The history of totalitarian regimes has shown that those who voice dissent early on are often viewed as loons or trouble makers and that, generally, it’s not until the regimes are at their worst that those early dissenters enjoy some restoration of their reputations. It’s ironic, of course, that it takes “things getting bad” for the mocking and loathing of those early dissenters to stop—with increased oppression serving as a silver lining of sorts for them.

A scenario along these lines is unfolding for those in the informed consent movement, who oppose vaccine mandates. For years, they’ve endured their share of mocking and loathing. However, recently, their concerns are receiving greater consideration by the public. This is happening because “things are getting bad” with regard to rights being stripped under the pretext of protecting us from infectious disease. Meanwhile, the path society has been on with regard to childhood vaccine mandates has taken a wider and deeper turn.

That turn was the arrival of COVID-19 along with the scientific shenanigans and repression of rights that have accompanied it. Below are three ways that the informed consent movement’s warnings are being validated by the manner in which “the powers that be” are responding to COVID-19.

1. The risks from COVID-19 are being exaggerated, like those of other infectious diseases.

Opponents of vaccine mandates have argued for years that the risks posed by many infectious diseases have been exaggerated in order to garner support for mandates. This argument has fallen on mostly disinterested ears.

This is because, for the most part, people can’t be reasoned out of beliefs they weren’t reasoned into. The beliefs held by most Americans about the risks posed by infectious diseases, and the track record of vaccines, were not reached through reason or research. They were drilled into them as purported historical fact while school children and the beliefs are deeply ingrained. The narrative is that the diseases the U.S. vaccinates against pose grave danger to us and that they were only controlled through the use of vaccines. (Contrary to popular belief, death rates from infectious diseases plummeted in the U.S. before the widespread use of vaccines.) The public has had very little interest in learning information that conflicts with this narrative.

However, Big Pharma and the powers that be have a big problem with regard to COVID-19. The COVID-19 story is unfolding live, not pre-recorded, before the public. It’s not being delivered to us as school children, as a fully honed tale. And, the story is not one likely to instill confidence in the state’s decision-making ability regarding infectious disease.

Almost every aspect of “the official response” to COVID-19 has been the subject of reversal and inconsistency. Examples of this are the shifting official positions regarding mask-wearing, and the reversals regarding reliance upon two disastrously wrong disease models (Imperial College and the IHME). Another example is the confusion in statements regarding whether asymptomatic carriers can spread COVID-19.

The scientific twists and turns, contradictions and inconsistencies, and overall uncertainty lying beneath the official COVID-19 risk narrative have made for a very messy story. The public is seeing the shaky, fragile pillars upon which the narrative rests. And yet, in the midst of this scientific uncertainty, the public is witnessing the state forging ahead with mandates (e.g., lockdowns, mask requirements, and the likely imminent vaccine requirement).

This has presented the public with a striking example, occurring right before its eyes, of the state imposing infectious disease mandates in the clear absence of a well-researched body of science showing that they’re necessary, safe, or effective. This blows wide open the myth that the state only imposes mandates based upon a solid bedrock of settled science.

In fact, even the issue of whether COVID-19 constitutes a new virus is unsettled. Some well-credentialled members of the scientific community have questioned this. For example, Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern wrote in June of 2020 that it was wrong to claim that COVID-19 is a novel virus.

Witnessing the uncertain, circus-like atmosphere in which bureaucrats have imposed COVID-19 mandates may make the more inquisitive among us question what scientific record actually lies beneath the vaccine mandates already in place for children. (Links to resources on that subject are located at the end of this article.)

Further, even the least intellectually curious among us, who never stray from the mainstream media, have surely picked up on the fact that information is being gathered and presented in a manner to exaggerate the risks from COVID-19.

60 Minutes recently reported that flawed COVID-19 tests have been widely used, resulting in many false positives. And, even the CDC has acknowledged that a positive result from the antibody test, which is one of two types of tests available for the virus that purportedly causes COVID-19, may be an indication of having had an infection caused by another coronavirus. Also, it’s been reported that multiple labs have submitted only positive results and that there have been instances where multiple positive test results from the same person have been recorded as multiple cases. Reports of overcounting of cases are common. (Recent examples are here and here.) Additionally, the media has routinely conflated having a positive test result with having the COVID-19 illness when in fact, testing positive does not equate to having the illness. Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that deaths of those who died with COVID-19, but not from it, are being included in the COVID-19 death count.

