Manufacturing Consent to Covid 19 Policies via Censorship, Propaganda and Terror

A "fact check" article states that John Campbell claims that the serious vaccine injury rate is too high on the basis of a reanalysis of Pfizer's original trial in 2020. The fact checker states that most serious adverse events occurred within 6 weeks of vaccine injection in the two month long clinical trial, with a majority of serious adverse events taking place within days of the injection. On the other hand, the full protective effects of the vaccine takes 6 weeks and there is significant protection against severe disease for more than 2 months. According to the fact checker, this limitation of the trial exaggerates the harms and understates the benefits of the vaccines. However, John Campbell has never claimed that the risks outweighed the benefits of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant.

Campbell clearly states in this video that the emergence of the Omicron variant has changed the risk benefit calculus. The variants that have emerged since Omicron are more transmissible, better able to infect but cause less severe disease, and in that context cited hospitalization rates for covid 19 prior to versus after the emergence of Omicron. On the other hand, the incidence of serious adverse effects remains constant. The fact checker does not attempt to refute Campbell's argument, but instead falsely contends that Campbell is only comparing the risks and benefits of covid vaccination during the pre-Omicron period, ie before 2022.

The short time frame of the clinical trial which took place during a time when transmission rates were relatively low may have skewed the short term data on severe adverse events versus vaccine benefits that resulted in more hospitalizations and deaths in the vaccine group. But when you factor in the limitations of the above mentioned 2 month clinical trial, it appears that the vaccines do more good than harm. However, Campbell does not contend that the risk benefit analysis prior to 2022 was unfavorable for vaccination.

Moreover, the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death from covid 19 is strongly skewed toward people over 60. Deaths from covid 19 in people under 40 is very near zero, and other serious chronic and acute illnesses almost always contribute to severe adverse outcomes, i.e., hospitalizations and deaths associated with covid 19 are not primarily the result of getting infected with covid. Most people in the under 40 year age group are dying with covid only because of serious pre-existing or concurrent health problems.

Another issue is the fact that more reported adverse effects and serious adverse events via the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, VAERS including death from all causes have been reported in close temporal proximity to injection of the vaccine for the mRNA and DNA vaccines in 2021 than for all other vaccines administrated since VAERS was launched in 1991. VAERS is a passive reporting system that is very user unfriendly and reporting is "mandated" but not compulsory. Submissions are reviewed for veracity, with huge penalties for filing false reports, and duplicate reports are also weeded out. The Department of Health and Human Services contracted with the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care System to set up an automated data collection system tied into clinical and insurance data collection systems and found that only 1 to 10 in 100 vaccine adverse events were reported via VAERS compared to the automated system. A Whistle blower who claimed to have access to Medicare, Medicaid and VAERS data bases reported that only 20% of deaths which occurred 30 days post vaccination according to Medicare and Medicaid records were report to VAERS.

The clinical trials ran by Pfizer and Moderna were set up to under-report adverse and serious adverse events short of death. For example, patients had a limited menu of adverse events that they could report via the reporting system and no "other" category where adverse effects could be recorded. Notice of unlisted adverse events communicated via letter or telephone were never recorded, according to testimony of participants or their families before a US Senate hosted by Senator Ron Johnson and in other forums.

The CDC and FDA have not factored in any under-reporting rate for VAERS nor in the collection of clinical trial data. Moreover, for purposes of classifying people as vaccinated and unvaccinated when compiling statistics on covid 19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, those who get vaccinated are generally counted as "unvaccinated" until two weeks after vaccination. Moreover, all who die with covid 19, including non-symptomatic cases identified via PCR testing are considered to have died because of covid 19.

The US government was fully committed to launching a mass vaccination campaign against the next virus to cause a pandemic as soon as possible during the pandemic by 19 Sept 2019, when US President Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled "Modernizing the Vaccine Industry to Promote Public Health and National Security." This was published in the Federal; Register on 24 Sept 2019. The virus that would cause the next pandemic was likely in circulation in Wuhan, China by then. The stated goals of the executive order were to transition from an egg based manufacturing process to new technologies, including mRNA based vaccines, the launching of a mass vaccination campaign early during the next pandemic and a 100% vaccination rate for endemic flu viruses. How could one achieve 100% vaccination rate for the flu or a flu like pandemic virus without extreme coercion?

The executive order entitled "Modernizing the Vaccine Industry. . . " provided for an immense advertising budget and participation of Homeland Security, the FBI and other police agencies in addition to the Department of Health and Human Services, presumably to combat "vaccine hesitancy."

