It’s time to end the purge

In a CNN interview on 6 August 2021, (US) CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, while mostly defending claims about vaccine efficacy, conceded, “what [vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

She further conceded “that’s exactly right”, after being asked, “if there is a breakthrough case, you get COVID, you’re fully vaccinated, but you’re totally asymptomatic, you could still pass on the virus to someone else, is that right?” –
https://odysee.com/CNN_CDC_Walensky_Vaccines_Cant_Prevent_Transmission

These concessions are supported by a growing body of high quality epidemiological studies, population studies, case-controlled studies, and other peer-reviewed primary research. If anything, the data has been pointing towards asymptomatic transmission from “fully vaccinated” people being a greater concern than transmission from those who are not “fully vaccinated”.

These concessions have been subtly acknowledged by CDC since at least 30 July, when the agency noted that “Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”

Claims of any COVID-19 inoculation reducing transmission have been suspect at best, but by early August, that claim was no longer defensible. Nonetheless, the New Zealand government (along with other governments on similar paths) is relying on an argument that everyone needs to be inoculated to “protect others” (curiously, this includes others who are, themselves, “fully vaccinated”), and using legislative decree and an incessant propaganda campaign to wage war against those who exercise their basic human rights to decline, refuse, dissent, conscientiously object, or even question being inoculated with a short-lived, symptom-suppressing, prophylactic treatment, which has no long-term safety or efficacy data; such legitimate concerns (“vaccine hesitancy” or “anti-vax”, as some like to label it) seem further justified by the lack of any liability even for near-term adverse effects, and confident denials of any long-term or serious risks (the manufacturers of these inoculations very explicitly state that there is no long-term safety data; by any reasonable assessment, this means that these inoculations are “experimental” medical treatments).

COVID-19 inoculations may offer some protection against disease symptoms (about 95% claimed efficacy, but about 1% “absolute risk reduction”) and death, for a period of months (excluding the first few weeks, during which time susceptibility to infection and “poor outcome” is significantly increased), but they can not protect others from infection, and they can not break chains of transmission (and the long-term risks may outweigh possible short-term benefits, at least for most people). In other words, these inoculations can not be used to achieve “herd immunity”; despite promises from “the experts” in late 2020 and early 2021, they never were able to achieve “herd immunity”. Like many viral diseases, naturally acquired immunity, after recovery, is the only way to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19. In the same ways that misuse and over-use of antibiotics selects for both antibiotic-resistant and more dangerous microbes, non-neutralising inoculations which only suppress symptoms select for both vaccine-evasive and more dangerous viral variants.

The fact that these inoculations do not prevent disease transmission was reflected in an 18 November 2021 position paper (updated on 19 November, apparently with formatting changes), published by NZ Ministry of Health, which stated:

• “The absolute risk of transmission will be highly dependent upon the prevalence of disease in the community. ¶ When the rate of community spread is zero or very low, the risk of transmission from any consultation will be very low, unless a person is known to be at higher risk because they are symptomatic or a close contact of a confirmed case. [bold in the original] ¶ In addition, in this situation the difference in the risk of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated people will be negligible. When the prevalence of disease in the community is high, the risk of transmission from any individual is not negligible and is likely to warrant application of mitigations for all consultations. ¶ When there is high COVID-19 vaccine coverage (i.e., above 80 percent of eligible people are fully vaccinated), transmission is more likely to occur from a vaccinated than an unvaccinated individual. [bold in the original]”
• “Asymptomatic infection is the issue, not the vaccination status of the patient.” [bold in the original]
• “Vaccination status is one of many risk factors for infection and transmission. There is currently no evidence that the application of an alternative pathway based solely on vaccination status, or the routine incorporation of unvaccinated asymptomatic individuals into a high-risk pathway is justified.”

That advice was removed from a 25 November “revision” to The Ministry of Health’s position paper, not because the evidence changed, but because the law changed. On 23 November, New Zealand’s government, under irregular circumstances, pushed through a discriminatory COVID “traffic light” system, along with other divisive, anti-science “Covid response” measures, which received widespread criticism, including criticism from NZ’s Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International.

