Discover more from Clemmy
To Answer Ron Unz’s Question: It’s Vaxxing Deaths
A response to Ron Unz, "Vaxxing Deaths or Covid Deaths"
Clemmy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Ron Unz's position, that excess mortality in the months and years following both Covid and the "vaccine" (scare quotes, because it’s a gene serum disguised as a vaccine) is more likely due to Covid, is based on three implied warrants: first, his own experience; second, an apparent fundamental trust in the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies tasked with regulating them; and the assumption of a highly irrational and hysterical group of people who should be called "anti-vaxxers." He then uses the grounds of what he rightly calls "aggregate" conclusions based on massively generalized data. But any new, untested injection that will affect millions, let alone billions, should be considered guilty until proven innocent, especially when those producing it are notorious for fraud, shouldn’t it?
Plato once said that the beginning is the most telling or important part of any work, and Mr. Unz begins by relating that he neither experienced any ill effects from vaccinations nor knew anyone who did. This is a common problem in coming to conclusions: all knowledge does certainly begin in experience, but that does not mean that our own particular experiences can provide proper warrants for a complex issue with verifiable malfeasance and deception involved on an enormous scale. One would have to take into account the experiences of many to include one's own direct experience as a fundamental perspective on any issue like this. Has Mr. Unz looked into the history of the vaccine industry? Does he know, for example, that in 1986, American pharmaceutical companies, which have a verifiable record of fraud, such as knowingly promulgating products that killed or harmed tens of thousands of people (Vioxx and Oxycontin are just two), were protected from any liability for their vaccines? What does he think these companies would then do, especially from his hitherto healthy general skepticism of industry and government?
Does Mr. Unz know that Dr. Kathryn Edwards, the "godmother of vaccines," who has designed and run most of the safety studies for childhood vaccines, admitted in a 2020 deposition with Aaron Siri, Esq., that no safety studies were designed to track the connection between vaccines and autism, a disorder that has skyrocketed in the recent decades in conjunction with a skyrocketing number of vaccines on the schedule (75+), a disorder which thousands and thousands of parents, from their direct experience, relate to a vaccine or vaccines given within a correlative paradigm? Therefore, according to proper scientific method, the FDA’s claim that "vaccines do not cause autism" is deeply flawed, if not an outright lie. Has Mr. Unz researched into the thousands of families who have suffered with injuries and death related to vaccines? Children's Health Defense, RFK Jr's organization, as well as the film Vaxxed, are important sources because, like Dowd's book that Mr. Unz is responding to, they attempt to personalize this issue, to show that it is about individuals and the value of each life, rather than just simply a numbers game of anonymous experiences. Furthermore, many of these individuals attempting to conduct dialectical inquiry around the safety and effectiveness of pharma-run vaccines have been subjected to the treatment given to them in Mr. Unz's article: dismissal and contempt as "anti-vaxxers," a weaponized term akin to the weaponization of "conspiracy theorist."
This brings up a point that frankly disturbed me, an attitude exemplified in Mr. Unz's article. He states his own experience as a warrant, but seems to denigrate the experiences of millions of people over the decades of pharma-vaccines as acceptable collateral damage, and calls them "anti-vaxxers." The argument that this should be a percentages-argument, or that a certain percentage of injury and death is acceptable if it helps a much higher percentage of others, is ethically flawed. At the extreme, it is the same argument that works as a warrant for some level of acceptable democide, and is the root of Stalin’s comment, as he traveled by train through the purposed famine in the Ukraine and pulled down the shades, that "It is better not to look." Rather, the ethical position is that we do all we can to value each life, and doctors and health agencies must operate by finding as many alternative treatments as possible, such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine (why were these safe and cheap medications, one of them a Nobel-prize-winning medication, canceled and censored?), mitigating risk through proper application of the scientific method, working toward the powerful, natural healing power of the body itself within nature, reducing industrial and human interference where possible, seeing each person as a unique ecosystem requiring personal care, and allowing informed consent at all times--Why are doctors now in California facing severe legal consequences just for practicing this personal care?
