Why The Lies About Covid Vaccines Will Continue (REVISED)

(Revised Oct 14) October 12, 2022
Although there are many reasons beyond what is written here, one of the main reasons why lies about Covid vaccines will continue is the liability issue.  The vaccines were issued based on a vastly inflated risk of loss of life from Covid, but the tactic it took to have the vaccines approved under an emergency use authorization had a serious legal flaw that the continuing lies and deliberate covering up of vaccine side effects are meant to mitigate. While government officials may be exempt from direct liability, the court of public opinion and the destruction of trust are far more serious judgments that have long term consequences. In addition, the question of deliberate and outright fraud looms large, especially since a fair number of people have died and been seriously injured as a result of being coerced into taking what for them was a deadly injection.

That coercion took the form of name calling, false claims of death, the taking of jobs, the threat to withhold medical treatment for those that are unvaccinated (or "Democide" which is "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command...," social isolation, the shuttering of businesses, denying access to friends and family. The list is endless. Bet on the paper shredding and legal chicanery being in high gear.

The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations for the vaccines (EUAs) supported by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declaration that circumstances exist to justify the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic that have not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared product. The FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met:
  1. there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives, and
  2. the potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
However, if the government or its agencies engages in a systematic program to prevent the use of “alternatives” that work and the government or its agencies also block risk information about injection with the vaccines from coming out, as the many doctors testifying about the adverse effects in the links show, then there was no basis for the EUAs to be legally justified. The FDA tried to hide all data about the vaccines and their safety for 75 years until the courts ordered them to produce it.

Complicating the issue is the fact that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, under Douglas J. Peterson, issued a legal opinion that not only were there a number of alternative drugs available off label to treat Covid with demonstrated efficacy but also that the law allows Doctors to prescribe them:
"we conclude that governing law allows physicians to use FDA-approved medicines that are unproven for a particular off-label use so long as (1) reasonable medical evidence supports that use and (2) a patient's written informed consent is obtained. In the context of this ever-changing global pandemic, we note that it is appropriate to consider medical evidence outside of Nebraska and to give physicians who obtain informed consent an added measure of deference on their assessment of the available medical evidence."

The Attorney General’s opinion lists a number of these drugs, backs the opinion up with detailed research and further opines with regards to ivermectin:
"Why would ivermectin's original patentholder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons.

First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to "conduct clinical trials" on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance. 178 Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. "[T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators. 179 That treatment, known as "molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease. 180 On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir "reduced hospitalizations and deaths by and that same day its stock price "jumped as much as 12.3%. 182 Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than—or even the same as—molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars."

The legal complications for the EUA are increasing.  On October 7, 2022 Florida's Surgeon General, Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39 and declared FL will not be silent on the truth. There are those that will say it is politics, but the fact is regardless of the reason, the mud slinging puts truths on the table that can't be taken back, no matter how you try to spin it. One is in the case of Trump pointing out the fact that George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Telling the truth is a "taboo?"  That truth telling resulted in an employee of GHCQ in England, Katherine Gunn, blowing the whistle on England supporting the Iraq lie and joining Bush's war, which was captured in the movie "Official Secrets".  The link shows the moment in British court when the government was caught completely in the lie.  So now that governments worldwide have participated in egregious actions which have resulted in deaths, damage to lives and the education of innocent children, there shall be no forgiveness for their actions.  The simple question is how to punish it.  The colonists had the answer, but the pissy pants will take a fit if serious citizens even contemplate holding them accountable as they absolutely must be.

Everyone involved in trying to dismiss alternative treatments such as Ivermectin, and the coverup of the side effects of Covid vaccines, permitting the illegitimate use of an Emergency Use Authorization have little choice but to hunker down and continue with the lies and disinformation tactics.  Fortunately doing so in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary will backfire because the people raising alarm are highly skilled professionals who have every reason to continue fighting for what was right.  Moreover, it is impossible to cover up the harm to our children which all of the propaganda in the world can't hide.  This is especially egregious when we were lied to so that we and our children would get injected with a potentially life threatening and life damaging vaccine, and in the process destroying their education and our economy for no good reason.
More importantly, although the numbers of people that have supposedly died of Covid are large, if the other 99% that lived were never in any danger of dying from Covid, it is impossible to claim the 99% were saved by the vaccines when nothing serious would have happened to them in the first place.  That is where we are at.

