What is it like to be a freak of unnature, a thing that should not exist?
Let us think about a world of human beings. Not our ones, dulled by injection, tarred by poison, living in a world of fumes inhaled into our lungs. But ones living without this infliction.
Among those people there would not be a single one like me.
Not a single one
with the awkward gait, not standing up straight, with the left foot arched
with the flickering eyes that give her away, every time
with the twisting hair in wonky braids to calm the twirling hands
with the inability to bear the noise, noise, noise throbbing through her skull
with a virginity tarnished only by needles
with a gap where the nets of connection should be
with the worth dragged out, pulled taut, cut off –
The changeling does not exist in a world of changelings. The point of the changeling is that it is the otherworldly exception, although in our world the needle-rot grows like an invasive species clinging to the rock of healthy humanity. Even still, for now, the changeling exists primarily in a world not of its kind.
There are those, you see, who have everything. Who sit in the soft glow of the lamp with their fellows. Those who have the caress of another, those loved on their bed. Who have no need for the worthless worries of the changeling.
And then there are those who spatter the patio, gone off in the sun. The thick toxification of aluminium, mercury and polysorbate 80 filters upwards, creates a heady sickness. They stand facing the reflected glow of the house, staring at the gifts stripped from their bones like the needle that tore flesh.
No matter how many words there are, no matter how many softpedal claims there are that changelings are special, we see the lack in our bodies and lives.
There can be thousands of different ways that we can feel it.
I feel it most in my chronically untouched skin.
Photo Source: Photo by Zukiman Mohamad on Pexels.com
Author’s note: This post contains discussion of suicide. Unfortunately given the reality of the extremely high suicide rate among ‘high functioning’ autistic people the topic cannot be entirely avoided.
You can hold on to the bars till your knuckles turn white, yet to them your hands float in midair. All they see is the inadequacies and failings that muck your blood, that are written on your face. It doesn’t really matter what their attitude is: one of disdain, one of pity or even one of neutrality: they do not see the cage.
They do not see how the cage was built, how steel is gilded with profit and lies.
They do not see how those who tried to bend the bars so that you could stick your head out through the gap were dragged away.
They do not see those who could not bear the cage any more and strung themselves from the bars, who still hang limp.
What do they see?
They see the TV projected on a flat wall, the talkers united in their message.
They see a pariah, madman, fraud pulling at nothing, trying to release no-one.
They see single isolated tragedies arising from limited failures: ‘a lack of support’, a pledge to do better.
They do not see the cage.
They will talk to you as if there is no cage, their eyes sliding from the bars the way yours will slide from their face. All that you can say is premised on the existence of the cage. All that they can say is premised on the fact that they aren’t in the cage, and in fact there is no cage. You beg them to squint to try to make out its contours and they will walk away.
You will sit on the cage floor, normal humanity cut from you, and you will beg for release. They will walk onwards, glancing back at the madwoman but paying no other interest. Your eyes flicker upwards to those still hanging from the cage. Those walking past say and do nothing. Maybe it’s your time, to rest against the bars constructed for you. Shaking you look up to find a spot that isn’t already taken.
Someone leans on the other side of the cage, looking at you. You realise you recognise them: one of those who tried to bend your bars.
Well, it looks like my new full time job is going to be responding to Kennedy hit pieces in the mainstream media. Steve Silberman, the most notable autism glamouriser, tweeted out the latest hit job, “RFK Jr.’s claims about vaccines and autism are unbecoming of his family’s legacy”, at MSNBC. That’s right, the same MSNBC that hosts Rachel Maddow stating that you won’t get Covid if you get the ‘vaccine’, so I am sure it is a source of the most objective and factual information.
Now according to his twitter this guy, Eric Garcia, is an autist who is flogging books glamourising autism (before you ask, no, I’m not going to read it and write a response, I can only handle small doses of neurodiversity nonsense in one session). However, I couldn’t see any mention of his vaccine injuries in the article. It does seem like that the MSM is getting autists to do these responses; perhaps they think Big Pharma shilling is more effective from disabled people and it gives them that nice identity politics shield to deflect from criticism. All I can say is two can play at that game.
I can’t be the only person who rolled his eyes when Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has helped push the lie that autism is something new and something human beings have caused, said during his presidential campaign announcement this spring that he’s “been around at the spear tip of people with intellectual disabilities” his whole life.
I await with bated breath the strong evidence-based argument in the piece, that I am sure is there, demonstrating all the cases of autism and in particular, severe regressive autism, exists among peoples not exposed to toxicants such as aluminium & very low levels of mercury exposure. I also await the statistical analysis of such societies, showing that the current autism rate of 1 in 30 in the US can be replicated in societies without vaccination.
But it’s disingenuous for the anti-vaccine activist to claim association with his family’s legacy when the crux of his baseless claim that vaccines cause autism is the ugly message that being autistic is bad
Autism is bad.
