Independent Media & Commentary from the Cursed Prophetess of Troy
You feel sure that you must scream
Must have screamed when confronted with that needle
Must have known what it meant
Deep in the bones
Deep in the soul
When they smile over your tomb
Praise you for doing well
When they buried you in
The type that
Can’t be scrubbed out from your pores
Can’t be scratched out through your blood
Can’t be pissed out on the floor
Can’t be emptied out
But must empty you out
The concept of death is often invoked in the discourse of allopathic medicine. This is for the obvious reason that medicine is concerned with issues of life and death on its face. However, death is also used as a discourse in cases where it has no particular relevance: the patient in question does not have a life threatening disease. In these cases, death is evoked as a means to get a parent or patient to comply with the doctor’s desires for treatment. This is seen in two specific cases: transgender ideology and vaccination.
Transgender ideology is based upon the idea of gender identity. The theory of gender identity claims that an individual’s ‘gender’ can be different from their sex. There is more than one theory about how this works among gender ideologues. One theory says there are only two ‘genders’, man and woman, but that either sex can identify as either gender. The other theory states that there are all kinds of different genders apart from man and woman. These gender identities impose costs and obligations on other people, as people are expected to use pronouns in line with the other person’s identity as well as believe that a man is actually a woman and vice versa.
The transgender phenomenon is a boon to the medical profession. The provision of opposite sex hormones and imitation surgeries provides a large source of profit for pharmaceutical companies. It creates whole specialties for doctors and surgeons to work in, and allows them a tremendous amount of power over human bodies. They get to play at attempting to create whole new sex organs and come up with their own bizarre combinations. As such they have an incentive to promote this ideology, particularly to those who will be vulnerable to accepting it.
As such, parents of underage children who identify as transgender are a significant target for this kind of manipulation. They are generally suffering from a large amount of confusion regarding their child’s declaration of their identity. They often do not know how to react. Sometimes parents have an innate suspicion of the extreme measures suggested by the gender ideologues, of puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries. This is due to the permanent nature of the intervention, as well as the fact that teenagers especially often have identity issues that resolve over time without any help. As there is a connection between the autism epidemic and transgender identity, parents also often consider that their vaccine injured children are being manipulated due to poor social skills.
Doctors advocate transgender hormones and surgery as the only option for these children and teenagers who declare a transgender identity. This is regardless of the possible cause of the declaration. In doctors’ minds, there can only be one cause, that the person is truly a ‘different gender’ and that is the cause of the declaration. However, in order to get wary parents to go along with the medical intervention required they need a stronger justification than this.
This is where the threat of death enters the picture. Suicide is considered to be an almost inevitable result of refusing to accept an individual’s self declaration of identity. The idea is often put to parents of ‘would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son’ to emphasise the inevitability of suicide without medical intervention.
Vaccination ideology states that death from infection was rampant before vaccination, and only vaccination has been able to tame it. Vaccinationists dismiss all other context as irrelevant. For example, they ignore diet and access to food, sanitation or the lack thereof, economic factors, etc, in death rates from disease.
Doctors and scientists advocate vaccination in every and all circumstances, and they obviously gain large amounts from vaccination. This includes financial gain from both vaccination and treating vaccination injuries, whether this is direct via profits from vaccines or indirect via the higher demand for the service created by vaccination or injury. Doctors are also strongly ideologically committed to vaccination.
As such, they seek to get people to take vaccines, and parents are the main target in the promotion of vaccine ideology. However, some parents have concerns about vaccination. These concerns can range in scope and scale and can include belief that a specific child should not receive a vaccine due to individual sensitivity as well as criticism of vaccination in general. Concerns can involve: belief that a vaccine causes injury, particularly autism; belief that the amount of vaccines on the childhood schedule is excessive; or concerns about certain ingredients in vaccines such as thimerosal or aluminium (this list is not exhaustive).
Doctors deal with these concerns by invoking the threat of death. A parent is told that their child is at very high risk of death should the parent decline vaccination. Diseases where there is a vaccination are portrayed as equally deadly regardless of context. In some cases, the fact that the disease had a high death rate in times past, or has a high death rate in developing countries, is used as evidence for the current risk.
