Critical Thinking Vaccine Propaganda

Came across this article from McGill University (an institution that receives grants from the Gates Foundation. Sorry, follow the money folks) by Jonathan Jarry (who once attempted to defend high PCR ct cycles during a local CTV news broadcast). The content in of itself is what you'd come to expect during this moral panic. That is, the vaccine is the only way out and all these signals and adverse events are blown out of proportion.

Are they?

I argue no.

On a simple double standard application, the very side who invoked manipulative emotional pleas like, 'if it can save one life' or 'we must save granny' or 'what if it was your grandmother or mother?' aren't extending this logic - or lack thereof - to the injuries caused by vaccines.  We can reverse these claims by stipulating: What if it doesn't save a life and actually leads to deaths? What if it's your child who is injured? What if it's your grandmother who dies from a vaccine shot?

The vaccines are clearly not 'safe and effective'. This slogan will go down in flames in the annals of history is my impression. 

A safe vaccine does not claim over 20 000 deaths and 1.5 million injuries. It is true given the total doses this represents a small percentage but so do Covid deaths. Funny how they play context with vaccine injuries but refuse to contextualize the deaths and survival rates from this virus. Moreover, the 'experts' do not put into proper perspective those demographics at most risk. Nor do they disclose a vast majority of people who end up in ICU or hospitals are obese or are afflicted by other underlying health conditions.

They complete disregard the role natural immunity has to play in all this (Vaccine Ho!) but this is hubris tempting the wrath of Mother Nature.

On a percentage basis, deaths will always be low but that's not the only metric to be used. In this case, the gross numbers tallied can't be ignored. As history has shown, vaccines have been pulled with far less dramatic results. 

Can it be we're blinded by panic?

As for efficacy, all we have are short term bits of data. There's no way to prove its effectiveness except in real time and this can be misleading. It's similar to a mutual fund or stock. However, we do have studies showing and explaining the conflation of the RRR and ARR. When properly deciphered, you learn the '95% effective' claim is misleading. It's closer to 1%-3% as a recent study published in The Lancet revealed. 

You don't monitor the daily price to make a long-term judgment because it would be too volatile. Unless you're a high risk day trader, you want mid-to-long-term data to make a calm, sound and rational decision.

The same applies to vaccines. Where one can lead to a loss of money or returns the other can result in damaging health consequences. 

I've also detected a disingenuous double standard about Ivermectin. Where the potential (very low) risks are blown out of proportion for its use (contrary to the massive body of evidence to the contrary), vaccine injuries are being severely downplayed. One has shown and proven to save lives, while the jury is still out on the other. 

The belief is the vaccines are our only way out and this claim must be questioned.

But the 'experts' want you to ignore this and just take the jab to 'get your life back'.

Enter Jarry cautioning using VAERS to judge the vaccines.

What drew my attention is Jarry is listed as a science communicator and added a 'critical thinking' label to his article. I will attempt to point out a couple of logical fallacies committed by Jarry.

I assert this article is designed to be an ad hominem from the start using cherry picking as its straw man.

Another one he offers is false dichotomy. That is, the truth lies in only two extremes. In this case, vaccinate or not vaccinate.

If you don't take the vaccine you're an 'anti-vaxxer' implying you're 'anti-science'. It gives the impression a person has no other option available.

Think 'you're either with or against us'. It takes a complex situation and gives the false impression there are obvious and simple choices.

In this case, it comes with the nebulous ' take the vaccine for the greater good'.

People don't necessarily share or agree this sentiment.

Nestled in this logical fallacy crack is the false equivalence. Not all vaccines are made the same. We know mRNA are a new technology not yet approved by the FDA that has never been injected into humans with no track record or tested with established standard safety protocols. These are not traditional vaccines but the public, in violation of informed consent, is being asked to ignore these facts and distinctions on the basis this is an emergency which itself can be challenged. Just like one is committing a logical fallacy in equating the dangers of marijuana with heroin, one can apply this error in asserting all vaccines are safe and come with the same risks. 

The term 'anti-vaxxer' is unhelpful and is employed to set up a 'us versus them' logical fallacy. Specifically, it commits an ad hominen fallacy. A person can have perfectly acceptable and valid reasons to not take a vaccine and still not be against vaccines in general. For example, there are people who would prefer to prudently wait and see rather than rush into taking a vaccine. They're not against vaccines but are potentially deferring getting one. Yet, such people are regularly labelled 'anti-vaxxer'. All this does is to cause angst and division among people. 

Moving from logical fallacies, we move to context. While it's important to contextualize the data on VAERS as Jarry points out, we do not see this applied to Covid and the profile of people it impacts. Despite the clear evidence of a certain demographic, in a particular setting with underlying conditions making up the overwhelming number of deaths (to the extent we can make sense of them), public officials are grouping all demographics (and confusing the notion of herd immunity in the process) into one as though they all face the same risks. Moreover, within those underlying conditions, patients or victims obesity tends to be the dominant condition. 

People do not share the same risk profile. Children in particular. This is a piece of data often omitted in the one-sided discourse.

He offers no analysis of the actual data. He just explains how the data could be misused, but offers no alternative analysis himself. He suggests that so 3/4 of the reports are not filled out with adequate information to make a proper assessment. Fair enough. Then eliminate those and explain how underreporting also leads to 1-10% of adverse events actually being reported. 

For instance, in the United States, over 6000 deaths have been reported (recall it's a felony to file false information and the CDC does monitor VAERS). Given only 1-10% of adverse events are reported, that total could be substantially higher. It's worth noting officials pulled the swine flu vaccines in 1976 after 25 deaths were reported in 45 million doses administered. Does that not compensate for the over-reporting? 

And whether or not VAERS is a useful tool with regards to experimental vaccines currently in trials and being rushed out indiscriminately to the public does not address the fact that there is still no mid or long-term safety reporting whatsoever despite the claims of them being 'rigourously tested'. 

Has become highly politicized to the point of absurd and gives the impression corporate profits must be protected at all cost.

He's not alone. One of the biggest offenders of mixing politics and political jabs - excuse the pun - is Dr. Peter Hotez. In reading and listening to Hotez, you get a dogmatic scientific-religious sermon demanding blind faith acceptance of its virtues from people. To Hotez, there are no good reasons to question vaccines.

If you do, you're an icky crazy conservative. 

Jarry is more subtle. Jarry's piece is designed to discourage people from questioning vaccines. Be it their efficacy or safety. In fact, I posit that this episode in medical history may well damage the public trust with the medical establishment, science as an institution and whether vaccines have been a dogmatic means to a medical ends.

Perhaps Mr. Jarry should consider less on why people are hesitant borne of free choice and more on his own role as to why perhaps this is occurring?