The Solidarity Argument for Forced Mass “Vaccination” Turned Out to Be False

We now have the data in black and white from Pfizer itself: already when the vaccines were launched, it was known that they would not protect from the spread of infection. And yet, millions of people have taken the vaccine, mainly because of the heavy social pressure felt through the solidarity argument. Therefore, they have also risked dire side effects, while those responsible all of a sudden deny that this absolute argument never really was crucial.

This was just a confirmation of what we already knew. Still, when Dutch MEP Rob Roos asked a yes/no question to Pfizer’s representative Janine Small, it was nonetheless a historic moment.

Had the vaccine been tested before it was launched to see whether it protected against the spread of Covid-19?

The answer was ”No,” followed by an awkward laugh and a word salad: ”We had to really move with the speed of science to understand what is taking place in the market…”

Let that sink in. Pfizer has known all along that these injections have no greater proven effect on the spread of infection than an ice lolly.

Once again, this is nothing new. Peter Doshi, one of the editors of the British Medical Journal informed us already two years ago that the vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials were not designed to answer the most relevant questions.

However, the announcement in the European Parliament still set off a powerful tidal wave, which should sweep along some of those who have spread and fueled this lie. I am talking about heads of state and top bureaucrats, epidemiologists and experts, editors-in-chief and celebrities. Just to mention a few.

When Johan Carlsson, the director general of the Swedish public health agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten) in office at the time, declared in a well-attended press conference in June 2021 that they now recommend young people aged sixteen and above to take the Pfizer vaccine, he cited three main reasons for this:

“The first and most important: Vaccines protect the individual against illness…

The second reason is that vaccination reduces the risk of the infection spreading among young people…

The third reason is that the spread of infection to other age groups also decreases somewhat when the age limit for the vaccination offer is lowered.”

Was Carlsson himself misled by the vaccine manufacturers? Or did he deliberately mislead the press corps present and the Swedish people?

When a public narrative starts to fall apart, it can have unforeseen consequences. After all, if a public official lie is exposed and people are forced to realize they have been profoundly fooled, a follow-up question may well present itself: If they can lie about something this significant, what else have they been lying about?

To prevent a domino effect to that consequence, they now try to minimize the damage, such as what Reuters’ ”fact-checker” did with the following tweet:

”Posts online are saying Pfizer “admitted” that the company did not test whether their COVID-19 vaccine reduced risk of the infection spreading prior to rolling it out – something they were not required to do, nor claimed to have done.”

The truth is, they have, albeit nicely wrapped up at times. In January 2021, shortly after the launch, Pfizer wrote on Twitter that their vaccines “have been emergency approved to prevent individuals from the age of 16 from getting covid-19.”

In May of this year, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla participated in a live discussion at the World Economic Forum. When asked why anyone should get vaccinated if there is now a treatment for Covid-19, Bourla replied: ”The primary thing is not to get the disease to begin with, and therefore you should get vaccinated. In this way, you also protect those you love.”

CJ Hopkins writes in Off-Guardian that ”fact-checkers” should be called ”gaslighters,” since what they really do is engage in psychological manipulation. Gaslighting means that you systematically feed your victim false information and make them question what they know to be true. Eventually, they end up doubting their own perception, their memories and even their sanity. In other words, a form of crazy making.

The ”masses” Hopkins writes, “having forced themselves to believe whatever you needed them to believe during the Shock-and-Awe phase, have to force themselves to believe they never believed whatever you needed them to believe then, and believe whatever you need them to believe now.”

The type of historical revisionism that Reuters’ ”fact-checker” engages in; we have seen a great deal of that since the EU Parliament debacle. Suddenly parts of the mainstream media pretend as if they never heard about any promises about protection against the spread of infection.

I phoned Swedish radio and get connected to the news desk for the daily news show Ekot. I ask how long they have been aware of the discovery during the questioning of the Pfizer representative. The woman I was passed on to dismissesed my question by saying that no authorities have claimed that the vaccine would protect against the spread of infection, but that they only have maintained that it protects against serious illness and death.

I objected by saying that the mantra of the Swedish public health agency, Folkhälsomyndigheten: ”It protects against serious illness and death,” is something that they switched to at the end of 2021. Before that, the mantra also included that the vaccine protected against the spread of infection. This is easy to check via older versions of the Swedish public health agency’s own website, for example from the autumn of 2021, when they wrote:

”Vaccination effectively protects against becoming seriously ill or dying from covid-19. It also protects against getting infected and infecting others.”