The media also covers stories where they allege that children died (or became disabled) due to lack of vaccination. Usually in this type of media story the parent is portrayed as being repentant and regretting not vaccinating.
Both transgender ideology and vaccination ideology seek to control people using the fear of death. In particular the fear a parent has over the death of their child. They grossly overexaggerate the risk to a child of not taking a particular medical intervention. In fact, there are plausible arguments that both of these medical interventions are more likely to directly or indirectly cause death than prevent death.
Both these ideologies also offer a form of illusory control over death, which is an attractive proposition to parents who fear the death of their child. Transgender ideology states that a child’s suicidal tendencies can be checked if only they are fully accepted. When this fails, perhaps due to the medical abuse inflicted on the child, it can simply be claimed that they were not accepted enough. Vaccination seeks to abolish disease via the needle. If disease is not abolished, it is the fault of antivaccinationists. The main difference between the two ideologies is that vaccinationists seek to blame a child’s unvaccinated body for death in other people, whereas in transgenderism the blame is only for self-inflicted death.
This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1902; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1902-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section forms part 2 looking at Jenner and his critics.
In 1796, Edward Jenner performed his first vaccination. This was on an 8 year old boy called James Phipps. In this experiment, Jenner inserted into the arm of the boy matter from the teat of a cow with cowpox using a lancet. Cowpox was a disease of the cow’s udder, which caused pustules to appear on that area. It was transmitted to humans via the action of milking a diseased udder.
Jenner’s justification for doing this was that cowpox allegedly prevented smallpox. There had long been a rumour among dairy maids that they could not contract smallpox, if they had contracted cowpox. In fact, the official story or mythology of Edward Jenner states that he overheard this idea from a dairy maid when he was a teenager and was taken with testing it (this is narrated by Jenner’s sycophantic biographer, John Baron).
Jenner became a country doctor in Berkeley, Gloucestershire. He became a member of the Royal Society after writing a paper about cuckoos that was accepted. In 1796, when Jenner performed his first inoculation with vaccine virus (later known as vaccination) he wrote a paper outlining his theory of the origins of cowpox (he believed that it originally came from the horse, and was transferred to the cow via those who dressed diseased horse heels). He then outlined the theory that the cowpox infection prevented the smallpox infection. He used some examples of those he met in his practice who had had a cowpox infection, on whom inoculation (deliberate infection with smallpox) would not ‘take’. The failure of inoculation to take was interpreted as immunity to smallpox. He also outlined his test on James Phipps, first inserting cowpox matter and several weeks later performing inoculation on the boy. As the inoculation did not take Jenner interpreted this as proof of immunity.
The Royal Society rejected Jenner’s paper. They believed it did not have enough evidence to support it and that it might tarnish Jenner’s reputation. Jenner was still determined to publish, so he added more evidence – increasing the number of cases of vaccination. (A detailed discussion of the differences between Jenner’s first and second versions of the paper can be found in Crookshank’s book). He published it in 1798.
Two important figures took up Jenner’s vaccination idea, George Pearson and William Woodville. Both these doctors were vital in spreading the practise of vaccination and backing it ideologically.
William Woodville was the lead doctor at the Smallpox Hospital in London, so it can be imagined that he had significant influence over the treatment and prevention of smallpox. He took to the idea of vaccination and ran a significant number of tests. Woodville’s tests had many flaws, in particular that he sometimes attempted cowpox and smallpox inoculation very close together. However his testing was more extensive and better documented than Jenner’s.
Pearson sought to set up an institute for vaccination. This annoyed Jenner, as he was not consulted in advance regarding the project. Pearson also distributed vaccine lymph early on in the process to allow other doctors to perform vaccination, which was important as Jenner did not have vaccine lymph to give out on many occasions.
Jenner had a significant number of supporters in the medical profession. When he was put forward for a government reward in 1802, a large number of doctors spoke in his favour. The profession adopted Jenner’s theory very quickly, and it spread widely. This included across Europe, the United States, as well as many colonised countries.