The ethical position is a return to the "Do no harm" of Hippocrates. It is the practice and philosophy of the truly great doctors of our time, such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Korey, Dr. Richard Urso of Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance, and more, all of them fighting to be heard in a hostile, unethical, and truly psychopathic environment. It is the same ethics that meant, before the recent years, that any medical product causing correlative deaths was put on a "black list" and then anything causing only fifty deaths was, simply, gone. How far gone ethically we are now when the VAERS system, the CDC's own data tool, now registers an amount of deaths related to the Covid "vaccine" that dwarfs the number of deaths from all vaccines since the data system began—and yet our government regulatory agencies keep recommending them as "safe."
I've only indicated here a few lines of research out of many that would indicate that the Covid-19 vaccines are not obviously safe. And the evidence shows that they are also not effective. First, one only has to look at the US government's recent history of claiming the Covid vaccine "effective in stopping transmission" and the later admission of a Pfizer executive to the EU Parliament that they did not even test for transmission, the kind of knowledge essential for government officials and media to know before making any such irresponsible claim of "effective in stopping transmission." Doesn't this, for any healthy skeptic like Mr. Unz, call into question the effectiveness that he now relies upon, namely that of preventing serious illness? And how many vaccinated people have contracted Covid over and over, many with serious health consequences, during the last year and a half? Has Mr. Unz considered the verified studies indicating that most recent deaths from Covid are among the vaccinated? Furthermore, beyond Covid "vaccines," there are some indications the overall vaccine schedule may even be creating a population of immune-compromised people, requiring yet more pharmaceutical products, a rolling and endless source of customers. Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas in Oregon conducted a large, long-term, and respected study of the children in his booming practice; minimally or unvaccinated children, over a number of years, clearly showed more robust immune systems in the face of many common diseases. This study was not considered by medical boards and regulatory agencies, but simply cancelled, and Dr. Thomas is now fighting for his license and livelihood, precisely because of another problem in the picture: regulatory capture.
This brings us to Mr. Unz's second warrant: a trust in the pharmaceutical industry and in the regulatory agencies associated with public health, such as the FDA and state medical boards. This assumption is just too simplistic and naïve to argue seriously with. He must know that pharmaceutical companies in the US are liability-free, and he should know that they, and other gigantic corporations, operate most like psychopaths. These companies are not fundamentally ethical in their institutional structure, but rather are looking out primarily for the portfolios of executives and shareholders, and in the past, we counted on regulatory agencies to police them. However, what is now painfully obvious is that the regulatory agencies are run and populated by many people who have patents associated with the very products they are meant to regulate (see Dr. David Martin's work on patent-conflict of interest), and these same people often have a second career as employees or consultants within the industry they are meant to regulate. This has led many experienced scholars and legal professionals, such as Kennedy and Siri, to conclude that these agencies are now captured by Big Pharma. Furthermore, Dr. Fauci, former head of multiple agencies, virtually controlled many high-profile, policy-setting university studies through his control of grant money, as Kennedy shows in The Real Anthony Fauci. Is it plausible that Fauci is simply an outlier, or are we looking at a political landscape of massive corruption, with “health agencies" acting more like mafias that treat the population like a cash cow? What seems more likely? This second option is what comes into focus with any cursory research.
We live in a shadowy and confusing world of conflicting data, and data obviously always requires interpretation and skepticism (especially statistical data), and more so as the complexity and potential for spin and corruption increases. Therefore, Mr. Unz's reliance on large, aggregate data, data that can be contradicted from a number of sources, such as insurance company data as well as a number of studies (see sites like The Jeffery Jaxon Report, The Highwire, Children's Health Defense, FLCCC, Dr. Peter McCullough's substack, etc.), leads him to irresponsible and unreasonable conclusions. In order to make a reasonable conclusion about whether Covid itself or the "vaccine" has caused excess mortality in working age people in 2021 and 2022 (see, for example, EuroMOMO, week 14, 2022), in other words, an unexplained, major, catastrophic excess in deaths including more especially young people and children in the months after the introduction of the "vaccines," we have to look at more than these aggregate numbers. We also have to take into account the massive amount of censorship, driven in part by the same government actors in bed with Big Pharma (see ICAN's FOIA requests on regulatory agency emails and recent Twitter "dumps" recording calculated government interference in free speech).
