One of the unsettling things that came out of the “Facebook Files” is the revelation of an unusual official policy that controlled the platform during the COVID-19 years.
“For content that doesn’t meet that threshold, we instituted borderline demotions,” the company wrote on July 16, 2021. “For example, someone sharing negative side effect posts. Similarly, posts question whether you get a vaccine under a mandate, whether it’s government overreach. We demote those. That’s not false information, but it leads to a vaccine-negative environment.”
This platform, once trusted, turned into a primary news source for millions. Users saw it as a genuine reflection of their friends’ thoughts and actions. However, any discussions about vaccine injuries were suppressed. Meanwhile, major media outlets were strongly asserting that these shots were essential, safe, and effective—though none of this was accurate. But users were unaware of these happenings.
The federal government pushed this policy onto all major social media platforms, greatly distorting public discussions. Anyone who talked about the negative aspects of the vaccine was treated as an eccentric and a potential threat. Any statements that contradicted the government’s and pharmaceutical industry’s viewpoints were downplayed or removed to prevent a “vaccine-negative atmosphere”.
Numerous articles personally criticized the raising of concerns about the shots.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Hence, it’s not surprising that gaining a clear understanding of the risk levels of these shots has been extremely challenging. The varying risks based on age were intentionally concealed during that time, all with the aim of implementing widespread lockdowns and administering shots to everyone, even those with zero virus risk.
Even now, there is no straightforward conversation about this matter in official circles. No major media or technology company has issued an apology. The policy documents are only available because the House of Representatives, under Republican control, compelled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to disclose them. This has revealed that the government’s official stance, along with that of its affiliated tech companies, was to keep the public uninformed.
The scope of the harm and fatalities caused by the vaccine is left for independent researchers to uncover, who are sifting through a wealth of stories and hard-to-find data. There is a deliberate attempt to conceal this information, undoubtedly serving the interests of successful pharmaceutical corporations and their implementation of a novel platform technology termed “vaccines,” despite mRNA shots not being referred to as such a few years ago.
While some individuals might not be taken aback by the influence of this industry, its newness strikes me. When the lockdowns were initiated, the operational theory was that a group of influential intellectuals were using the social structure as an experiment in controlling diseases, an experiment that was bound to fail. The idea of a larger agenda beyond a disturbing show of power never crossed my mind. Certainly, the involvement of pharmaceutical companies was never anticipated.
When news of the upcoming antidote first surfaced, the possibility was immediately disregarded. Knowledge from various sources indicated that vaccines were only effective against stable viruses with unchanging characteristics. Illnesses like smallpox, measles, mumps, and polio were suitable candidates. However, coronaviruses mutate rapidly, especially considering their widespread transmission due to a relatively low fatality rate.
Remarkably, the notion that a vaccine could be approved for such a virus never crossed the mind. The perception of the Food and Drug Administration was that it prioritized caution due to bureaucratic reasons. Its tendency was to deny approval rather than grant it prematurely. This assumption was incorrect. By citing emergencies and undermining all other treatments as a precondition for emergency authorization, it easily gained approval.
When the uptake of vaccines was low, the government took a firm stance with mandates. Several major cities even segregated people based on their vaccine status. Attempts were made to introduce digital passports, but these largely failed. Individuals quit their jobs and relocated to new areas, and a significant number managed to evade vaccination. Similarly, the acceptance of boosters and combination shots was limited, but they still received approval with ease.
How can we make sense of this situation?
Regulatory bodies receive over half of their funding from pharmaceutical corporations. Media outlets spread this propaganda because a substantial portion—three-quarters or more—of their advertising revenue comes from the pharmaceutical industry. The development of the vaccines themselves was supported by significant government grants. Companies that gain approval are granted exclusive patent rights over the drugs, enabling them to take legal action against any attempts to replicate them.
More than anything else, these vaccines gain an advantage by being shielded from responsibility for any harm they might cause. Consider this: Why would any government allow such a waiver of accountability? It’s illogical. If the vaccines are safe, there would be no need for indemnity. If they’re not safe, such immunity would be highly irresponsible.
Nonetheless, lawmakers passed 42 U.S. Code § 300aa-22 in 1986, which states that “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 solidified this concept. It was invoked in March 2020. In essence, the government might as well have informed the country and the world: We’re about to harm you. This stance contradicts the Hippocratic Oath entirely. In fact, this situation highlights the necessity of such an oath in the first place.
When all of this is combined, it reveals an utterly indefensible monopoly within the industry that operates openly. In recent times, the FDA, having ousted individuals with integrity from its ranks, regularly approves drugs without proper, successful trials. Instances like RSV shots and an over-the-counter birth control pill are becoming routine. The new head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) introduced herself to the public with a strong push for everyone, especially infants, to receive the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine.
There’s simply no theory in political economy, medicine, political science, philosophy, or ethics—whether ancient or modern, left or right—that can rationalize such a dangerously flawed system. It would be one thing if this industrial monopoly only disrupted a single aspect of life, but our times have unveiled something far more alarming. Pharma has essentially gained influence over most Western governments and transformed them into agents of their interests.
This is fundamentally unacceptable. The assertions that the adverse effects of these vaccines are rare are becoming increasingly difficult to accept. We cannot be sure of that. Moreover, “rare” lacks a definitive meaning. Additionally, if a person is deceased on the street due to being hit by a bus, bystanders merely proclaiming that the death is rare provides no solace. In their situation, the likelihood of being killed by a bus is retrospectively 100 percent.
What individuals harmed by the vaccine require is compassion, public awareness, support, and compensation. It only worsens their suffering when their situation is downplayed as unimportant due to the belief that acknowledging it fosters a “vaccine-negative atmosphere.” This is not reminiscent of the Soviet Union, and we do not inhabit a nation established as a biomedical security state controlled by pharmaceutical monopolies using citizens as subjects in genetic experiments.
The entire system needs to promptly cease, beginning with the termination of immunity against harm. It should never have been granted in the first place. Moderna and Pfizer are already confronting significant drops in stock value following the discrediting of their vaccines. What impact would they experience on their stocks if they faced financial consequences for the harm they’ve caused?
The Brownstone Institute is collaborating with The Epoch Times for a screening of the remarkable film “Unseen Crisis,” which focuses on vaccine injuries. Locating a venue to showcase the film posed challenges. As soon as the “independent” theaters in the area became aware of the subject, they managed to find ways to decline new screenings. Quite intriguing.
Meanwhile, Trump announced a plan to investigate Big Pharma and autism to find out what’s causing chronic illness in the United States.
Indeed, the crisis remains unseen. It must be acknowledged if we hope to restore our identity as a civilized and self-governing society.