We’d all like to think that NZ’s Ministry of Health is staffed with brilliant doctors and scientists, keeping abreast of the best quality studies and data, applying evidence-based decision making to public health policy advice which is then used by government to support and implement evidence-based public health policies, but the evidence reveals that the opposite is true: Government is dictating ideologically driven public health policies and The Ministry of Health is being used to promote them under a guise of scientific legitimacy. The Ministry of Health is pretending that they are relying on evidence to advise on policy, while they are actually being used to churn dangerous public health ideologies into dangerous public health policies.

That may sound like a ridiculous claim, so let us consider another recent example: On 21 September, an Official Information Act Request was sent to The Ministry of Health (their reference H202112817). One of the questions raised was about the risk/benefit analysis that’s been done, supporting their approval to inoculate children aged 12 and older. On 10 December, The Ministry of Health revealed that they deferred that risk/benefit analysis to a 3rd-party document which states: “Safety and efficacy have not been established in children under 16 years of age.” Read that again.

Now, we find ourselves in the midst of an ideological purge. Of course, it doesn’t seem like an ideological purge, because friendly, caring, and socially responsible terms like “public health” and “protecting others” are being used to market it. But terms such as “public health” and “protecting others” are actually marketing terms being weaponized, among other reasons, to serve two divisive purposes; firstly, they enable (and encourage) people to feel good about discriminating against “others”, and secondly they vilify, isolate, and gaslight those who are being discriminated against.

Let’s repeat what CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said on 6 August; “what [vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

Let’s repeat NZ Ministry of Health’s 18 November position; “Asymptomatic infection is the issue, not the vaccination status of the patient.” [bold in the original]

Anyone who honestly believes that COVID-19 inoculations can prevent transmission and “protect others” has been unaware of the data and the evidence for almost a year. We shouldn’t fault them too harshly, since “the experts” were telling us all a different story, but that story has changed, and now reflects the data and the evidence; COVID-19 inoculations can not prevent transmission.

Anyone who still holds the belief that COVID-19 inoculations can prevent transmission is basing that belief on something other than data and evidence, and now that belief is no longer defensible on the basis of what “the experts” say.

Nonetheless, New Zealand’s government (along with other governments on similar paths) is continuing to pursue legislation and polices which, at best, serve no purpose other than using coercion and duress to “encourage” people to “choose” to be inoculated, against their conscience, legitimate concerns, objections, and better judgement. Of course, this is marketed as “public health” and “protecting others”, but that marketing is no longer defensible; all that’s left is coercion and duress.

So how is this an ideological purge? On one side are the establishment and its followers playing the roles of “single source of truth” and “true believers”; on the other side are dissenters and conscientious objectors, playing the roles of “heretics” and “blasphemers”.

In recent months, New Zealand has lost thousands of dedicated, caring professionals from education and healthcare, not because of a viral disease, and not because of evidence-based public health policies, but because these educated and dedicated professionals are dissenting and conscientiously objecting to a faith-based belief in a story that was likely never true, and is now undeniably false. Education and healthcare are now ideologically monolithic environments, where 100% of teachers, professors, and healthcare workers agree with the officially sanctioned faith (whether they agree zealously or sheepishly, history indicates that it doesn’t matter at this point)… Because we’ve fired the teachers, professors, and healthcare workers who sincerely disagree with the officially sanctioned faith.

This is an ideological purge, and nothing else. It is now working its way through all levels of public and private sector employment, volunteer work, recreation, and every layer of society. It is tearing apart friends and families, and it is not only toxic to society and public health on the basis of its immediate and near-term effects, but it is the kind of ideological purge that, historically, precedes gross human rights atrocities.

Law enforcement and military personal are now being targeted by this ideological purge. What could go wrong? Soon, if it’s not happening already, dissenters and conscientious objectors in judicial roles, and administrative roles at every level, in every field, will be subject to this ideological purge. Other governments on similar paths are ideologically purging elected representatives, preventing them from representing their constituents. No one is safe when society falls into this hole. This is a symptom of a society and an ideology that, to paraphrase Hannah Arendt, is becoming a monster that devours its own children. Those who sheepishly play along may feel safe today, but they won’t be safe for long. History is filled with warnings that these coercive and discriminatory policies are a path to catastrophe, and if we survive it, shame that will burden us and our children for generations to come.