Why do people always use this disingenuous argument claiming that autism is a disability and then say it isn’t inherently bad? Disabilities are inherently bad, as it means inferior functioning in the specific area of life affected by the disability. If I say having 1 leg is inherently worse than having 2 legs, no-one is going to object. But if I make this argument for the far worse impairment of severe regressive autism, I’m spreading an ‘ugly message’? If you want to claim autism is a disability, you can’t then say it’s not inherently bad. It’s contradictory.
worse even than ushering in the return of potentially deadly transmissible diseases like measles.
As you can see by the time of vaccination introduction measles deaths were very low. The vast majority of people fully recovered. Now of course it’s a true statement that measles is ‘potentially deadly’ since people do die from measles. I have never claimed there is no risk from infection from any disease. However, autism is being destroyed for life. Compare what will most likely be a week’s illness with a crippling, lifelong condition that will tear from you independence, jobs, relationships, and wellbeing. I know what I choose. Perhaps non-autists have the luxury of pretending they’d choose autism, but I don’t.
Before someone wants to argue that autism is superior to measles because measles can kill you and autism does not, this ignores the fact that people do die from autism all the time. Someone once mocked me for this, saying that ‘autism’ isn’t listed on death certificates. What is listed on death certificates are seizures (co-morbid with autism), falls/drowning (more likely with autism due to poor motor control), suicide (‘high functioning’ autistic people have a high risk of suicide). The average life expectancy, in a Swedish study (i.e. a country that is considered very tolerant and with a ‘good’ allopathic medical system, so it’s actually a nice coincidence the study is from there) is 39 for severe autism and 58 for ‘high functioning’ autism. So autism, at best and on average, takes 20-odd years off your life.
This argument, of course, also ignores the fact that the proverbial ‘fate worse than death’ exists.
RFK Jr.’s anti-autism vitriol
Darling, you want ‘anti-autism vitriol’ you’ve come to the right place. Except I’m an autist so I have far more vitriol for that shit than Kennedy.
Seriously though, what vitriol? How is saying ‘vaccines cause autism’ vitriolic? Even if you disagree?
lines up more with the legacy of his grandfather Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., who gave his approval for what is believed to have been the first lobotomy in the U.S. performed on an intellectually disabled person, his oldest daughter, Rose Marie, better known as Rosemary.
Honestly this is a pretty vile comparison. Please state where RFK, Jr. has supported experimental surgeries/medical treatments on disabled people.
The lobotomisers are the big pharma injectors, who steal our minds with their jabs.
The Kennedy patriarch saw disability as something to be ashamed of. Similarly, RFK Jr.’s history of linking vaccines to autism encourages parents to not only be ashamed of having a child with autism
How so?
Also I thought you were all supposed to using ‘autistic child’ and not ‘child with autism’ now as per the Neurodiversity Woke Rules.
but also to blame themselves for having caused it by having that child vaccinated against infectious childhood diseases.
Yes, a parent who sees their child regress after a vaccine, if they are honest with themselves, will blame themselves for injecting the child with the vaccine. Now the balance of blame here is a tricky question and deserves its own discussion, but (and I am going to get a bollocking for this one) I think some of that self-blame is justified.
It then goes into a discussion on the history of the Kennedys which I’m not going to discuss because it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of this article.
A controversial 1998 paper claimed vaccines caused autism, but it was later retracted. Subsequent studies have not found a connection. A 2019 Danish study found that children who received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine were 7% less likely to be diagnosed with autism.
In my previous article I mentioned the Wakefield Gambit as used by provaxxers:
The Wakefield Gambit, as used by provaxxers, is something like this: Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism and he is a bad man and a fraud so therefore vaccines don’t cause autism. Despite obviously being fallacious, the main purpose of this argument is to erase other doctors or experts that have researched this topic (Dr. Exley, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Bradstreet, for example) by implying it’s only Dr. Wakefield who said it and then that if they can discredit him they can discredit the whole thing.
This is Wakefield Gambit Mark 2: because the cases discussed in the 1998 Lancet paper specifically referred to regression into autism after the MMR vaccine, provaxxers will deflect by looking only at MMR and ignoring both a) other vaccines individually and b) the cumulative effect of multiple injections. The MMR vaccine can of course trigger autism but so can other vaccines. The link provided in the article doesn’t link to the study itself, it just links to another article, and as far as I can tell that article doesn’t link the study, either.
The New York Times reported the next month that within a two-year period, five of RFK Jr.’s eight surviving siblings had publicly rebuked him for comments he’d made about vaccines.
So? There’s people in my family who think antivaxxers are nuts too, so what?
That’s what made a reference to his family’s history so galling when he kicked off his campaign.
So your argument is RFK, Jr. is not allowed to have a differing view of his family’s legacy than other members of the family?
Unbelievably, the candidate said at a town hall meeting Wednesday, “I’ve never been anti-vaccine.” He said his position is that they should be tested for safety after he claimed falsely that they’re not.
Kennedy knows that vaccine trials are crap, you obviously do not.
Let’s take Gardasil as an example. What was the ‘placebo’ in the Gardasil trial? The aluminium adjuvant. Not saline. This allowed the vaccine manufacturers to hide adverse events – as the aluminium triggered adverse events where saline would not, the manufacturers could write off events in the vaccine group as ‘background’ and not related to the vaccine.
Honestly though, I’d prefer Kennedy say he’s antivax.