In the face of all of this corruption and mendacity, should Mr. Unz really be worried that the growing concern about the “vaccine,’ exemplified in both a recent study [Rasmussen Reports "Died Suddenly"] indicating that about one-in-four Americans believe that they know someone who has died from a recent Covid vaccination, and the national discussion around the recent on-field collapse of the Buffalo Bill's NFL player Damar Hamlin, is irrational and ungrounded hysteria?
The place to start in any inquiry about medical harm is the science of the medicine itself, what it is and what it does, questions that should be asked and answered before any statistic-dialectic even begins. The warnings of microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakti and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most respected and published heart doctors, is an important place to start. Add to these UK Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, MD, another heart specialist who has come to the conclusion that these "vaccines" are not scientifically safe and should be pulled immediately (see Dr. McCullough's substack explaining the FDA warning about myocarditis in the young, published in June of 2021). What these doctors and many thousands more are saying is that the “vaccine” is not a vaccine but a gene-software device that causes serious damage to the circulatory system and the reproductive system. Right away, this should set off warning bells; labeled as vaccines, these products are untried (until now, that is, in a global medical experiment) in human populations, and so the genetic effects are largely unknown. The first animal trials in 2001 during the first SARS "pandemic" were an abysmal failure; the animals largely died, many from an unexpected consequence: the immune system not only became hyper focused on only one variant, shutting off the more flexible, innate immune system, but actually began to create a complex cellular mechanism that allowed a more serious outcome; the disease entered more deeply and pervasively into the body through the body's own genetic involvement in producing the disease upon itself, called "original antigenic sin."
However complex all of this might be, there is a simple scientific warning bell. Viruses are complex organisms with many proteins that, if entering into human cells, cause damage. Some of the proteins are more toxic or disease-causing than others. Of all the proteins in the Covid virus, which shows evidence of genetic gain-of-function tampering, the spike protein is the most toxic, to our knowledge. Because the "spike" on this protein, which is a mechanism that allows entry into cells, sticks out, it can create issues most especially within the venal and capillary systems. Doctors and researchers (see the work of Dr. Bhakti) have concluded that Covid is primarily a blood disorder, likely due to the effects of the spike protein lodging itself in the lining of the blood vessels. For blood vessels to work properly, most importantly in the lungs and heart, the lining of blood vessels must be "smooth" like good pipes (think about when an old iron plumbing system becomes corroded and rough on the inside of the pipes). The spike protein creates a "rough" environment, leading to clotting, inflammation, and subsequent damage to the circulatory system and to surrounding tissue, especially in the heart and lungs. Therefore, Covid itself and "long-Covid" are likely systemic results and responses to proteins like the spike protein, and of course can cause serious short and/or long-term issues.
What about the "vaccine"? The genetic software as RNA encapsulated in a nano-partial lipid "machine" enters the human cells and begins to tell them to produce—produce what? The spike protein. This messaging does not just stay in the arm, resulting in Mr. Unz's "sore arm and nothing more." It has been shown to travel to every organ in the body, even the brain (see Dr. Robert Malone interview on The Highwire, Episode 221). Imagine the tiny, precise capillaries in the brain receiving spike proteins by the millions or billions and produced for an unknown amount of time! This is like being thrown into a giant petri dish of viruses, but it doesn't stop there. Your own cells are producing it. Anyone with any knowledge of the immune system and its extreme sensitivity should be horrified by this. Not only are you exposing yourself to a pervasive invasion of spike proteins, but also your body has become its own enemy, and we don't know if this process ever shuts down in all people. This is a textbook definition of the conditions resulting in auto-immune diseases and, potentially, prion diseases like Parkinson's.
Furthermore, when we encounter viruses naturally, our immune system stores a "memory" or "picture" of the entire virus so that the natural immune system can later recognize variants up to 80% different from the original strain. Genetically-induced and focused immunities teach the immune system to focus on one iteration and so leave the person vulnerable to later infections from even slightly varied forms. In addition, these particular gene-focused products were equipped to "turn off" the MAST or killer T-cells so that the fragile spike-protein RNA could enter cells en masse. There were no long-term studies to show that this would be safe (leading to a possible rise in cancers and other related problems).
