principles of a free society include a range of individual rights. They must be shared by everyone to be effective. And in many modern democracies, there has been some movement toward greater inclusion of people from all races and across walks of life.
In government, business, and society, discrimination has increasingly been recognized and addressed. In some places, policies are transforming in an attempt to create a genuine atmosphere of equality.
Proponents of diversity insist that the injustices of the past and continuing inequities must be recognized and corrected.
Any approach to building a better democracy demands that preconceptions are dropped so that new ideas can be considered.
Attitudes are not simply shifted under pressure or with new laws. It takes empathy, flexibility and practice to begin modifying how we relate to, and integrate with, those whom we perceive as different.
Reducing prejudice must involve listening carefully to people who have different experiences or opinions.
Yet many individuals who otherwise encourage acceptance of diverse perspectives, show only contempt and animosity for people who have not been inoculated against the COVID-19 virus.
Vociferous defenders of equal rights have displayed their limits in advocating for freedom from prejudice.
People who are otherwise open-minded and fair, now coldly dismiss those who don’t agree with their intractable views on vaccines.
The dark side of progress
Medical chauvinism has overshadowed humanitarian instincts.
A bullying clique has emerged from the pandemic — new members earn their status by demeaning anyone who hesitates or refuses to be vaccinated.
Rather than engage and attempt to understand, they denigrate and defame those who have doubts about vaccines and mandates.
Proponents of social justice have joined in proclaiming that vaccines are the panacea that will end the ongoing pandemic.
They are wildly disdainful of people who won’t join them and are willing to tread on the legal rights of anyone who disagrees.
Those who resist vaccination are increasingly at risk of losing their right to free speech and the freedom to decide what medicines are injected into their bodies.
Critics who have dismissed an individual’s right to medical autonomy are fulfilling the expectations of those promoting a false narrative about the origins and treatments for COVID-19.
This unsettling and authoritarian development is in sync with a degrading moral climate. It is a striking reversal of attitude with grave implications.
Divisiveness and condescension have been on the increase in the United States. Rather than having open discussions and searching for common ground, most current issues spark polarization, where opposing sides simply demonize each other.
In this charged atmosphere, the public health threat has generated greater hostility and isolation. A sustained drumbeat and call for a single-minded battle against the virus emerged and remains in place.
A demand for allegiance to medical expertise is suspicious, although many people have found the easier path is to enlist in the overwhelming team effort.
They join in a rallying cry that is music to the ears of the pharmaceutical industry and their government lackeys, who are emboldened to continue their game plan with little objection.
Without deeper consideration, sweeping judgment is passed on those who don’t trust the imposed order.
Conservative anti-vaxxers are painted as foolish and ignorant resistors. Liberal anti-vaxxers are vilified for their knee-jerk distrust of corporate and government propaganda.
People who don’t agree with the majority and remain unvaccinated are blamed for the continuing pandemic. This ludicrous belief is widely accepted.
Deceit over diversity
The use of disparaging generalizations to reject opposition is evidence of the artifice of a totalitarian regime. In lockstep, the media repeats the hype.
Convinced they can rest on medical dogma, many commentators have dropped their high standards of inclusivity or fair analysis. When it involves reporting on the pandemic, there is little attempt to view or process data that might contradict an entrenched position.
The use of aggressive rhetoric with heated emotion and distorted facts, normally the domain of the tabloids, has become standard procedure in repressing dissent against Big Pharma’s product placements.
Not conforming to conventional medical wisdom makes one a pariah and the primary target of the furious press.
Journalists continue to hurl insults and threats at supporters of the unvaccinated — scorning their position and the information they might present.
On most other topics, sources would be questioned and policies debated. In strict conformity, reporters repeat the confident declarations and unassailable analysis of statistics promulgated by the government.
Members of the press who had previously embraced their responsibility to challenge leadership with skepticism and scrutiny, now echo the pleas of corporate interests and government agencies.
Those with medical expertise who express distrust of government policy are muted and subjugated. The rants against them from suspiciously compliant columnists and unbridled salesmen for corporate interests should be expected. However, the vitriol from normally tolerant voices is a revelation of their lack of fortitude in holding to key principles of representative government.
Critics from the left, right, and center of political views join and revel in the overt harassment.
Disparate forces have joined together and found a common enemy and turned them into patsies. People who oppose government policy and mandates are the perfect targets to distract from corrupt and ineffective tactics.
The tenets of diversity have collapsed as increasingly aggressive abuse is directed at those who have any doubts about vaccine risks or efficacy.
Those who participate in this attack should recall that historically, scapegoating is a primary symptom of the breakdown of human decency and democracy.
Dangerous dissent
To the dismay of ardent government regulators and supporters of the medical establishment, some of their own have not sworn allegiance to the cause.
People are losing jobs because of personal health decisions. Mandates have forced unvaccinated doctors and nurses to make difficult decisions under intense pressure from the state and employers.
Despite hostile and inflammatory anecdotal attempts to support mandates, there is no data that shows unvaccinated hospital employees put patients at greater risk than vaccinated associates.
Like deserters from a battle, healthcare workers who defy orders to get vaccinated are denounced and condemned, even if previously they have bravely served on the front lines. Last year they were the heroes in the response to the pandemic — now they are despised, shunned, and tormented by the media.