He’s essentially arguing that mental illness and disability are reasons to be ashamed
Where has he said this or even implied it? If you want to use me as an example, I can assure you, the shame I feel far predates my interest in antivaxxers.
I am very disappointed. I never got that extensive documentation of an autism rate of 1 in 30 in preindustrial societies I was looking for.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is currently serving as an important hate figure for the mainstream media and establishment, due to his run for US President and his opposition to the mRNA/adenovirus vector covid ‘vaccines’ and scepticism of the CDC childhood vaccination schedule. In particular, his belief that vaccines cause autism is unacceptable to the establishment. That establishment, a fundamental pillar of which is the vaccine cult, finds the idea of truths stated by RFK, Jr. about vaccines becoming more widespread impossible to countenance. However the establishment has a huge problem: they have overplayed their hand with Covid by pushing such a deadly, obviously unsafe, and obviously ineffective product. This has caused many previously pro-vaccine people to be open to ideas such as ‘vaccines cause autism’ in a way that simply wasn’t the case before 2020. The establishment has now gone into defensive mode to protect the vaccine cult, as the idea that vaccines cause autism, and thus have completely destroyed lives, is something the establishment cannot admit because it will be a very big blow (possibly fatal, we can live in hope) to the vaccine paradigm.
As such, the establishment needs as many hit pieces on RFK, Jr. as they can muster. The latest anti-RFK, Jr. article is out, written by Matthew Rozsa, an autistic man very fond of the neurodiversity paradigm, claiming that RFK, Jr. hates autistic people.
I have posted a couple of responses to him on Twitter, pointing out the reality of those who are severely impaired by autism, but so far have been ignored.
So let’s break the article down. As usual, the only way I will be able to deal with such weapons-grade bullshit is by chucking some sarcasm in there. For those who happen to be new to this page, I have an autism diagnosis so I have personal experience of the lies this guy is trying to sell.
Let’s start with the subheading:
RFK Jr. says he advocates for the marginalized, but built his career spreading harmful lies about autistic people
Kennedy hasn’t ‘built his career’ talking about the issue of vaccines and autism, since this ignores all of Kennedy’s environmental work before he got into the vaccine issue and realised that mercury in vaccines was causing harm alongside the mercury in the air and water.
[E]xperts agree on one thing: The views that RFK Jr. espouses cause significant harm to real-life autistic individuals.
As opposed to what? Non-real life fake autistic individuals?
I haven’t been harmed in any way by Kennedy or anything he has said.
Autistic people have been victimized by RFK Jr. for decades.
‘Victimized for decades’. Because he agrees that vaccines cause autism. Get a grip, honestly, if you are that sensitive.
RFK Jr. has never retracted his views or apologized for his incorrect statement that thimerosal in childhood vaccines can be linked to a rise in autism.
Because there is no reason to retract them. Mercury is toxic and causes harm to the brain. This is proven. That there is some sort of ‘good’ mercury that doesn’t harm the brain is provaxxer nonsense.
Quite to the contrary, he has started applying his formula of “use bad science to persecute marginalized groups” in brand new ways, such as falsely stating that the rise in “sexual dysphoria” is caused by “chemical exposures” despite there being extensively documented historical andscientificvalidation of transgender identities.
Oh we have got to get at least one reference to ‘trans women are the most marginalised people on the planet’ have we?
The so-called ‘historical’ validation of ‘transgenderism’ usually amounts to pointing to societies that had special categorisations for same-sex attracted males that classified them as some third group (and not as male). They were not considered to be actual women. The implication that these ‘third genders’ were in some way politically progressive – when they are based on homophobia and misogyny – is also false. The other argument for ‘historical’ validation of ‘transgenderism’ I have seen used is claiming that women who disguised themselves as men due to sexism to access certain positions were actually ‘transgender’, or women who had a stereotypically male role, such as Joan of Arc, were actually ‘transgender’. This is obviously regressive nonsense based on stereotypes and just a way to claim a historical lineage for modern ideas.
Also, as argued by 4thWaveNow, the phenomena of ‘trans kids’ who will die if not ‘affirmed’ has no historical basis:
Try as I might, I was unable to discover any evidence of ancient trans kids who so hated their own bodies that they demanded either psychological or medical interventions. No records of boys wanting to hack off their penises or girls desperate for “top surgery” to remove their despised breasts. It’s quite certain, given their zeal for surgical interventions, that the ancient physicians [in Greece and Rome] would have been more than happy to oblige; after all, if they could perform surgeries to treat urethral strictures and cataracts, a double mastectomy or penile remodeling would not have daunted them. Even experimental attempts would have been documented.
The ‘scientific’ validation studies are generally brain scans, claiming that men who call themselves women have more similar brains to women than men. However these studies often don’t control for homosexual attraction and if a man has already taken female hormones that will affect his brain. Of course a male having a stereotypically ‘feminine’ brain (if such a thing even exists) doesn’t make him a woman since every cell in that brain is a male cell with XY chromosomes, etc.