Already, New Zealand is being turned into a society that is irreconcilably (and needlessly) divided by faith in a flawed and dangerous ideology: The vaccines will save us, and nothing else can. Liberal democracies have always struggled with ideological divisions at some level (eg left vs right, conservative vs liberal, religious vs atheist), but history reveals a clear tipping point where differences become gravely dangerous, which is when one group is excluded or restricted via “special rules” impeding basic rights such as employment, freedom of association, recreation, worship, shopping, dining, entertainment, travel, or visiting public libraries. Historically, it’s difficult to think of times when government sanctioned segregation, and indeed government mandated segregation, didn’t precede gross human rights atrocities.

The evidence is clear, and even “the experts” have conceded; these inoculations do not, and can not, prevent transmission. Being inoculated does not protect others from infection, and not being inoculated does not put others at risk. Choosing to be inoculated to protect others, while once defensible on the basis of advice from “the experts”, and honestly considered an act of altruism among those who believed “the experts”, is now an expression of faith, not supported by evidence or “the experts”. Coercing people to be inoculated is coercing them to join that faith, or at least participate in its most sacred ritual.

With the “protecting others” argument removed from the equation, the issue can no longer be considered a “balance” between protecting others and individual human rights; it’s just a human rights issue now, and it urgently requires remedy, or our society will fall further into a deep, dark abyss.

We simply need to respect human rights, as recognised under national and international laws and customs, that every individual has inalienable rights to bodily autonomy; and rights to fully informed consent (and fully informed refusal) of medical treatment, with or without reason; and that any coercion or duress used to “encourage” a person to submit to experimental medical treatment is a crime against humanity; and that “collective punishment”, such as denying or recognising peoples’ rights on the basis of group membership, is a war crime.

[Postscript]
To be fair, living in a society does mean that we have certain obligations to protect each other. We do not, however, have any obligation to take on risks, whether known or unknown, for a chance of protecting each other. What kind of society would risk the health and safety of its youngest and healthiest, for a chance of protecting its oldest and sickest? To (again) paraphrase Hannah Arendt, this is a society becoming a monster that devours its own children.

While manufacturers explicitly state that there is no long-term safety data for these inoculations, one has to ask what is the basis for any claims about them being “safe”? The only honest answer is that we don’t know if they’re safe. Every day, new data raises more cause for concern about their safety and efficacy. Even after a normal approval process, which can take at least 10-15 years (eg the MenB vaccine) and exclude most experimental treatments from ever being approved, 32% of therapeutics approved by the FDA between 2001-2010 had their approvals withdrawn by early 2017, due to safety issues.

In 2019, Anthony Fauci explained that moving from traditional vaccine technology to new vaccine technology (that, for a virus which is well understood in terms of vaccinology, unlike coronaviruses which are known to have unsolved safety and efficacy problems from vaccinology and immunology perspectives) is “ten years in the making”. “In order to make the transition […] you have to prove that this works, and then you’ve got to go through all of the clinical trails, phase ones, phase twos, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade.” These COVID-19 inoculations, aside from the known unknowns that are part of any traditional inoculation/vaccine development, also have a long list of unknown unknowns because of the new technologies they rely on.

For anyone interested in some examples of the seriousness of rushed vaccine production and “no long-term safety data”, some good places to start might be “The Cutter Incident”, “diethylstilbestrol”, and of course “thalidomide”.

If anyone freely chooses to be part of this inoculation experiment, I will support their right to do so (provided that they’ve given fully informed consent, in writing, and without coercion) but no one can reasonably demand that anyone else participates in such medical experimentation.

[Postscript 2]
If this article resonates with you, please share it with your MPs, council representatives, school principals, childrens’ sports coaches, religious leaders, restaurant owners, and everyone in positions to influence and make change.