This COVID-19 landscape gives the vaccine freedom movement an excellent, recent point of comparison to use when discussing the exaggerated risk levels of other infectious diseases, including measles.

The CDC now recommends approximately 70 doses of 16 vaccines for children by age 18. This schedule has rapidly expanded since liability was removed for the manufacturers of most vaccines in the 1980s. Most informed consent advocates oppose the mandating of any vaccines. However, because Big Pharma has especially pushed the narrative that vaccination is necessary with regard to measles, the mandate debate has particularly focused on that virus.

Like COVID-19, the mortality rate from the measles virus has been exaggerated. Prior to the use of vaccines, the risk of death from measles in the U.S. was low, at approximately 1 in 10,000 of those infected. Of course, not every American was infected with measles each year, so the overall annual mortality rate among the entire U.S. population from the virus was far lower than that. Big Pharma, the state and the media often provide an estimate of the U.S. pre-vaccine era annual measles death rate which is an order of magnitude higher than cited above, i.e., 1 in 1,000. This calculation is generally based upon the use of reported cases as the denominator rather than overall cases. This method is deceptive because measles was generally viewed as a benign childhood illness in the pre-vaccine era and most measles cases were not reported  back then.

The measles virus is just one of many infectious diseases for which the public holds an erroneous, inflated perception of risk. Prior to COVID-19, it was nearly impossible to interest the public in the issue of Big Pharma and its cronies exaggerating the risks from infectious diseases. However, now, informed consent advocates can start the conversation with, “Did you know that the risks posed by measles has been exaggerated, like the risks from COVID-19?”

In light of the recent, widely-known puffery regarding the risks from COVID-19, this opening is likely to pique interest.

2. Vaccines safety testing is inadequate.

Those opposed to vaccine mandates would love nothing more than a public interested in learning about vaccine safety testing. We believe that, upon full investigation, the public will find it to be shockingly lax. However, until recently, most Americans seemed to assume that they’d learned all they’ll ever need to know about this topic in 8th grade. Strategically speaking, Big Pharma and its state allies should probably have left well enough alone and avoided any steps that would stir up interest in the topic of vaccine safety. But, they didn’t. Instead, they’ve handed the public “Operation Warp Speed” to ponder.

Operation Warp Speed will allow for the accelerated development, testing and licensure of experimental COVID-19 vaccines. Researchers will be permitted to deviate from normal animal study procedures. This is despite the fact that some animal studies conducted in connection with vaccines under development for other coronaviruses (which were never licensed) have had concerning safety results. (Episode 177 of the HighWire, beginning at 25 minutes, features discussion of “immune enhancement,” a dangerous condition that’s been found during these animal studies.) Some of the COVID-19 vaccines being fast-tracked will use entirely new technologies (e.g., manufacturing methods using mRNA, DNA and nanoparticle genetic engineering technology; a delivery method using a microneedle array equipped with fluorescent quantum dot tags, rather than a conventional injection). Further, there are concerns that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may alter human RNA and DNA.

To date, vaccine manufacturers have received billions from the state for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. The manufacturers of such vaccines, like the manufacturers of most vaccines, will have no liability.

In light of the skipped steps, minimal time spent researching adverse reactions and lack of manufacturers’ liability, members of the public who learn the details of Operation Warp Speed likely will not conclude that their safety is at the forefront of the minds of those racing to develop a vaccine. It will be unfortunate for the vaccine industry if this prompts the public to look into the safety testing of the other vaccines licensed pre-COVID-19. Below is just some of what they’ll find.