On the other hand, Kennedy’s assertion that certain chemicals could cause gender dysphoria, or contribute to it, is scientifically plausible. We know that phthalates mimic estrogen, for example. That this mimicking could be a factor affecting gender dysphoria in boys or men is certainly possible. I think there is a large social/monetary aspect to this, so I don’t think endocrine disruptors are the only cause of the ‘transgender’ insanity we see today. However that they could contribute is plausible (even the article linked by the writer claims that Kennedy ‘in part’ blamed chemical exposures).
Furthermore, do you care to comment on the obscenely high amount of autistic people going in for ‘gender transition’? In fact, being as you think that autism is genetic and the fact that ‘gender’ treatments like puberty blockers followed by wrong sex hormones sterilise children, shouldn’t you be calling this eugenics?
It is very common for autistic people to encounter anti-vaxxers who claim that their neurology is somehow a mistake. Because they buy into the perennial RFK Jr. assertion that vaccines cause autism and other neurological disorders, they make the next logical leap that another person’s autism is “wrong.”
Of course it is ‘wrong’. It’s a disability, therefore it involves inferior functioning in some way. That’s what the word ‘disability’ means. The implication here is that calling autism ‘wrong’ is some sort of moral judgement on the vaccine-injured person but that is not the case.
Even if this attitude is intended sympathetically rather than contemptuously (which is definitely not always the case), the anti-vaxxer logic still causes neurotypicals to ablesplain about how autism really works — or to outright discriminate against them.
You are assuming that there are two groups, neurodiversity promoting autists and ‘neurotypical’ antivaxxers. But autistic people can also be antivaxxers. I know I am one. We can also recognise that our problems come from vaccines. I do.
So do you want my back-of-a-fag-packet explanation of autism?: Autism is a form of iatrogenically induced brain/gastroenterological inflammation, in most cases created by the toxicants in vaccination such as aluminium.
Many autistic people have a dim view of RFK Jr. for that reason.
I don’t.
Steve Silberman, author of the book of “NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity,”
Who isn’t an autist and knows nothing about the misery of autism. I thought you didn’t want non-disabled people explaining autism to disabled people. Or is it ok if the non-disabled person wants to glamourise autism for money/clout/woke points?
Silberman ticked off two of the most infamous examples: RFK Jr. regularly using the term “vaccine-injured” to refer to autistic people
Because we are vaccine-injured. Honestly why are people so offended by this? If I refer to someone who lost a leg in a car crash as car-crash-injured no-one is going to give a shit.
and in 2015 describing vaccinated autistic children to Bill Maher by saying “their brain is gone.”
Maybe not the best turn of phrase but you know damn well what he means. You know damn well he is referring to those children who were developing normally, were given vaccine/s and horrifically regressed, lost speech, lost eye contact, lost the capacity to use toilet alone, starting having seizures, had severe gastrointestinal issues, etc.
“Grotesque statements like this present people on the spectrum as entirely lacking in humanity, agency and the potential for development — as if they were zombies,” Silberman explained.
Nothing Kennedy has said has even implied autistic people are not human. That is a lie.
As for ‘agency’ and ‘potential for development’ well it really depends on the severity of the vaccine injury. The reality is that severely autistic people have very little agency or potential for development. If someone is so severely impaired they need 24/7 care what agency and potential do they have? You can call this statement ‘ableism’ till you’re blue in the face but it’s just fact. Of course, that may change if they receive treatment for their vaccine injuries and recover some capacities destroyed by vaccines, but you are against treatment for autism so what else do you suggest?
“He compares autistic people to Holocaust victims, which does a grave injustice to both autistic people and Jews. And even in apologizing for that comparison, he described autism as ‘shattering’ families, when some of the most loving and supportive families I know are the families of autistic people.”
Silberman isn’t the mother of those children so he can walk away at any time. I have no doubt some of these parents are genuinely supportive but he needs to try and consider the reality of caring for a severely impaired child 24/7/365. For example, they may require 24 hour supervision, cannot use the toilet alone, can have seizures (which includes risk of death). Furthermore they grow up. Imagine you are a 5′ 5″ mother attempting to subdue your severely ill, autistic, 6′, 20-year-old son when he is lashing out in a fit of violent rage due to sensory overload and then get back to me.
It is also true that the strain of severe autism on a family can lead to divorce, the severely disabled child requires all the attention 24/7 so siblings are neglected, etc. Again, this is fantasyland stuff from Silberman.
“The main problem that autistic people and their families face is the lack of support and resources across the life span, but Kennedy condemns the ‘crippling’ cost of providing disabled students with access to education, using an ableist slur to complain about resources that were fought-for by generations of disabled people and their families,” Silberman pointed out.
So this man, who isn’t autistic, is telling autistic people what our ‘main problem’ in life is. While this article preaches about ‘non-disabled people explaining autism to autistics’. Yeah piss off.
‘Crippling cost’ of so and so is a pretty stock phrase. Neurodiversity activists want to have this both ways. They want to claim autism is a disability when they want accommodations or money but then want to glamourise & claim it’s just a ‘difference’ and does not imply inferior functioning. These two claims contradict each other. Pick one.