Jenner had three main critics of his theory when it was first published. These three men were Benjamin Moseley, John Birch, and William Rowley. None of these men were antivaccination in the sense that we would understand this term today, i.e. they were not opposed to all artificial inculcating of disease. They were supporters of the old method of inoculation and sceptical of Jenner’s attempt to replace it. At this time, there were no high profile critics of both inoculation and vaccination (this tendency would only develop post vaccination mandate, from 1853).
These three men opposed the award to Jenner by the British government during the hearing on this issue in 1802.
Moseley was a doctor who was well known for other writings prior to his involvement in the vaccination controversy, in particular writings relating to the Caribbean.
He opposed Jenner’s method early on, and published more than one book relating to the issue. He considered that a ‘cowpox mania’ had taken over the medical profession. In his book, A Treatise on the Luis Bovilla, Or Cow Pox, he made several arguments. He stated there was no affinity between cowpox and smallpox, so there was no specific property of cowpox which meant it could prevent smallpox. He also argued that cowpox was not necessarily a mild disease. He pointed to the ulceration that often accompanied the practise.
John Birch was a surgeon who was opposed to vaccination. In his text, Serious Reasons for objecting to the Practice of Vaccination he discusses the Royal Commitee on Vaccination. He argued that there was a large number of vaccine failures but that most of these were not admitted, and that the Committee tried to soften the language by stating that these cases only apparently had cowpox.
William Rowley was an active practitioner of inoculation. As such it could be said that he had a degree of vested interest in defending the practise against the new threat of vaccination. He considered inoculation to be a very safe practise that rarely led to death when performed competently. Vaccination, on the other hand, he considered both dangerous and ineffective.
Rowley authored a work called ‘Cow Pox No Security Against Smallpox Infection‘. This book has been considered a target of mockery by vaccinationists due to a couple of the images included in the book. These images claimed to show vaccination injuries, but as Rowley had titled one of them ‘The Ox Faced Boy’ he was mocked for making a linkage between vaccination and people becoming bovine.
Rowley actually collected a large number of cases, including with address details so at the time they could be checked, of vaccination injury, death, and cases of smallpox after vaccination.
He also provides an extensive list of excuses used by vaccinationists to defend their theory. These included the theory of ‘spurious cowpox’, which was outlined by Jenner in his second essay on cowpox. The idea of a ‘real’ and a ‘spurious’ cowpox allowed any cases of failure to be assigned to a spurious vaccination. He also accused vaccinationists of misdiagnosis of cases of smallpox in vaccinated people. He also states that vaccinationists formulated the excuse that even if cowpox failed to prevent the disease, it made it milder.
Vaccination had some significant opposition. However, it is fair to say that it had very little ideological opposition at this time. Its opponents thought it was unsafe and ineffective but advocated the earlier practise of inoculation instead rather than rejecting both. Well founded ideological opposition to vaccination would have to wait until after 1853 – the year of the UK’s smallpox vaccine mandate.
This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1902; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1902-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section forms part 1, looking at the inoculators and their critics.
Inoculation was the practise of deliberately infecting someone with smallpox. The theory behind the practise was that a person could only get smallpox once, and would then get what we would call natural immunity. Although this concept was not understood, it was observed that smallpox was only contracted once. As such, by selecting the time and place of infection, and by carrying out additional practices such as the following of certain diets, smallpox could be rendered a milder disease with a greater chance of survival.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu observed the practise of inoculation in Turkey and had one of her children inoculated while over there. She introduced the practise to her physician, Charles Maitland, who was taken with the idea and began to practise inoculation on willing members of the elite. There was a brief fad for this practise initially, but the first wave of enthusiasm died out quite quickly, and the number of inoculations performed was still very small. Some doctors tried to collect scientific data relaying to inoculation, such as Jurin, who attempted to figure out the death rate from inoculation versus the death rate from natural smallpox infection – he calculated it at about one in 50 for inoculation versus 1 in 6 for the natural disease. On this basis, he argued for the supremacy of inoculation but acknowledged that it had some risk.