But the woman at the news desk insists that the agency never claims that the vaccine would protect against the spread of infection. The conversation feels surreal. I remind her of the well-attended press conference where the then director general of the public health agency claims exactly that, but she hangs up on me. – I have been following this issue throughout the pandemic, so I know what I am talking about!

I am not convinced that the woman at the news desk was lying deliberately. It may also be a question of serious denial that comes into play when reality gets too much to bear. Mark Twain said that it’s easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled. The author Upton Sinclair added that it is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.

For anyone prepared to remove the blinders, the announcement from Pfizer should prompt a sobering period.

I wonder what they are saying today, all those principals and teachers who pressured their students to take the shots.

What will the reactions be from employers who have laid off unvaccinated or denied them employment?

What do all artists and celebrities who urged us in costly campaigns to “roll up our sleeves” and ”take one for the team,” so that we could hug again, say now?

What will be the excuse from editorial writers and columnists, from right to left, who all competed to condemn the unvaccinated?

What does Peter Kadhammar say today? In a chronicle in Aftonbladet last autumn he spoke in favour of the unvaccinated paying for their own healthcare, since “they sabotage society’s attempts to combat a lethal pandemic.”

All you well-paid bullies; what are your comments to the vaccine not having been tested for its ability to stop the spread of infection?

And what about the friendships that were ruined and the relations that were terminated because of the hard feelings that vaccine passports and malicious media reporting brought along?

In her report ”Livet i vaccinpassens skugga” (Eng: ”Life in the shadow of the vaccine passport,” my translation), Diana Blom interviews some of those who were harassed and socially excluded in their workplaces. We also get to meet students who lost their internships, and a faithful church goer who was refused to attend Christmas Day service.

Apart from nonsensical tragedies, we have also witnessed absurd farces, such as when the unvaccinated top ranking tennis champion Novak Djokovic was banned from defending his title at the Australian Open on the grounds that he was a risk of infection.

Even if many things seem comical, they stop being amusing when you think of all those hundreds of millions of people worldwide who have taken their jabs because they were obliged to do so. How many have suffered side effects? How many have died or are dealing with chronic consequences?

Only in Sweden, 104.000 individuals have reported suspected side effects, while it is well known from scientific studies that only 1-2 % of all side effects are being reported.

In my interviews with the physician Sven Román, he informs me that myocarditis and pericarditis is a very common side effect with men aged 13 to 18 after receiving their second dose of the mRNA vaccines, that an increased number of menstrual disorders have been observed, that fertility may be affected as the number of births per fertile woman in Sweden has decreased drastically since the vaccination began, and that many pathologists all over the world report an increased incidence of fast-growing cancers in relatively young people.

As an increasing number of irregularities are becoming known, I believe we will become used to seeing more historical revisionism of the kind we are already familiar with from other sensitive fields.

In 2017, the Swedish public service television, SVT, broadcast the exclusive and praised American documentary The Vietnam War, by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. The title itself is deceptive, both from a moral and a geographical point of view. The Vietnam War should, according to activist Noam Chomsky, be called The Crucifixion of Southeast Asia, to capture the monstrous destruction that was the result of history’s most powerful military-industrial empire which, for over a decade, used its full force against a poor peasant society as well as the neighbouring countries of Laos and Cambodia.

While the documentary does present strong eyewitness accounts and for that reason alone is worth seeing, it describes this crime against humanity throughout using euphemisms such as “tragic mistake,” “best of intentions,” and “good faith.” Washington had the best of intentions too, but unfortunately some mistakes were made. Shit happens.

This is how I believe the historical revisionists will portray the criminality – the deliberate lies and the baseless discrimination – that has caused millions of people, who would otherwise never have taken these injections, to now suffer serious health problems.

Portraying the crimes of states and authorities as accidents at work is welcome because it resonates with how most people would wish the world to be. We do not want to believe that authoritative bodies purposefully commit psychopathic deeds. The thought that our decision-makers would have introduced vaccine passes despite knowing that the injections did not protect against the spread of infection is horrible.

The tendency for wishful thinking that sometimes turns into denial resembles the dynamics in families with abuse problems. The child who speaks out often faces anger and accusations of lying. The other children want to keep the image of their father as the family’s provider of safety and security.