“It increases vaccine hesitancy and people choosing not to give their kids vaccines, and that increases the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases,” Zoe Gross, director of Advocacy at the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, told Salon. Perhaps the most prominent instance of this occurred in 2015, when nearly 200 people were sickened with measles despite the disease having been eradicated 15 years earlier due to parents not vaccinating their children.
Yes the point of vaccine scepticism is to try and get people to not give their children poison injections, well done for figuring that out.
I said this with Covid and I’ll say it again: ‘cases’ of a disease are irrelevant. If someone gets sick for a week with measles, so what? This nonsense that we can simply eradicate disease with the needle and we never have to be sick from anything ever is a ridiculous provaxxer fantasy.
“You can see that these are people who would rather have their kids get vaccine-preventable diseases and potentially die than do something that they think erroneously risks their kids becoming autistic. That’s a pretty bleak view of autism.”
Reality is a pretty bleak view of autism.
Life expectancy of 36-39.5 for the low functioning cases, 58 for the high functioning ones, 78% unemployment rate, misery of sensory issues, high anxiety, loneliness, non verbal, seizures, can’t use the toilet on their own, gastroenterological problems…yeah why would a parent not want that for their child? If you’re offended by this, you’re offended by reality. Feel free to go off in the corner and be offended by reality but the rest of us don’t have to take you seriously.
As a result, Waltz described how in the 1990s the “‘do your own research’ crowd” created a climate wherein “autistic children were written off by most schools and psychologists, parents were left without the services they and their children needed, and autistic adults weren’t even in the conversation.”
Yeah the reason that autism got no funding was antivaxxers, because we all know that antivaxxers are all-powerful & control the reins of the government purse.
They also encouraged the view that autism is an “epidemic,” so that research goes toward “curing” it instead of things like “local charities and services that were helping children, families and adults, and diverted funds away from the research into education, social care, family support, housing and employment that would help actually existing autistic people and those who care about them.”
How is this not an epidemic? Please explain with a rational argument, and not ‘those mean antivaxxers said it’.
Again, antivaxxers aren’t the ones controlling the money. I know you all think we’ve all got mansions and shit but for the vast majority of us: no.
“His insistence that autism is a recent phenomenon caused by vaccines or chemical pollutants erases generations of autistic people who were often misdiagnosed with conditions like childhood schizophrenia, and subjected to cruel ‘treatments’ including lobotomies and brutal punishments for autistic behavior that included electric shocks,” Silberman observed.
Except those treatments were very late 19th/20th century (lobotomy) or became popular in the second half of the 19th century with origins in the 17th/18th century (electroshock), so they have been mostly used well into the vaccine & pollutant era. Schizophrenia is also quite a modern term, coined in 1900. In fact, like vaccines, these ideas are largely an invention of the modern Victorian medical paradigm. So this does not prove the long history of autism. You need to be proving the mass cases of regressive autism among peoples like the Greeks and the Romans to prove it’s normal (I say Greeks and Romans because they had good records so it would be possible to prove, but completely non-settled pre-agricultural societies where there would be little/no exposure to mercury would be best).
Furthermore, electroshock therapy is still used by psychiatry. Does Silberman consider that to be barbaric as well? I don’t have a problem condemning it, but it involves condemning the modern medical establishment and well, we can’t question ‘The Science’. We wouldn’t want to be considered ‘conspiracy theorists’ now would we?
“That’s precisely the opposite of the truth — in fact, study after study has shown that the broadening of the diagnostic criteria was instrumental in boosting estimates of autism prevalence, as I discuss at length in my book NeuroTribes.”
No-one is saying that this is completely irrelevant, but the idea of something going from 1 in 10000 to 1 in 36 just because of extra diagnostic criteria is absurd on its face.
But let’s just quote Toby Rogers:
Well perhaps the increase in autism prevalence is just the result of better awareness (and what’s called “diagnostic expansion and substitution”)? The state of California funded two multimillion dollar to examine sharply rising prevalence in the state and whether it was the result of social factors. The first study was led by pediatric epidemiologist Robert S. Byrd at UC Davis who directed a team of investigators at UC Davis and UCLA. The investigators concluded that, “The observed increase in autism cases cannot be explained by a loosening in the criteria used to make the diagnosis” and “children served by the State’s Regional Centers are largely native born and there has been no major migration of children into California that would explain the increase in autism” (Byrd et al., 2002).
The state of California revisited this question in 2009 with a study led by the top environmental epidemiologist in the state — Irva Hertz-Picciotto at the UC Davis Mind Institute. This study concluded that changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and earlier age at diagnosis explain about a quarter to a third of the total increase in autism (Hertz-Picciotto & Delwiche, 2009). In a subsequent interview with Scientific American, Hertz-Picciotto explained that these three factors “don’t get us close” to explaining the sharp rise in autism over that time period and she urged the scientific community to take a closer look at environmental factors (Cone, 2009).
The entire conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism can be traced back to 1998, when a British doctor named Andrew Wakefield published a study in the medical journal The Lancet claiming that children who were given the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR vaccine) developed autism.
Oh goodie the obligatory Wakefield-bashing. Do they ever get tired of stating the same shit? Where would provaxxers be without Andy Wakefield to bash a few more times?