Inoculation became more widely practised later on in the 18th century and particularly in the second half of that century, with the rise of the Suttonian method of inoculation, which was less harsh on the body. Daniel Sutton was able to widely promote his method among elites, and inoculation became more popular. The Suttonian method was that in practise before it was replaced by the cowpoxing method associated with Edward Jenner.
In response to the introduction of inoculation, two men, Isaac and Edward Massey, brought objections to the table against the new practise. They could be considered the original antivaccinationists. Each of the Masseys put forward a different approach to the issue.
Edmund Massey was a Christian clergyman at a church in London, and he objected to inoculation on religious grounds. He preached a notable sermon in 1722 against the new practise which was distributed in written format. The first argument he uses against inoculation is that it is forbidden for man to deliberately inflict disease. He states that while the Bible furnishes examples of men healing when given divine power, there are no examples of men directly inflicting disease. Instead, God inflicts disease to test people’s faith and to punish sin. He raised the book of Job as an example of this.
Isaac Massey raised scientific objections to inoculation. He was an apocethary (which was quite vaguely defined but involved working in the medical profession). In his book, A Short and Plain Account of Inoculation, he raised several different scientific objections to the practise. For example, he claimed that those who were inoculated were not necessarily getting genuine smallpox. He pointed out that it was an uncertain procedure, despite the claims of the inoculators to the contrary that factors such as age and the time of year can be controlled.
He stated that inoculation was ‘a disease of their own making and procurement’. He argued that when true smallpox is spread by inoculation, it can also spread to other people, such as in the case of the inoculation of Mary Batt, which spread smallpox and led to the death of a servant. He argued for living a sober lifestyle as a means to reduce the risk from smallpox.
In his book addressing Jurin’s statistical claims, he argues that Jurin did not allow for factors such as age, disease and poverty when calculating comparative death rates. Most who would have been inoculated when Massey was writing would have been elites, who would have had a better rate of survival from natural smallpox due to more adequate nutrition and being less likely to live in complete squalor. He thus considered that Jurin was not comparing like with like. He also pointed out that inoculation may spread other diseases. He pointed out that the initial claims of the inoculators was that the procedure was harmlessly and that this had to be revised when deaths occurred.
The objections to inoculation did not prevent the practise from eventually becoming widespread in certain elite circles. Inoculation formed the ideological basis for Jenner’s much more well known vaccination practise.
Back in February 2023, I wrote about a case from Jersey, where a severely autistic man injured by the MMR vaccine was being forced to take the Covid vaccine against the will of his parents. He was too severely autistic to make his own decision regarding the vaccine. The care home where he was living had denied him certain activities and essentially kept him in isolation from the other residents because he was not vaccinated.
Even earlier than this case, there were multiple examples of DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders) being put on people with learning disabilities as a blanket policy.
Now there is a new horrific case of a severely disabled man being abused by the system being reported.
Amother has launched a legal battle to stop the state from spiking her Down’s syndrome son’s drinks with sedatives so he can be jabbed with the Covid vaccine, The Telegraph can reveal.
Cups of tea and glasses of orange juice have been secretly laced with sedatives to subdue the man, in his thirties, so he can be given the vaccine and booster jabs.
I don’t have words for how utterly disgusting and repulsive this is. The people doing this are either psychopaths, or so sick in the head off the high of vaccinationism that they cannot even comprehend moral values any more.
Despite all the side effects of the covid vaccine, they are still pushing the ‘benefits outweigh the risks’ narrative as a justification to push the vaccine.
Here is a description of how the forced sedation was carried out from the above article.
As a “thank you” for having a mug of breakfast tea and a glass of orange juice brought into his room, Adam invariably hugged the staff he trusts so implicitly at his care home.
Unbeknown to him, on five separate occasions over the last 16 months those drinks were laced with a “covert anxiolytic medication” – a powerful sedative. Twice he became groggy before eventually succumbing to a deep sleep.
