Vaccination is The Holy Grail of Our Time
Vaccination is the Holy Grail of our time. You can doubt anything, you can criticise everything, but as soon as you say anything against vaccines, you are burned at the stake. – Mateja Cernic, PhD
The most profitable milking cow in history is for investors is to become shareholders in pharma companies. The flagship of pharma is undoubtedly the vaccines, the delivery of what is marketed as ‘the promotion of health and prevention of disease by reducing susceptibility to a disease’. The products called ‘vaccines’ and the word have been programmed into populations for more than a hundred years as a symbol of safety and are not to be disputed.
It seems something of a paradox that most of the diseases the ‘vaccines’ were created to prevent, are for the most part diminished due to increased sanitation awareness and availability, and therefore are no longer of any consequential threat to public health. We are nevertheless expected to blindly believe in the miraculous and comprehensive efficiency of vaccination.
Page 131, Ideological Constructs of Vaccination (2018), Mateja Cernic PhD
In her book the scientific monograph, Ideological Constructs of Vaccination (2018), Mateja Cernic, PhD, raises many important ethical questions. The book is a systematic and detailed analysis of the regular myths of vaccination: ‘There is no public availability about the safety and efficiency studies of the new experimental mrna-vaccines, and at the same time, they are administered. People are experiencing huge health problems and issues, and even death. Legislations maintaining they are safe are keeping studies and medicine registration secret. Also, the studies on which vaccines obtain authorisations for sale are methodological smears.’
So why then are government run health authorities throughout the world seemingly ‘working fiercely to advocate the interests of the pharmaceutical industry’ and not assuming the guardianship of public health when people are maimed and dying from what is being marketed as an ‘experiment’. What is the true and authentic intention of this ‘experiment’?
Cernic says: For some reason it is perfectly ethical to vaccinate millions of children with vaccines, whose safety and efficiency have never been adequately tested. And the passive systems for recording side effects are also useless, as they only record a few permilles to percents of the anticipated level of side effects. There are virtually no public debates with substantive arguments and counterarguments. The provaccination party (including doctors and institutions) counters the arguments of those questionning with censorship and attempts of personal discreditation, avoiding actual substantive counterarguments.’
Paddy Rawlinson of Western Sydney University, Australia writes in her paper Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State‐Pharma Nexus (2017) published by The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy:
If state power is about controlling populations, and corporate power about profit maximisation, the vaccine industry feeds both. As such, more than any other area of public health, it demands a respect for human rights, for independent scientific inquiry, and the presence of an effective form of surveillance to ensure that abuses of power are minimised and harms avoided. The ability to choose how and when medical intervention can be applied to an individual’s body, without fear of demonisation, is a testament to the spirit of freedom of choice and conscience. When science serves state power, and the state serves the corporate world, each becomes corrupt and corrupting, and society moves one step closer to a repetition of medicine’s darkest time.
Tainted by a history of corrupt practices, big pharma, nonetheless, continues to hold global influence with its commercial activities. Despite the dark history, attempts to question the integrity of the pharmaindustry in regard to vaccines, whether by the medical profession or the lay public, are consistently met with hostile responses. Individuals voicing their concerns have found themselves vilified in the media, shunned by members of the public and excluded from areas of social life, including the workplace (Bertrand 2015).
Any mandated public health policy must be open to constant scrutiny, independent scientific inquiry and open debate. Transparency is particularly crucial when policies involve the close collaboration between the state as regulator, and the industry being regulated, not least when the industry in question is tainted by a history of corrupt practices.
And the question remains: How informed is informed consent?