The Wakefield Gambit, as used by provaxxers, is something like this: Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism and he is a bad man and a fraud so therefore vaccines don’t cause autism. Despite obviously being fallacious, the main purpose of this argument is to erase other doctors or experts that have researched this topic (Dr. Exley, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Bradstreet, for example) by implying it’s only Dr. Wakefield who said it and then that if they can discredit him they can discredit the whole thing. Perversely this argument then ends up giving Andy Wakefield all the credit as the single handed destroyer of vaccine ‘science’ which is probably the opposite of what they want to achieve given how much they hate him.
Let’s address the actual argument. If I have said this once, I have said it a hundred times. The people who claimed that the children developed autism after the MMR vaccine were the parents of the children. Wakefield was simply willing to listen rather than automatically gaslight the parents. Read the goddamned Lancet study.
Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children
“That’s not the same as saying that autistic people and their families are always just fine,” Waltz clarified. “We’ve created a society that excludes more and more people from the norm, and we could do something about that by changing our attitudes and behaviors regarding human diversity. But of course there is also that one-quarter to one-third of the autistic population who also have intellectual disabilities, and there are those with very severe sensory perceptual issues or additional medical needs (for example, due to seizure disorders, which are more common in autistic people).”
Oh now you acknowledge those severely impaired by autism. Right at the bottom. Because they aren’t glamourous enough for ~neurodiversity~.
Also the framing on these things annoys me as it tries to minimise the problem of the autism, and makes the problem about ‘lack of acceptance’. No the problem is the damn autism. Funnily enough no-one’s expressed any real hate towards me for autism but that hasn’t managed to magically cure my severe anxiety and my sensory issues (fortunately I have managed to cure the severe anxiety with Dr. Chris Exley’s method) but the neurodiversity activists pretend that if people are nice to me I would have little or no problem. That’s without even mentioning severe autism.
These individuals need help in the form of social services. What they definitely don’t need, Waltz said, is “to be someone’s ‘experiment of one’ to be put through potentially harmful therapies and treatments, not someone to be over-medicated for behavior control rather than medical need, not someone to be institutionalized or abused.”
Where has Kennedy suggested ‘over-medicating’ autistic children? I’m guessing given Kennedy’s stance on Pharma, he’d be opposed. Isn’t it the establishment who think drugs for every ‘mental health’ problem are good and that if you object you are ‘pill shaming’? This article is meant to be criticising Kennedy and well if it isn’t a claim Kennedy has made I don’t see the relevance.
Image source: Photo by Mateus Henrique on Pexels.com
Our society, and particularly since the introduction of the ‘Covid pandemic’ in 2020, is heavily focused towards the promotion of experts. Experts, according to the technocratic elite, are the kind of people we need to run our society, particularly when it comes to ‘scientific’ policies. In reality, however, experts do not represent a ‘neutral’ science but in fact serve as representatives of economic interests. This can be seen with, for example, the United Kingdom’s alleged ‘expert’ Neil Ferguson and his incorrect predictions, who served as simply a technocratic cover for policies the establishment wanted to institute. However, it can also be seen in the case of experts with genuinely impeccable credentials, who are only interested in truth, who the establishment will not consider because their views oppose certain economic interests. This article will discuss Dr. Christopher Exley, an expert (or possibly the expert) on the negative health effects of human exposure to aluminium, and media coverage of his work.
Who is Dr. Christopher Exley?
Dr. Christopher Exley is one of the most highly credentialed, credible people in the ‘health freedom/vaccine sceptic’ movement, who is known for speaking out about the risks of human aluminium exposure, including aluminium adjuvants in vaccination. Dr. Exley is a former Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, UK. He completed his Ph.D. on the topic of aluminium and acid rain and the effects on fish. In total he has published around 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the issue of aluminium.
One of the most notable issues he has addressed is the issue of aluminium exposure and Alzheimer’s disease, and how the two are connected. The idea that Alzheimer’s disease is caused by aluminium in the brain is somewhat controversial due to the necessity of aluminium to modern life. More specifically, it threatens the profits made by those in the aluminium industry, as well as those from expensive big pharma drugs, which have been a miserable failure in treating Alzheimer’s disease. For example, the Alzheimer’s Society, like all major charities, part of the establishment, has the following to say:
However, multiple other small and large scale studies have failed to find a convincing causal association between aluminium exposure in humans and Alzheimer’s disease.
Aluminium was found in all 144 tissues and its concentration ranged from 0.01 to 35.65 μg/g dry wt. (Table 1). The mean aluminium content for whole brains (n = 12) ranged from 0.34(0.26) for individual A1 to 6.55(9.59) μg/g dry wt. for individual A8. Approximately 40% of tissues (57/144) had an aluminium content considered as pathologically-concerning (≥2.00 μg/g dry wt.) while approximately 58% of these tissues had an aluminium content considered as pathologically-significant (≥3.00 μg/g dry wt.). The brains of 11 out of 12 individuals had at least one tissue with a pathologically-significant content of aluminium.