Psychopaths can also nurture the image of being engaged and responsible individuals. Pfizer’s VD Albert Bourla reminds me of The Mask of Sanity, the first book that in detail explains psychopathy as a phenomenon (published in 1941). As the title indicates, psychopaths learn to behave as if they were normal – otherwise they would not be able to have successful careers. But since everything is theatre, they sometimes reveal themselves and the mask drops.

This is what happened during the above-mentioned discussion at the World Economic Forum in which Pfizer’s CEO participated.

Bourla gripes about “A very fanatical group of anti-vaxxers” wishing to take Pfizer to court. He then starts to rant: ”They will claim that the sun didn’t go up because people were vaccinated.”

”The mask of sanity” falls for a moment.

I wonder what Cindy Darell, the handball player from Göteborg that I recently interviewed, would say about Bourla’s joking ways, so bereft of empathy? She was healthy as a horse before taking the shots. But since taking them, she has not been able to play for an entire year. She has suffered breathing difficulties, pressure in the chest and a tingling sensation on her left side. Her friend who also took a third dose (Cindy stopped at two) suffered cardiac arrest.

I know a woman whose 18-year-old son took the shots to be able to study abroad. He died in his sleep shortly after. The mother is still in shock, but is thinking of suing Pfizer, if possible. What does she think about being dismissed as a superstitious fool?

After Pfizer’s announcement in the EU Parliament last month, I contacted a friend on Facebook who expressed their full support for the vaccine passes, at the time they were in use. I was convinced that he would have second thoughts now that he found out the entire foundation for the vaccine passes – that they were meant to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated – was based on a lie.

But he thought the topic was no longer an issue.

”I have moved on! I don’t care anymore, neither about Covid, nor about the vaccines or the vaccine passes. Enjoy your evening!”

Another vaccine passport advocate I contacted didn’t believe the message from Pfizer was any cause for concern.

”I am sure that many wrong decisions were made during the pandemic, but now people carry on as usual. Maybe it’s time to move on?”

Again, I think of the American documentary on Vietnam. The last part is about the end of the war. President Jimmy Carter didn’t believe the United States owed neither compensation nor apologies since”the destruction was mutual.”

One could, of course, argue that the United States had lost 58,000 soldiers while they had killed around 5 million people, that the Vietnamese troops had never invaded the US, nor sprayed millions of tons of Agent Orange on the fields of California and Ohio, or drowned naked Americans in napalm, etc.

The closing message of the documentary is nevertheless that the ”war” had been devastating for both sides, and that it was time to turn the page and move on. The Beatles’ hit Let It Be is played during the credits.

Imagine if the Holocaust had been depicted similarly. No Nuremberg trial, no Aftermath Agencies, no awareness campaigns, no guided tours to Auschwitz, no Remembrance Day on January 27^th. Just a quiet word of advice to leave the tragedy behind and move on. Let It Be. Let It Be.

Someone else who would like us to turn the page and move on is former Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson. About a year ago, she urged the Swedish people to” pause all hugs” from the unvaccinated. By doing this, she also condoned state-sanctioned bullying.

She is in good company. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett compared the unvaccinated to terrorists walking the streets with machine guns shooting (i.e. infecting) the innocent. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the unvaccinated racists.

The obvious question is if these oppressive heads of state knew at that time that the vaccine had not been tested from a point of view of infection control. If so, should they not be held accountable? And if they themselves had been misled, should not those who misled them be held accountable?

Let It Be. Now they want us to change the subject and move on. Putin brings new horrific headlines, and the ‘Ministry of Truth’ is already busy rewriting history in new gaslighting tweets.

As George Orwell stated in his dystopia 1984: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

PS

A brief time before publishing this piece, I received an email reply from the public health agency confirming that they knew that Pfizer had not carried out any studies on the vaccine’s ability to protect against the spread of infection at the time of that press conference in June 2021.The public health agency, however, claims that the motive for the decision was not a reduction in the spread of infection, but rather ”was based on the assessment that the benefit of the vaccination was more important when it came to the children at that particular moment during the pandemic when the decision was made.” Thus, not the three reasons that the Director General in office at the time gave during the press conference and that I cite above.

About the Author

Per Shapiro is a long time investigative reporter having worked mostly with the Swedish Public Radio and TV. Since about two years he has had his own podcast “Folkets Radio”.

Article cross-posted from Brownstone Institute.