Abuse as a Weapon

The recent release of information from Britain, the EU and continuing disclosures about the use of psychological tactics to scare the public into taking untested vaccinations that for many are deadly is clearly abuse.  Abuse of another person is abuse, no matter who is doing it.  The argument that it is the government or the military, or trusted professionals does not change the fact that abuse of a weaker or vulnerable person took place. The question is simply one of who is doing it to point the finger in the right direction.

The US military has published manuals and trains its soldiers in the use of PSYOPS, essentially tactics to lie and manipulate enemies.  These tactics, as the Covid campaigns around the world demonstrate, are simply another extreme form of bullying that is now being used on citizens openly.  The people that develop these techniques and advocate their use on citizens and their children are no different than people encouraging a close contact or spouse to beat and harm you and your children. In America at least if such a person was in your home fervently encouraging anyone to kill or maim you and your children and they do so you can kill the bastards. There is a lesson in that. Beyond that, logically when you are threatened harm, you defend yourself, not like you can call Ghostbusters or the defunded police.  

An example of coercive behavior can be seen in the case of a spouse exercising undue influence over the other to shape behavior, to exploit them in some way. Any compliance or agreements made in these circumstances are defined as unconscionable dealings and they invalidate any such arrangements made in such circumstances. The government in the US and Britain, among many others are resorting to unconscionable dealings with their citizens, which is particularly egregious considering the fact that as servants of the people they have zero standing, as defined by the colonists. 

Some will argue that a spousal relationship is not the same.  Nonsense.  Ask yourself if you should be able to trust your government completely, well beyond your spouse and the answer is yes.  One has to look at the relationship between a citizen and government to understand the idea that it is highly beneficial for a citizen to be able to trust their government, primarily because in a division of skills and labor, a well run and trusted organization serving the needs of the people offers great benefit.  For example if you have children, and you want the best for your child, placing them in the hands of skilled educators who do their very best to educate your child provides enormous value and assistance while you pursue those skills in your life you are good at to provide for the family.

But what happens when the trusted providers do not have service to you and your children at the top of their priorities,and in fact actually harm you and your children.  That trusted relationship becomes abusive and life damaging, and the bargain, or simply put the deal you made with them to look after your child's education so you can do what you are good at is breached.  The "deal" becomes "unconscionable."  It is well worth reading up on unconscionable bargains to see how they are viewed.  Of course legal scholars will jump in and argue points of law, but John Wayne portrays a solution, and 8 billion people could give a damn about legal finery when their children have been destroyed.

We live in societies which were built on the idea that the society would function using a division of labor concept in which money represented an exchange system in which you could pay someone better skilled to provide those things for you and your family that you needed.  For example, if your cell phone breaks and you take it in to be repaired, and are charged a lot of money to fix it, it simply has to work as expected after repair, or you don't pay for it.  The same goes with anything else you pay for.  If you car for example had a fatal design flaw the manufacturer knew about and did not fix it to make a buck, and it killed many customers, there are legal remedies to fix the flaw that are universally mandated.

What is interesting if you look carefully, a lot of companies try to get out of their responsibility to fix the flaws and to pay compensation for the damage they caused.  The courts are manipulated over time to side with the companies causing harm, and laws are passed to protect them.  A good example is the "no admission of liability" dodge you frequently hear about.  So yes I killed your mother, child, spouse, and here is some money but I don't admit I am responsible.

Supposedly that is the end of it.  But it is not.  The only laws that are legitimate are those vetted and approved by a jury not influenced by corrupt court instructions.  The concept enshrined in the Constitution is called jury nullification. and a search of the topic reveals significant effort to reduce its use.  Clearly the servants do not like the masters to have any say in the operation of their nation.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ' an unjust law is no law at all." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The idea that the elected, hired, and appointed help cannot be held accountable for their actions has created a tiny minority of highly deviant people who are destroying the world.  These are not people infected with a disease they cannot do anything about, but people taking deliberate and irresponsible actions that cause enormous harms.  Outside our borders their actions constitute murder for profit, using America as a hideout, in your name. 

It would be very interesting to see how things would change if someone could build and use any kind of weapons that kill the functionaries only, in other words, the deviants or "Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants" as Samuel Adams described them. They must be made to pay and the issue now is how best to take action. The majority is nearly billions to one in a rout.