Each time, a team of senior carers, a nurse and the home’s manager stood quietly outside the room awaiting the nod to enter. One of them was armed with a syringe – kept well hidden due to Adam’s needle phobia – loaded with the Covid vaccine.
When the sedatives worked, Adam’s sleeve was quickly rolled up, the antiseptic wipe swiped over his upper arm and the needle inserted deep into his muscle as the plunger was pressed emptying the syringe barrel of its viscous contents. One carer made copious notes in readiness for a report which would be sent to the Court of Protection explaining how the procedure had gone.
The article further states that when Adam was given information relating to the vaccine, he said no to the vaccine.
The mother of this man is trying to fight them doing this to him again, so she is taking these disgusting individuals to court. She has a CrowdJustice campaign currently active for the legal fees.
The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence is that disabled people are not safe in any of these government institutions.
Human nature
Is meant to be laughter
Meant to be a touch, a smile
Frantic lovemaking, shaking hunger
For one another
On the bed or floor
Not mattering any more
Human nature is lying with love after you come
Sticky and heartfelt sweat
Taking up the bedsheets
Relief and resting in sleep
I wouldn’t know
My human nature was stolen
Recently, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue of complicity in evil. The truth is, every person on this planet is complicit in evil regardless of their intentions. This can be to a greater or lesser degree but it is the case for everyone. Systems require people to participate in them to survive. People require to participate in systems to survive. As such, there is a mutual interlocking complex of evil in which people are complicit, but also cannot escape complicity.
Here are some thoughts on the below institutions that we are complicit in, how we serve them, and what they are responsible for.
The first institution is the most obvious, the government. We contribute to the government via the mechanism of taxes (taxes on wages, pensions, VAT, etc). We also may contribute via voting for political parties (which helps to serve certain narratives about the governments, in that they are ‘legitimate’ because people ‘chose’ them). In return the evil actions that governments are involved in are endless – the most notable being wars, the arms trade (fueling foreign wars), authoritarian policies and oppression, and the promotion of allopathic medical treatments (including but not limited to vaccines) that cause harm.
We contribute to corporations via purchasing from them. It is not just the individual purchase but also the complexities of supply chain which is behind the purchase. This drives complicity in abuse of workers and also abuse of the environment – toxic chemicals being dumped into rivers, etc.
We contribute to banks by taking out loans such as for a mortgage and paying back with interest. Savings and pension funds also contribute to banks as part of their holdings which they can use to invest. This drives complicity in both corporations and governments as banks invest in those institutions and prop them up as one of their primary functions.
We contribute to work by giving our time and energy to a job in order to continue to survive in this corrupt system. The exact nature of the complicity involved will depend on the job role but could involve complicity in wars, environmental spoilage, allopathic medical harm, etc. Even if the job does not involve these specifically, the institution will be paying taxes to the government, and will be involved in supply chain.
We contribute to the media by purchasing physical media, but mainly though clicks and advertisements. The media contributes to the system by performing narrative control functions.
People contribute their money and time to NGOs and religious organisations. While there may be local organisations that are not directly corrupt (everything is indirectly corrupt), large organisations of this type tend to be in with the official authorities and also directly corrupt (donations for earthquake relief in Haiti not going towards Haitians, for example). These institutions are involved in direct corruption with money, but also in narrative control operations.
The most dark conclusion I can draw from all this is simply that we live in a world where it is impossible to be moral, and only possible to be immoral. As such, we are always going to end up with a negative balance of good done to evil when we weigh up our lives. I see no escape from this conclusion.
Photo by Laker on Pexels.com
I started withdrawing from SSRI pills (aka ‘antidepressants’) in November 2022. This is a documentation of the different side effects I have experienced since attempting to withdraw from the drugs.
Simply, I do have an agenda when it comes to this post, that is to prevent people going anywhere near these pills. They’re extremely hard to get off because of the side effects. As such, forget all the legal disclaimers about ‘This is not medical advice’. This is definitely medical advice to avoid these alleged allopathic ‘solutions’.