In 2018, he and his colleagues published an even more controversial paper on aluminium in brain tissue in autism, that found autistic brains had extremely high aluminium levels:
The aluminium content of brain tissue in autism was consistently high. The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively. These are some of the highest values for aluminium in human brain tissue yet recorded and one has to question why, for example, the aluminium content of the occipital lobe of a 15 year old boy would be 8.74 (11.59) μg/g dry wt.?
This paper was extremely controversial due to its implication that the aluminium adjuvants in vaccination enter the brain and cause autistic symptoms. The study even demonstrated the mechanism by which this happens, that the aluminium is ‘swallowed’ at the injection site by macrophages, and then is transported to the brain. The macrophages can remain loaded up with aluminium in the blood. Transportation to the brain takes place when there is an event in the brain, causing the brain to ‘call for help’ from macrophages. The aluminium is then dumped in the brain by these macrophages. In autism the aluminium ends up largely in the glial and microglial cells, which negatively affect the pruning of neurons in the brain (it is a reasonable assumption that this leads to the sensory issues seen in autism as the unsuccessfully pruned neurons latch on to the incorrect sensory triggers). As argued by the website Vaccine Papers, this aluminium triggers the IL-6 inflammation pathway, leading to extremely high levels of anxiety and dysfunction.
Media Coverage of Dr. Exley’s Research Example 1: The Camelford Poisoning
The next parts of this article seek to compare the coverage of Dr. Chris Exley in the mainstream media before and after the autism paper was published. While there are different examples of the media discussing his work including a few on his general Alzheimer’s research, this article will focus on the Camelford poisoning and its aftermath.
Camelford is a village in Cornwall. Aluminium sulphate, meant to be used in an early stage of water purification, was dunked into the wrong tank by an inept delivery driver back in 1988, leading to the direct presence of extremely high levels of aluminium in the drinking water in Camelford. This led to large amounts of complaints about the quality of the drinking water from Camelford residents, they complained that the water was black, sticky and caused the milk in tea to curdle. The authorities, of course, called this water safe and did not warn people of the risks of drinking the water. People from Camelford suffered from significant health problems both during the aluminium exposure and afterwards.
Exley’s paper describes the symptoms suffered by Carole Cross before her death:
In May 2003 the woman, by then aged 58 years, was referred for investigation of deterioration of her mental state, which extended back over a period of several months. She had developed difficulty in finding words, problems with simple calculations and a heightened tendency to visual hallucinations. She also complained of headaches. On examination, she was unable to name objects or carry out any but very simple commands. By February 2004 she was aphasic, had lost weight and appeared anxious. Tone had now increased in the legs and there was an abnormal startle response and limited up gaze. She continued to deteriorate and died in April 2004.
It also describes what was found upon examination of Carole Cross’ brain.
Aluminium is usually found in brain tissue in the range of 0–2 μg/g dry weight.3 Aluminium in the brain cortex in this case ranged from values typical of Alzheimer’s disease, 3–7 μg/g dry weight,3 to one value, 11.01 μg/g dry weight, similar to that found in aluminium-induced encephalopathies4,5 to a higher value, 23.00 μg/g dry weight, typical of dialysis-associated encephalopathies.4,6
Several different mainstream media articles have cited Exley’s comments on the Camelford poisoning and the inquest of Carole Cross.
Here are some varying examples of Camelford poisoning coverage featuring Dr. Exley. This article, from 2014, portrays Exley as a scientist seeking to get to the heart of a government coverup:
At the forefront of the campaign to expose the link [between the poisoning and deaths in Camelford] is Christopher Exley, a professor in bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University, who examined Mr Gibbons’s brain after his death.
At last month’s inquest into Mr Gibbons’s death, Prof Exley reported finding a mean reading of 4.35 micrograms (mcg) of aluminium per gram of dry tissue in samples.
‘This is abnormally high,’ he told the coroner. ‘If one finds above one, it is a little unusual, if it is above two it is a bit more unusual but the level we have here is significantly high.’
This interview refers to him as ‘one of the world’s leading experts on aluminium’:
This article leads with Exley’s comments on the fact that the Camelford poisoning was ignored:
A scientist has described the Camelford water contamination as a “mass poisoning of 20,000 people that was ignored for 22 years”. Dr Chris Exley was giving evidence at the inquest of Carole Cross who lived in the area at the time of the contamination.
Prof Exley, from Keele University, told the inquest in Taunton that although the incident happened 24 years ago, if people living in Camelford at that time were to drink daily at least one litre of mineral water with a high silicon content of more than 30mg, it would help remove aluminium from their brains.
All of these articles clearly consider Dr. Exley to be a relevant authority on aluminium poisoning, Alzheimer’s disease and its causes and that it is perfectly legitimate to cite his work. Many of the articles have a favourable tone towards his, such as the Daily Mail article, whereas others are more neutral, but there is no indication that he is not an authority.
Media Coverage of Dr. Exley’s Research Example 2: The Autism Paper
Most of the articles on the Camelford poisoning mentioning Dr. Exley were published during 2010-2014, before Exley’s autism research and paper was published (in 2018). So let’s see how the media’s tone has changed regarding Exley’s work.