    • Lack of inert, placebo-controlled studies. The FDA classifies vaccines as “biologics” rather than “drugs,” thereby allowing vaccine manufacturers to forego the multi-year, double-blind, inert placebo-controlled studies required for drug approval. Almost all vaccine safety studies are conducted without a control group of unvaccinated individuals receiving nothing but an inert placebo. Generally, if a “control group” is used during a vaccine safety study, the group receives a substance which is not inert, such as another vaccine or an adjuvant such as aluminum (e.g., when Merck conducted clinical studies for the Gardasil 9 vaccine, it used the original Gardasil vaccine as the “placebo” in the control groups, and both vaccines contain an aluminum adjuvant).
    • Lack of studies comparing children vaccinated in accordance with the CDC schedule with those who are unvaccinated. In a July 29, 2020 response to a FOIA request, the CDC acknowledged that it lacked any documents comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated children with those who have never been vaccinated. In its response, it stated, in part, that “The CDC has not conducted a study of health outcomes of vaccinated v unvaccinated populations.”
    • Very short periods of monitoring for adverse events. Most vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less.
    • Vaccine manufacturers design and conduct safety studies. Vaccine safety trials are generally designed and conducted by the vaccine manufacturers themselves, causing concerns over conflicts of interest.
    • Lack of studies showing that vaccines do not play a role in the development of autism. The CDC has presented no studies showing that vaccines do not play a role in the development of autism. In fact, in early 2020, after litigation arising in connection with a FOIA request asking the CDC to identify all studies it has relied upon to claim that the vaccines it recommends for the first six months of life do not, alone or cumulatively, cause autism, the CDC entered into a stipulation responding to the request. In its response, the CDC identified studies, but, none of them demonstrated that the aforesaid vaccines, alone or cumulatively, do not cause autism. Contrary to the assertions of the mainstream media, the science is not settled regarding the issue of whether vaccines play a role in the development of autism.

3. Adult vaccine mandates will be ushered in, as well as surveillance, tracking and other forms of repression.

It’s common to hear the expression that people “don’t dream big enough.” COVID-19 has taught those in the informed consent movement that we didn’t have nightmares big enough. Below is a list of repressive measures that the informed consent movement warned were coming prior to COVID-19, and the manner in which those warnings have been met (and in some instances exceeded) since its arrival.

  • Adult vaccine mandates are arriving. Vaccine freedom advocates have warned of impending adult mandates. The CDC has both a childhood vaccine schedule along with an adult schedule. A person receiving all of the doses on both schedules will receive nearly 150 lifetime doses. The goal of vaccinating members of the population throughout their entire lives is set forth in the National Vaccine Plan, the National Adult Immunization Plan and the Global Vaccine Action Plan. In December of 2018, Argentina enacted a law mandating its entire vaccine schedule for both children and adults. Many pointed to this as a bellwether for what is coming for other countries. In March of 2020, Denmark passed legislation (in effect through March of 2021) authorizing forced vaccination against COVID-19. On August 21, 2020, Virginia’s Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver stated that he plans to mandate a coronavirus vaccine for all Virginians once one is publicly available. On July 31, 2020, the President of the University of California issued an executive order requiring all students, faculty and staff who will be present on campus to receive influenza immunizations before Nov. 1, 2020. This is despite the fact that some research indicates that those receiving an annual influenza vaccine may be at increased risk of infection from coronaviruses.
  • The tracking that was warned about is coming to fruition. Prior to COVID-19, members of the informed consent movement warned that mass tracking and restrictions on movement would be imposed as purported protection from infectious diseases. The technology for these measures is quickly being implemented. CoviPass, a downloadable application which contains the users’ COVID-19 test histories and other health information, and uses surveillance technology to trace people, is one example. It’s reportedly being rolled out in fifteen countries and it’s anticipated that it will serve the basis for immunity passports required to travel and move about. Further, there is at least one recent example of a U.S. college requiring its students to submit to contract-tracing. Albion College, located in Michigan, is reportedly requiring students for the fall semester to download an application that will constantly track their locations and label them based upon COVID-19 test results. The college has also reportedly asked students to remain on campus throughout the semester, with revocation of the right to access campus as a possible penalty for not doing so.
  • Lockdowns and mask orders have exceeded even the vaccine freedom movement’s predictions. Simply put, the lockdowns and mask mandates have exceeded the nightmares of most in the informed consent movement. This author didn’t see those coming. Hopefully, at this point, most of the public is aware that significant scientific concerns exist in connection with both of these mandates. Some of those concerns are discussed here.

Below are resources for those who are interested in more information about infectious diseases and vaccines.


Concordia res parvae crescunt


Small things grow great by concord...

Tenth Amendment Center


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


FOLLOW US

Get in Touch

4 + 7 =


MAIL:
PO BOX 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013


PHONE:
213.935.0553

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

LEARN MORE

01

Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles

02

Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog

03

State of the Nullification Movement

108 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report

01

Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty

02

maharrey minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens.

maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues – history, and application today

TENTHER ESSENTIALS

Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!

JOIN TAC

01

The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose – the “Foundation of the Constitution.”

10th Amendment

03

Nullification

Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history – and today.

nullification