Currently I am taking around 7.5mg of these drugs. It’s difficult to tell exactly because I have had to resort to an emery board to shave the pills down to reduce the dose because cutting them up reduces the dose too fast. I hope to do a follow up post in the future documenting how to get off the drugs successfully (but of course I can’t write that yet and I don’t want to tempt fate).
A final note: this is only for side effects I have experienced personally. Other people may have different or worse ones. This is an honest documentation so there are a few uncomfortable topics here. Discretion advised.
One of the physical side effects of withdrawal is what I consider a compulsion to twitch or shake. For example, feeling like I need to shake my legs up and fown with my foot on the floor. I would say it’s not out of my control – it’s not involuntary in that I can make it stop. But it doesn’t feel entirely voluntary either.
This is one of the more minor effects for me that mainly affected me at the start of withdrawal in November and December 2022.
This is a much worse side effect. It affects what feels like inside my brain. It feels like someone is physically pressing down on my brain. Alternatively it feels like ants crawling in my brain. I find this effect hard to deal with and distract myself from.
It is a well known fact that SSRIs suppress sex drive (this is separate from post SSRI sexual dysfunction). As such I expected my sex drive to be affected by withdrawal. There is an increase in sex drive, but this isn’t exactly a side effect because that is the sex drive getting back to normal. But I have experienced essentially overcompensation.
My moods can be all over the place including changing rapidly. I can sit there and be normal and then everything goes to hell. I get ‘attacks’ where I basically end up in bed having to try and calm myself down. Or I end up on the floor.
This means what it says – inability to want to do anything. You may have noticed that I get quite passionate about things. I don’t really feel neutral all that much. I am used to being a miserable bastard. I know what to do with that at this point. Not so much with apathy and complete lack of motivation.
I have had significant suicidal thoughts since withdrawing from these pills. I’m used to suicidal thoughts in themselves (due to my vaccine injury). But these ones have an intensity and violence to them that is new. It is like, for example, that while I don’t see anything, I sense my own blood surrounding me. My brain has a fixation on blood – I had an extreme reaction to a tiny finger cut. I have also experienced hallucinations telling me to kill myself in violent ways.
There will come some time,
Where you will have to admit it.
At some point, some way along the feeding and spitting out of your maw, there will be too many of us. So many of us that your society heaves with it, sickens with it, dies with it. Your workers and your armies are no longer fit but cared for by broken backs, hands that could carve can only smash.
It was a mistake, you’ll say, and maybe it’s true that those first sputters of the so called little professors were some sort of accident. That the first screams were unforeseen. But plausible deniability starts to run thin when acres of us emerge from the paediatrician’s lair. When even members of your own state that there is some connection worth digging out among the filth. You just pasted on more layers and let it escalate.
Why create us? Filth breeds filth, money breeds money. To many of you, we are just the outcome of the pay cheque, the tax on your conscience to match your national insurance. To some we are much more and much less than that. The moment of creation, to perform the insemination. A secret thrill like public copulation. Except a man can create more with needles than with sperm, make Genghis Khan look an amateur.
Do you ever wish to boast of your creation? That thrill of confession, the denouement? To stare us in the eye and state ‘I did it?’ Foolish, yes, I know. It would be the moment of triumph then downfall, like the braying of a killer condemned to the noose. So instead you’re left with sordid little lies. Lies that wouldn’t hold up your ceiling if people dared to look.
When you created me, you made a mistake. You took too much to use me as your poster girl, too little to completely destroy me.
And so I exist.
For when that time comes,
To make you admit it.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
One of the key aspects to vaccination is the aspect of ritual. The public practice and promotion of this ritual during the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ shows some similarities with a previous public vaccination mass participation event: the Salk vaccine trials in the 1950s.
Without getting into the detail of what caused poliomyelitis (paralytic polio), whether it was the poliovirus, pesticides like DDT, both, or something else, the risks were generally overstated. If we go with the virus theory, the vast majority of people infected with the poliovirus had no symptoms even on the official version. For example, the NHS website states:
Most people who get polio do not have symptoms.