Which do we think, then, is more likely to be causing excess non-Covid mortality in working-age people and the sudden collapse of now thousands of fit athletes in unprecedented numbers? Young and working-age people who showed a robust immune response to the first waves of Covid variants, the more dangerous ones before the "vaccines" were introduced, are now in the last year and a half having serious problems from stroke, heart attack, and auto-immune issues. This makes more sense as the result of the genetic intervention we have described, a massive influx of toxins causing blood-vessel related inflammation and damage; the more robust and efficient the system, the more damage can be done when the body is producing its own toxic disease. Yes, we were told so, so many lies about this new “therapy”: "It stays in the arm"—patently false; it has been shown to end up in reproductive organs, the heart, and even to cross the blood-brain barrier. "It only lasts a short time"—patients have been producing the spike protein genetically in their own systems months after "vaccination." "It does not affect DNA or cause long-term changes handed down to offspring"—there is no evidence that this is the case, and studies are beginning to show that the contrary is true.
Mr. Unz’s article comes at an unfortunate juncture in time: just as many people are now beginning to ask the right questions and to exercise the right amount of caution—two years too late—Mr. Unz floats a simplistic argument based on flawed assumptions, and data that is taken out of context of a much larger picture of what seems now, by those who choose to see, to be a program of deliberate harm on a global scale—a crime against humanity dwarfing any other in history. This article is irresponsible on the part of Mr. Unz, to say the least. Should we not proceed on the basis of extreme skepticism regarding a narrative, of which the “vaccines” are a major part, one pushed by a corrupt government and medical industry, and notorious globalist billionaires, a narrative that is now collapsing with every tragic collapse and death, on the playing field or elsewhere?
Here are the questions Mr. Unz should be asking, using his honed research skills, high intelligence, and courageous truth-seeking passion to help all of us to answer them: Was there ever even a pandemic, or was it all a deliberate lie, a casedemic along with a deliberate program of iatrogenic mass murder? If so, when was this Big Lie planned and for what purpose? Was the vaccine designed for health or mass sterilization and murder? Were the lockdowns and vaccine passports implemented for public health, or totalitarian control, mass theft, and mass murder? Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice-president of Pfizer research, has been asking these questions from the very beginning, and here some of his highly credible and evidence-based answers:
The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.1 – 0.3%, which is not significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics.
Based on the peer-reviewed articles, at least 30 to 50% of the population has prior cross immunity.
SARS-CoV-2 does discriminate. “The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.”
Asymptomatic transmission is the “central conceptual deceit” used to “underscore almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.”
PCR test is “the central operational deceit.”
Neither cloth nor surgical masks prevent respiratory virus transmission.
Lockdown is “epidemiologically irrelevant” and never works. “Only “stay home if you’re sick” works.“
“Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever”. Safe and effective early treatments are available.
Based on the peer-reviewed articles, very few clinically significant reinfections of SARS-Cov-2 have ever been confirmed.
SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, and no variant is even close to escaping naturally-acquired immunity. However, there is the possibility that the so-called vaccines prevent the establishment of immune memory, leading to the repeated infections, which would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
Safety is the top priority in a public health mass intervention, even more than effectiveness. “It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine.”
The four gene-based “vaccines” are toxic. The basic rules of selecting vaccine candidates are: 1) the agent has no inherent biological action (non-toxic); 2) the agent should be the genetically most stable part of the virus; 3) the agent should be most different from human proteins. Spike protein as the vaccine does not fit any of the above criteria.
For the answers to the rest of these questions and more, consult Reiner Fuellmich’s Grand Jury Investigation:
as well as:
I conclude with this poem by the great Margaret Anna Alice ( the full poem is here): Please visit the links embedded in the poem, which are great sources for further research:
The philanthropaths bought The $cience™.
The modelers projected the lies.
The testers concocted the crisis.
The NGOs leased the academics.
The $cientists fabricated the findings.
The mouthpieces spewed the talking points.
The organizations declared the emergency.
The governments erected the walls.
The departments rewrote the rules.
The governors quashed the rights.
The politicians passed the laws.
The bankers installed the control grid.
The stooges laundered the money.
The DoD placed the orders.
The corporations fulfilled the contracts.
The regulators approved the solution.
The laws shielded the contractors.
The agencies ignored the signals.
The behemoths consolidated the media.
The psychologists crafted the messaging.
The propagandists chanted the slogans.
The fact-chokers smeared the dissidents.
The censors silenced the questioners.
The jackboots stomped the dissenters.
Clemmy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.