Logo for The Real Left, who organised the conference discussed below.
I attended the conference ‘The Left Case Against the World Economic Forum’ on the 25th March in London. While I am not going to do an expansive write-up on the conference, I was drawn to respond to a comment made by Dr. Clare Craig in the Q&A portion of the panel regarding paediatric vaccines, as I have some quite significant issues with it.
Dr. Clare Craig gave a talk on the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare (I’m not going to address that topic, transcript here for those that have an interest). An audience member (not me) asked her a question in the Q&A panel regarding traditional vaccines, stating that he read ‘Dissolving Illusions’ and that vaccines don’t have the effectiveness record that is claimed. Craig’s response to this question was that, paraphrasing, she has deliberately not got into the debate around other vaccines because we need to win people over on the issue of the Covid ‘vaccines’ first. Unfortunately there is no transcript/video of the q & a session available, so I am using memory and my instinct of what was said at the time and what went through my mind, after she said this. I did make notes on the day and the day after of what points I wanted to make in response, so hopefully this should be accurate.
I have several issues with this statement which I will outline below.
Loyalty to Truth
The first issue I have with this is the idea of loyalty to truth. The implications of this comment seem to be that we should put the question of truth of paediatric vaccine effectiveness to one side in order to prioritise the strategy of winning people over to the dangers of the covid jab. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this is a good strategy for a moment. If someone genuinely believes that paediatric vaccines do more good than harm, that is an honest position, if false (many people honestly believe this because of the relentless vaccine propaganda, though of course their unwillingness to question that propaganda is open to criticism). But to state that we should stay away from the issue, even if we are willing to question the claims around traditional vaccines intellectually, seems to me a like a dishonest position.
Is This a Good Strategy?
I also question whether this will be an effective strategy to win people over. Firstly, to a large extent, the battle over the Covid ‘vaccine’ is won, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Why?
As of March 21, 2023, only 16.4% of Americans were current with their updated (bivalent) booster dose, CDC data shows.Fox
This number is very important. It demonstrates that even people who bought into the Covid scam and willingly got ‘vaccinated’ are not taking the bivalent boosters, and only a small hard core of Covid fanatics are still lining up for more doses. This is the same in lots of different countries, with doses administered flatlining in countries like Israel.
The question that logically follows is: why? If it is so ‘safe and effective’ why aren’t people still taking it? Again, these are the people who believed the CDC and trusted them on Covid, but when the CDC tells them to get the latest booster, they aren’t doing it. Because implicitly, even if they cannot admit it to themselves, they are subconsciously aware that this is a dangerous product. Of course, some are aware, having suffered consequences directly or indirectly from the ‘vaccine’ and have linked their and/or their family and friends’ misfortunes to the shot.
This makes it the perfect time to push back, strategically, and fight to destroy the vaccine cult as a whole. Millions of minds have been opened by the Covid jab debacle – and they would be willing to consider arguments about vaccination as a whole. There are already lots more parents stating they won’t vaccinate, or that they are considering not vaccinating, or they regret vaccinating. There’s also a smaller number of people who were injured by paediatric vaccinations who are speaking out but unfortunately this number remains very small for now (of course, those who were killed or severely injured by paediatric vaccinations cannot speak out). Now of course, if we do this they will smear us as ‘antivaxxer cranks’ or whatever, but the reality is, they are going to do that anyway. Even the mildest Covid ‘vaccine’ critics are called antivax by the establishment, so in this regard, it’s irrelevant whether we’re actually antivax or not in their eyes.
The only strategic reason to not push back against the whole vaccine paradigm at this point is because one wants to save it. Some people critical of the mRNAs fall into this category, like Alex Berenson. I don’t know whether Dr. Craig ultimately wants to save it or not, as she didn’t explicitly answer that question. But not addressing paediatric vaccine harms has that effect.