NHS
This was historically known as well. For example, an article published in 1916 states:
In a large aggregation of people, such as the population of a city with over 100,000 inhabitants, a county, or a State, epidemics seldom attack more than one in a thousand of the population, often not more than one in two to four thousand.
Objectively, many other diseases killed more people than polio did, even given that poliomyelitis could be fatal.
Covid-19 was also an overexaggerated threat. The government and media promoted the idea that Covid-19 was so dangerous that it justified lockdowns, forced masks and experimental ‘vaccine’ technologies. However, reality does not match that apocalyptic vision. In reality, excess deaths in the UK only increased after lockdowns were introduced, not before:
Unlike poliomyelitis, which mainly affected children, Covid-19 deaths were mainly among the elderly. It was rare for young and healthy people to die from Covid-19. The number of deaths from Covid-19 were exaggerated by media, by defining Covid-19 death as ‘death within 28 days of a positive test’ regardless of cause:
In both of these cases, heroic vaccine scientists were portrayed as fighting the evil disease through their ingenuity. The key difference would be that in the case of polio, there was more focus on Jonas Salk, the creator of the first polio vaccine to be used on a mass scale, as an individual. Whereas, in the case of Covid-19, the inventors behind the vaccine were not mentioned, with the names invoked being that of pharmaceutical companies. This may indicate a changing of the times, in that science in general has come to rely much less on the individual ‘heroic inventor’ and more on mass bureaucracy.
Both vaccinations also had rushed approvals. After the success of the vaccine was announced at a press conference, the FDA approved the vaccine immediately. The Covid vaccines also had extremely short trial periods, but were pushed through under Emergency Use Authorisation under the guise of a ‘pandemic’ in the US and later formally approved.
One of the key comparisons between these two vaccines was the opportunity for mass participation they provided. This was not just some sort of out there ‘science’ but a real opportunity to participate in the ritual aspects of vaccination practice. There are two key differences: in the Salk vaccine, the mass participation event was the clinical trial, whereas in the Covid case, the mass participation event was the roll out of the vaccine in December 2020. In the Salk case, the participants were children, whereas in the Covid case the participants during the initial furore were adults.
The Salk vaccine had a large number of participants:
Across the United States, 623 972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as “observed” controls.
“A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954
Children were put forward to participate in the trials by their parents, and were called the ‘Polio Pioneers’. They were given badges and certificates as a reward for being injected with the vaccine:
[Gluckman is a promoter of Covid 19 Vaccination]
Images of smiling children holding their arms after receipt of the vaccine were promoted in the mass media.
With Covid-19, the mass participation aspect, and the elements of ritualism, came after the clinical trials rather than before. Images were shown of people receiving vaccines, including seemingly gimmicky stories about a man named William Shakespeare receiving a Covid vaccine (complete with imagery).
Because Covid-19 vaccines allowed for adult participation, social media images were used as a means to demonstrate participation in the ritual of vaccination. Ordinary people were given options on platforms like Facebook to put a ‘I’ve had my Covid-19 Vaccine’ banner on their profile as a form of showing that they had taken part in the vaccine ritual.
Both of these strategies for vaccine promotion were dependent on mass technologies that reach the entire country. Mass newspapers, television, and social media were required to sustain this message. But they also required individuals (or their parents) to opt in to this ritual performance on the basis of this propaganda.
In both cases, we see this initial enthusiasm is not maintained. Many people gave up taking Covid vaccines after the first booster, and enthusiasm for the Salk vaccine also waned quickly. Problems such as the Cutter incident, in which the vaccine caused poliomyelitis, caused scepticism. In the US, it was replaced by the Sabin vaccine after this vaccine was field tested in countries like the USSR.
Vaccine campaigns in the 20th and 21st centuries have used mass media as a strategy to create emotional linkage to the idea of taking a vaccine. Encouragement to participate in such events are a means of manipulating the public into vaccination. The idea of ‘being part of’ such a mass project by opting in provides meaning and purpose, and allows the individual to believe that they are playing a part in the banishment of evil.
Cassandra's Box 