Since passage of the Childhood Vaccine Safety Act in 1986, vaccines placed on the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule have had a comprehensive liability shield. Vaccine manufacturers claimed that the cost of litigation and damages paid to the vaccine injured were so great that they could not afford to stay in the vaccine making business without a strong liability shield. The liability shield was granted, the CDC and FDA were tasked with oversight duties to ensure that vaccines were safe and a vaccine injury compensation program was set up.

The plan to authorize a vaccine for covid 19 on an emergency basis could not be legally implemented if effective medical treatments for covid 19 were discovered prior to the roll out of the vaccine. It was not a coincidence that in late March 2020 doctors were warned by the FDA that administration of treatments for covid 19 not "approved" by the FDA could endanger patient health. A emergency use authorization for Hydroxychloroquine restricted its use to hospital-based clinical trials and as a last resort for patients who had little to no hope of survival. These restrictions on the use of Hydroxychloroquine were supposedly based on its poor safety profile in treating covid 19 patients, which had yet to be established, and the existence of a rare side effect associated with Hydroxychloroquine, a fatal heart rhythm caused by changes in electrolyte balances that can disrupt electrical flows in nerves and muscles, including the electrical conduction system of the heart. There are hundreds of widely used drugs that can have this same effect, including some cardiac medications. However, the FDA itself had determined that this risk was so minimal with hydroxychloroquine, that screening for heart rhythm abnormalities prior to initiation of therapy was unnecessary. In the case of people with known heart rhythm abnormalities, a doctor would ordinarily exercise caution when prescribing this drug or choose another drug with a better risk-benefit profile.

Guidelines for medical interventions adopted by the World Medical Association in the 1960s included promotion of early medical interventions on an outpatient basis and the sharing of information among doctors about the results of their interventions. During the 2009 pandemic, doctors quickly discovered that the pandemic virus in many cases, especially among young adults caused severe lung inflammation that set the stage for a fatal bacterial infection, unless an effective antibiotic was administered at an early stage of the viral infection. This likely prevented the 2009 pandemic from becoming a mass casualty event.

I believe that if doctors had been encouraged rather discouraged from treating covid 19 as early as possible during the course of the illness, most of the deaths caused by covid 19 could have been avoided. The median age of death with covid 19 was about 80 years, and deaths from covid in the over 80 year age group without early treatment was greater than 25%. Death rates in care homes that withheld early treatment generally ranged from 20 to 50 per cent during 2020. More than 99% of those under the age of 40 years survived without lingering adverse effects lasting more than 3 to 6 months. The lingering effects of covid 19 are not an exception to the rule for respiratory viruses. And as a general rule, the earlier that you get effective treatment and the milder the course of illness, the shorter and less severe the lingering aftereffects.

In their totality,. the business closures, stay at home orders, social distancing rules and masking requirements had little effect on the spread of the virus. The Centers for Disease Control began to advocate mask “mandates” for public spaces to be imposed on all but those whose health could be impaired by wearing the recommended masks, but in most venues, no exceptions to the masking rule were allowed. Those unable to tolerate masking were compelled to stay away from nearly all public venues and even from the homes of friends and family. Many who could work from home were required to do so, though many were happy with this arrangement. Many people voluntarily went into protective self isolation for weeks, months, even years. Medical care was delayed. The business closures led to mass layoffs and financial hardship and uncertainties. School closures did harm to children and their parents. The toll on mental and physical health from all of the above non-pharmaceutical interventions was enormous. For people under 40, adverse health effects of public health policies likely did more harm than the pandemic virus. We saw a rise in the number of self harm and suicides among children that more than offset the number of deaths attributed to covid.

The CDC was very slow to admit that SARS cov2 could be an airborne virus, and held firm to its determination that it was not primarily an airborne virus, despite a pattern of community transmission that is characteristic of airborne viruses, especially after the emergence of the Omicron variant near the end of 2021. The CDC refused to abandon its claim that SARS cov2 is primarily spread by droplets that quickly fall to the ground and can be trapped by surgical masks. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration had found surgical masks, even N-95 masks to be ineffective as personal protective equipment or as source control for airborne, flu-like viruses.

In my opinion, the purpose of stay at home orders, business closures, social distancing, prohibition of early treatment and masking requirements was to inspire terror and impose hardships on the population as well as to atomize and divide the population against each other. These draconian measures were welcomed by many as measures to ensure their safety. The majority of the population could accept a program of mass vaccination as necessary for a return to “normalcy.” The exercise of police powers by the executive branch of government without legislative authority was widely accepted in the context of deadly pandemic, and also set a dangerous precedent that can be used in all kinds of crisis and some non-crisis situations. However, the manufacturing of consent to covid 19 policies also required a massive propaganda machine that encompassed most of the mass media, and censorship. Opposition to covid 19 policies was characterized as criminal behavior. The massive censorship apparatus can also be used as a tool to manufacture consent to other potentially unpopular government policies.