The Harm of Paediatric Vaccination Injuries
Dr. Craig did not say that paediatric vaccination injuries are not real, in fact she engaged with someone in the audience whose sister had been injured by the Smallpox vaccine. She also mentioned the Pandemrix vaccine which was famously pulled for causing narcolepsy. So to be clear I am not accusing her of stating that paediatric vaccination injury cannot happen. The question from the audience member was more framed around the issue of vaccine effectiveness (such as vaccination not deserving credit for wiping out diseases) and not vaccine injury (such as the vaccines cause autism debate). This was the sort of point the questioner was trying to make:
As such, I understand that Dr. Craig did not frame her answer in reference to paediatric vaccination injuries, but nevertheless, the topic cannot be avoided. If we assume that paediatric vaccination injuries, including severe injury and death, are real, than avoiding this topic helps to allow the injury to continue, regardless of intent. The reality of the autism epidemic is continuing to get worse, for example. As I said above, more than ever there are some people who are willing to listen on childhood vaccines (even if some will never listen). There might be parents who decide not to vaccinate their child with paediatric vaccines because they initially began questioning the mRNA/adenovirus vector products and saw people who spoke about about the mRNA/adenovirus vector also speaking out on childhood vaccines. This has the potential to save children from these horrific injuries.
I have tried to avoid an emotional response to the question also, but I do think we need to think through the implications from a perspective of someone who has childhood vaccine injuries. The strategic logic of only focusing on Covid ‘vaccination’ implies that people who have vaccination injuries from paediatric vaccines shouldn’t really be considered in the debate or that if we speak out we should be put to one side for strategic reasons. While this isn’t directly stated it is implied by the logic that we should focus only on the Covid ‘vaccines’.
I must fundamentally disagree with Dr. Clare Craig when she states that we should focus on getting the public on board with opposition to the covid ‘vaccine’ and avoid questions around the effectiveness of other vaccines. Instead I advocate opening up a debate around all vaccines, because, having come to come to the conclusion that the vaccine paradigm is entirely fraudulent that’s the only place I can be, on this topic.
4 thoughts on “A Response to Dr. Clare Craig On Paediatric Vaccination”
Hi Cassandra, it’s Matthew H.
Have you heard about personalised medicine?
Liz Mumper Pitching Personalized V’s Not A One Size Fits All Strategy for Children’s Health Defense
https://archive.md/nxMQm – Robert Kennedy’s archive link.
– This is related to social proscribing. I think. I’m not sure.
But in the long run I suspect it’ll lead to social proscribing impact payouts.
I was just wondering if you’ve looked into George Church wanting mass scale genomic trials.
https://pleasestoptheride.com/harvard-geneticist-demands-large-markets-for-human-trials/ – George Church again asking for mass jab trials.
Also do you know about George Church and Perry Marshall’s Evo 2.0 challenge on cellular communication theory?
I’ve been putting together a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in relation to the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Also I’m beyond reacting to things. Well I’m trying to get beyond “divide and conquer” choose-a-side information silo echo chambers.
Ive been trying to nail this narrative of neurodiversity into ‘neuroinclusion’.
I think the narrative has something to do with datametrics or in autism’s case behaviour metrics.
There’s this company called ‘Spectrum’, which is doing ABA therapy.
https://www.spectrumai.com/ – I wonder if they have links to a data cloud computing or storage house?
https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/controversy-autisms-common-therapy/ – Spectrum AI. Of course all the usual reactions.
Im not interested in whether ABA is good or bad. There’s been plenty of intervention therapies for autism over the years, paint therapy, experience therapy, swim therapy for left-right brain integration.
Im wondering if Spectrum AI is working with a “venture capital” firm to “change” Autism. Then they pay out.
Also Cassandra I’m wondering if neuro rights is the next kind of big battleground and it’s going to be a push for this concept called “neuroemergent/neuroemergence” out of neurodiversity into Neuroinclusion.
There’s already datametrics for “Diversity” per-se.
Click to access W13-diversity-2016.pdf
– Dave Robertson, professor of applied logic at the University of Edinburgh and chief scientific advisor in the UK to Huawei,
– It’s not about Diversity Inclusion, it’s about the diversity metrics.
The very system has been changing the E and pivoting it between Equality and ‘Equity’ and Equity will be important to the UN Sustainability goals because that’s all about Homeostasis (See: Balance) goals wise and the Plantery Computer/World Brain or whatever.
Matthew H. 🐱
The biggest irony is Equality can never be achieved, but if I flip the script and look at it from a Decentralized Autonomous Organisation perspective.
Equality of outcome could be used in pay-for-success outcomes/finance?