Former compatriots and reasonable thinkers asking tough questions face hostility and loss of income. There is no room for dialogue when eliminating dissent is the priority.
Blinded by rage, pompous pundits say these deviants who defy medical absolutism should be ashamed.
Respected analysts who disagree with the party line are dismissed and conjoined with all others who doubt the dogma.
Perceived enemies are seen as a narrow, dangerous faction. The branding of anti-vaxxers, whether medical experts or a faction of the general public and the attempt to herd them into a corner and eliminate their influence, further exposes a deteriorating social order.
Absurdly, a powerful majority has been led to believe that the greatest threat to the health and security of the nation are people who dare question medical authority.
But the pro-vaccine group-think is more dangerous than any disease.
The overt repression in media of those who dispute government facts and policy is reprehensible. If it were happening anywhere else in the world, it would be furiously condemned by the press and public.
Restriction of information and degradation of dissenting voices is never in the best interests of a democratic society.
However — as it is happening here — all Americans should be very concerned at the attempt to eradicate opposition by dismissing people with different opinions as delusional or fraudulent hoaxers.
Conspiracy of ignorance
This hostile and bizarre climate allows a continuing blanket rejection of any opposition to vaccination, claiming all objections are founded in conspiracy theory. The use of this term in deriding those who challenge prescribed inoculation reveals obliviousness or indifference to the presence of malignant forces.
The propensity for criminals to conspire is perpetual. There is a long history of conspiracies that have caused irreparable harm and much damage.
Vast conspiracies do not necessarily have their origins with a group of calculating cigar smokers in secret back-room discussions. More often, the most complex crimes involve allies colluding in increasingly questionable and immoral activity with nods and winks.
A contemporary example is the self-indemnification of corporations and their minimizing of the ongoing degradation of the planet. This is a conspiracy of the highest order and although it will eventually impact everyone, the duplicitous criminals persist unabated.
Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry has protected its interests for decades by conspiring with legislators and government agencies ensuring they are not held accountable or liable for vaccine damages.
Yet to propose there is corrupt collusion between corporate forces and government agencies during the current pandemic is deemed conspiratorial — the word thrown like mud — as if it was a sin to even imagine such a threat.
Over the course of history, nefarious plots have been exposed that eliminated dissent by manipulating and distributing false information, effectively shielding corruption and deflecting scrutiny.
Similar schemes have recently been enhanced by the power of expansive electronic communications and sophisticated mass psychological techniques. And the greatest of conspiracies have always relied on a naive and compliant press corps to ensure the public rallies to a questionable cause.
Overstating the effectiveness of the vaccines, avoiding analysis of breakthrough cases and adverse reactions, and minimizing the enormity of Big Pharma’s profits as a motive for foul play, are topics glossed over and dismissed by the COVID cognoscenti in overt denial of reality.
These pro-vax campaigners should recognize the weak foundations of their bold confidence, and consider how they are likely the dupes of a huge conspiracy to crush resistance.
Defending dignity
Whether refusal to be inoculated is instinctively cautious or is a decision made by evaluation of available information, it is neither anti-social nor a crime.
Suffering the slings and arrows of abuse for their stance on vaccines, people who face this onslaught can only hope that tolerance will be restored.
Although maintaining dignity in the face of condemnation is a difficult practice, it is the only way to initiate principled debate. The appropriate response to condescending tirades aimed at a justifiable position is a continuous and clear presentation of information for consideration.
Fallacies and facts
The foundational challenges to the accepted doctrines are not complicated, yet require reiteration:
- Vaccines have never been a panacea for any disease. Their glorification contradicts historical data.
- Evidence of damage from vaccines since their inception has been skewed or repressed, although risks are increasingly supported by reliable studies.
- In the current pandemic, claims that the unvaccinated are more of a threat in spreading the virus than the vaccinated are unsubstantiated.
- Testing for COVID-19 is filled with both technical inconsistencies and inappropriate application, supporting numbers that drive vaccination policy.
- There has been no thorough analysis of serious reactions and death from the COVID-19 inoculation, although some data present alarming indications of a range of deleterious effects.
- From the beginning of the pandemic, the vast majority of those at greatest risk for serious complications and death are people with pre-existing conditions, including the elderly and obese. By minimizing this fact, general fear of the virus is sustained.
- Studies of some drugs show strong potential for reducing the severity and long-term risks of the virus. Prevention and treatment have been belittled and repressed.
Reason over ridicule
Ignorant and devious forces have abused the public’s trust, seeding hostility, and eclipsing compassionate reasoning and open-eyed evaluation.
Yet the collapse of the arguments supporting perennial inoculation is beginning to appear. Some previously staunch supporters are now questioning overall efficacy.
Reports of serious side effects are being acknowledged and are likely to increase.
There are scientists, physicians, and journalists willing to make an honest and brave effort to explore the doubts surrounding the response to the pandemic.
The wellspring of an enlightened strategy for improving a healthy society is the diversity of thought. As informative data emerge, a broader understanding will support an inclusive approach to all perspectives.
In government, throughout media, and among friends and family, improved communication is essential for the re-establishment of common decency and renewed democratic ideals.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.
