Vaccine Hesitancy: Showing Resilience, Integrity, and Grit
An open “letter to the unvaccinated” released by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, issues a clarion call for individual autonomy and freedom from state coercion.
Its mission statement regarding the COVID-19 vaccines reads in part: “The group emphasizes the voluntary nature of this medical treatment as well as the need for informed consent and individual risk-benefit assessment. … Control over our bodily integrity may well be the ultimate frontier of the fight to protect civil liberties.”
It objects to the manner in which the unvaccinated are unfairly “being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob,” and takes exception to the vast majority of Western leaders who would initial a state-mandated policy of enforced vaccination, or have already done so.
It’s not only a question of coercion but also of freely given consent. As the letter correctly points out, informed consent to the jab is highly problematic under present circumstances:
“Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions.”
Among the most damning of considerations, as the letter stresses, is that all relevant studies regarding vaccine safety and efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by Big Pharma, “and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies.” There are simply no independent peer-reviewed studies; all are bankrolled by the multinational pharmaceutical giants.
This is a crucial red flag that cannot be furled away. We simply do not have reliable, scrupulously researched, honest, dispositive data at our disposal on which to make an informed decision regarding our own bodily integrity and long-term health. The data is compromised at its very inception and provenance and cannot be accepted on faith. To do so is to play Russian Roulette with an indeterminate number of chambers loaded.
The signatories to the letter are properly skeptical of the preliminary vaccine trial results: “The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined ‘infections.’” What the letter might have noted, in addition, is that the rate of such “infections” is dependent on deliberately high-amplification cycle threshold levels, which are known to generate a profusion of false positives, putatively confirming the severity of the crisis. They constitute a self-interested deception.
Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also had to admit what should be common knowledge, namely, that COVID-19 has a high survival rate: between the ages of 0 to 65 the survival rate is 99 percent, and over 65 is 91 percent.
The letter also doesn’t mention that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to the pharmaceutical companies does not constitute an FDA approval certificate and, furthermore, has the ancillary but critical effect of exempting Big Pharma from criminal liability proceedings as per the PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness). This is not the bio-immunity promised by these companies but the legal immunity guaranteed by law. What could go wrong?
The letter concludes by calling for “a diversity of scientific opinions … we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge.”
It encourages people not to be intimidated. Vaccine skeptics are “showing resilience, integrity and grit” in standing for “scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive.”
Amid a political and public climate of general timorousness and abject compliance, it’s encouraging to see one Ontario organization robustly defending freedom of conscience and the democratic principle underlying vaccine hesitancy.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.