Thursday, March 21, 2024

"I don't want to hear about the vaccine!"


Recently I had another encounter with someone who told me that they didn’t want to hear about the vaccine after I shared that it caused blood clots, retinal detachment, lupus and other conditions in someone I love.

I myself had a delayed severe allergic reaction and painful pressure in my heart for 3 months. Despite reporting this life-threatening reaction to the V-Safe system, I was prompted by that so-called safety system to get a second dose. I refused and was subsequently threatened at work because I did not submit evidence that I had 2 doses of a vaccine that had triggered a severe and systemic allergic reaction.

3 people in our network died suddenly and unexpectedly immediately after the vaccine (within 24 hours). 1 of those was a young man. An autopsy revealed his heart was twice normal size. 2 other young people we know developed lymphoma (which subsequently resolved), and others in our network developed retinal detachments, lupus, shingles, etc. within days and weeks of being vaccinated.

Crazy as this seems, many adverse events from vaccine are recorded in medical records as occurring in "unvaccinated individuals" because a person didn't count as vaccinated until 2 weeks after their second shot. So, a reaction one week after the 2nd shot is recorded as occurring in an unvaccinated person! This is called the "case counting window bias"


Yet, 4 people I know – all of them devotees to industrial medicine – flat out told me that they didn’t want to hear ANYTHING negative about the vaccine, including my family’s life-threatening reactions.

These 4 individuals were close, yet obviously cared little for our well-being. 

To be honest, I’m having a difficult time processing the mind-frame of this unwillingness to listen to the life-threatening adverse events of an experimental treatment on close social others.

Clearly, these people love the vaccine and institutional medicine beyond all other human connections.

They love the vaccine uncritically. Any one who shares negative information about the fetishized vaccine is an unhinged Trump supporter, in their view, who needs to be shut down, censored, even if the information they are recounting is true. 

They believe criticizing the vaccine should be a criminal offense.

The love for the vaccine drives the hunt for any and all information that challenges the “safe and effective” slogan, regardless of truth value.

FOIA documents from CDC, FDA, and drug companies must be entirely redacted lest they operate as mal-information by casting doubt on the mantra of safe and effective.

Published journal articles documenting adverse events must be retracted and the authors publicly shamed.

Counter-argument articles sponsored by government agencies, NGOs such as GAVI, and drug companies must be published promptly and publicized widely to counter any shadow of a doubt that the mRNA vaccines are 100 safe and effective.

For example, if published research documents increased rates of blood clots and myocarditis post-vaccination (e.g., see DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.100  and then some alternative study must be published and publicized across all legacy media platforms declaring that the vaccine reduces cardiac death for a year 

(see critique by Vinay Prasad Mar 18, 2024 A flawed paper claims COVID19 vaccines prevent cardiovascular complications for a YEAR after the shot. ).

News articles reporting vaccine injuries or published findings regarding adverse events must be taken down as misinformation, even if true.

Social media sharing by people injured by the vaccines must be preemptively deleted before appearing in any stream, regardless of authenticity.

If the vaccines were  truly safe and effective, this level of censorship would not be required.

But for me, the most horrible effect of this vaccine religion and censorship regime is the internalization and performativity of it by ordinary people who really don’t care if the vaccine kills you so long as they don’t have to hear about it, regardless of their affiliation with you.

They don’t want to hear any evidence that contradicts their ultimate faith in the experimental mRNA vaccine forced upon the population with threats of job losses and social isolation.

They are true believers. They love the vaccine. They hate your free speech and they don’t care if you die.

We are truly in the upside down.



Thursday, March 14, 2024

"Sound Science" Tipped to Benefit Industry

Science today parades as eternal Truth with its priests and disciples attacking all who challenge its mandates and statements of "fact." The premise that facts are never proven, only not dis-proven has been lost in the quasi-religion that now dominates our public policy.

Yet, decades of scholarship, whistle-blowing and news reporting have documented that science is not a homogeneous field with total consensus. Disagreement in science is what drives it forward. 

In addition to the current erasure of disagreement in facts and scientific-informed policy, today scientific findings are regularly subject to distortion and fraud that benefit individual scientists, their institutions and profit-oriented corporations.

Reviewing my notes today, I found this article:

Liza Gross. Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians of “Sound Science” Tip the Scales Toward Industry

[EXCERPTED] Since the mid-1990s, numerous studies have shown that industry-funded research tends to favor its sponsors’ products. 

This effect has been documented in research financed by chemical, pharmaceutical, surgical, food, tobacco, and, we have learned most recently, sugar companies. 

In the 1960s, the sugar industry secretly paid scientists to minimize the role sugar plays in causing heart disease and blame saturated fat instead, according to a study published in the September issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. 

For decades, industry-funded research helped tobacco companies block regulations by undermining evidence that cigarettes kill. Precisely because of the very real risk of bias, prestigious scientific journals have long required researchers to disclose their sources of support. Journalists in pursuit of transparency have good reason to ask, “Who funded it?” 

President Eisenhower's farewell address specifically pointed to the risks of "big science" and this warning is even more relevant today I believe than when made:

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address. Reading copy of the speech [DDE’s Papers as President, Speech Series, Box 38, Final TV Talk (1); NAID #594599]. Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Presidential Home, Abilene Kansas. Accessed October 6, 2015. Available:



Majia's Blog: Public Relations is Propaganda

Majia's Blog: Engineering Consent Through Propaganda

Majia's Blog: Fake News and Naked Subjects

Majia's Blog: US Military Propaganda Program: Inform and Influence ...

Majia's Blog: Japan's Nuclear Utilities Spending on Public Relations