The premise of the article is offensive on its face but the author’s arguments are even more infuriating. Here, for instance, is what the author says about the “vaccines” that have been proven ineffective and deadly:
“When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.”
The author is arguing that there was nothing nefarious about the vaccination program because there was a point at which the “experts” did not know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were superior to the Johnson & Johnson vaccines. A gullible reader who knew nothing of what transpired during the pandemic would thus conclude that the only grievance regarding the vaccines is that some poor people did not get the superior Covid immunity provided by the mRNA vaccines.
How exactly have the mRNA vaccines “won out”? By killing more people?
Given that the article’s author, Professor Emily Oster, is nominally educated (Harvard BA and PhD) and presumably aware that there has been growing controversy over the vaccine’s efficacy and safety, how can we avoid the conclusion that she is intentionally gaslighting her readers? How exactly have the mRNA vaccines “won out”? By killing more people?
We do not hear it often enough, but reasonable and decent people would have handled the “vaccine” process in a much different manner. Doctors and policy-makers could have made it clear that they were carefully weighing, and continuously reevaluating, the cost-benefit analysis of the vaccine program. If they were reasonable and decent, they would have told us:
- We will only administer the vaccines as necessary to avoid risks that are demonstrably worse than the risks associated with the vaccines;
- Accordingly, we will immediately suspend the vaccination program if ever there are indications of long-term health complications;
- If we develop a treatment for Covid, we will suspend the emergency authorization for the vaccines; and
- We will be transparent with the risks associated with the vaccines, and make sure that no person receives the vaccine without being informed of those risks.
They did not do any of this. What did doctors and policy-makers do instead?
- Fired people who did not receive the vaccine;
- Refused medical treatment for people who did not receive the vaccine;
- Censored and persecuted doctors who warned about the dangers of the vaccines;
- Censored and persecuted those who spoke about actual treatments such as Ivermectin;
- Encouraged hate crimes against the unvaccinated by calling it a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”; and
- Continued to push, if not mandate, the vaccines once it became apparent that they are ineffective and dangerous.
We need to be very clear that this is not simply making “mistakes” — it is undoubtedly malicious and criminal.
Here is what amnesty could look like at this point. Those who have reliable information that reveals the extent of the vaccine crimes should immediately publish that information. Those who have advocated for the vaccines should immediately issue corrections. Those who have punished, or discriminated against, those who hesitated to receive the vaccines should immediately repair the harms they caused. Many of us can forgive those who do this, provided they do it immediately.
Those who ask for amnesty while doubling-down on their wickedness are calling for God’s vengeance, and we do them no favors by excusing them.
But how does amnesty work for those who continue to propagate the lies and exacerbate the damage? What if someone were to read The Atlantic’s article and believe that because “the mRNA vaccines have won out” they are safe? If such a reader then received the vaccine and died from it, how do we avoid the conclusion that the author has contributed to the reader’s death? We can apply this same analysis to all doctors and policy-makers who advocated for the vaccines.
Professor Oster advocates for amnesty on the basis of decisions made under the cloud of uncertainty. Fair enough, but that cloud of uncertainty was never very extensive, and it dissipated soon after we saw (a) vaccinated people catching, and dying from, Covid, (b) unvaccinated people suffering no greater Covid risk, and (c) the increased frequency of vaccinated people “dying suddenly” from unknown causes. As a corollary to her proposition, those who are making the same bad decisions now, when there is no uncertainty, are in fact nefarious.
This man [Francis] who has tried to jettison every Catholic moral obligation other than “being nice” has used his fading authority to advocate for Pfizer and its vaccines. Such a man cannot possibly believe in hell.
And if the doctors and policy-makers are nefarious for continuing to push ineffective and dangerous vaccines, how do we evaluate the role of Francis in telling over one billion Catholics that it is an act of charity to receive the vaccines? This man who has tried to jettison every Catholic moral obligation other than “being nice” has used his fading authority to advocate for Pfizer and its vaccines. Such a man cannot possibly believe in hell.
As Catholics, we can forgive those who have made mistakes if they actually try to rectify those mistakes. But those who ask for amnesty while doubling-down on their wickedness are calling for God’s vengeance, and we do them no favors by excusing them.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Latest from RTV — COUNTERREVOLUTION: Pope Francis, Joe Biden Losing Control