The Guardian, for example, claimed that he ‘angered health experts’ as if this is an inherently bad thing:
Prof Chris Exley angered health experts for claiming that tiny amounts of aluminium in inactivated vaccines, such as the HPV and whooping cough inoculations, may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.
Prof Heidi J Larson, director of the Vaccine Confidence Project based at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said social media companies should partner with scientists to combat vaccine disinformation online.
“Social media companies have the expertise and access to adjust the algorithms to mitigate rather than amplify negative information, but identifying which content is inaccurate and potentially causing illness or death should be guided by health and scientific experts.”
Note how a man they cited as an expert during the Camelford Poisoning has now become a ‘disinformation spreader’ due to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The article essentially argues that Exley’s paper should be silenced by throttling any sort of reach on social media.
A later article again emphasises the ‘misinformation’ angle, again trying to get all funding for his research stopped (which eventually happened):
A British academic who has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation has raised more than £150,000 through a university donations portal to support his research during the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal.
Another article, from the Mirror, discusses the silica water detox for aluminium. Note above, in the previous mainstream media article, that the idea of the silica water detox to remove aluminium is presented completely neutrally, it is neither endorsed nor criticised. The article from the Mirror is focused on smearing the company Silica Waters rather than about Exley directly. But of course as they Silica Waters company cites Exley’s research as a reason to promote the product the article is aimed at Exley in that sense.
But a People probe revealed that the scientist who wrote the papers the company relies upon is controversial academic Professor Chris Exley, who works at Keele University, Staffordshire.
Outside of the ridiculous idea of needing a ‘probe’ to ‘reveal’ the fact that Dr. Chris Exley is the scientist who is most associated with silica and aluminium research, the article is there to suggest that the silica water protocol does not work. However, despite trying to imply that Dr. Exley is is some way guilty of impropriety, the article offers no evidence or rational argument as to why the protocol does not work. They also cite what I call a neurodiversity parent who claims that the company is bad and exploitative, but again provides no rational argument as to why the silica water protocol is ineffective.
Conclusion
The topic of vaccine injury, and specifically the idea that vaccines can cause autism, is a red line that any person, no matter how many credentials they have cannot cross without the wrath of the establishment being poured down upon them. I have no doubt that some of Dr. Exley’s claims that he published prior to the autism paper were not popular with the establishment. Nevertheless the mainstream media accepted his expertise when it came to the Camelford poisoning and quoted him approvingly. The case of Dr. Exley neatly reveals the hypocrisy of the establishment when it comes to experts and how an expert is only an expert so long as they do not cross certain lines, beyond which they – as if by magic – become a ‘purveyor of disinformation’.
Image source: Photo by Leonid Altman on Pexels.com
Vaccination was invented during the transition from the feudal age to the capitalist age, the transition from the spiritual age to the scientific age. As such vaccination is touted as one of the major achievements of that scientific age that is said to mark human progress. The official narrative regarding vaccination is this upward trajectory of saving lives through the conquest of disease. As Nature is subjected to conquest by the machines of the Industrial Revolution, and the ‘savages’ that represent Nature are subject to conquest by the gun, Nature’s ‘weapon’ against Man, disease, is subject to conquest by the needle.
Such a narrative, of course, is entirely reductionist: as the holistic skill of the artisan was reduced to excruciating specialism in a tiny part of a whole by the capitalist mode of production, the intricate complexity of the human immune system, with interlocking parts not fully understood by even the most advanced immunologist, is reduced to a crude production of antibodies by vaccination. The inevitable interplay of microbes and humans – distorted by the strain of industrial societies on the human immune system – is reduced to a one sided narrative of war.
Vaccination is the conquest of nature, but also represents the domination of man over woman, male supremacy. Before the modern era medicine was often the preserve of the wise woman or witch. The demonisation of such women was vital, crucial for the domination of the male doctor to fully emerge. Vaccination is merely the ultimate step in that domination. Forgive me a little psychoanalytic speculation – the injection is his hard, throbbing prick; through it the doctor spreads his seed and creates twisted, broken children in his image, this makes him a god. Mother speaks reality, ‘my child was not like this before the vaccine’, and the male doctor and the male medical establishment silence her.
The Cult of the Needle
Vaccination is nothing but an invention of the most dogmatic religion ever known to man. That religion is science, shall we say, science of a most specific kind. Not science in the sense of gathering of evidence and a critical mindset, but science as conquest. And not religion in the sense of spirituality, the perception of the Divine, or any such thing, but religion in the sense of a formal doctrinaire belief beyond question.
That science and that religion exist as a crude, one sided reduction of reality into terms that can be written in a slogan: ‘Vaccines save lives’, ‘Vaccines are safe and effective’, ‘Without vaccines we would all die of measles/polio/Covid’. Vaccines are not science, because vaccination never has to prove itself scientific. The crude, ridiculous, absurd, notion of vaccination – the fundamental lie – that needle = antibodies = protection – cannot be scientific in any sense other than that of the most vulgar scientism. That these antibodies exist is in itself considered proof of faith. No-one has to prove these antibodies mean anything – we found them, so that means vaccination works. Even in the absurd case with Covid – where the manufacturers stated that these antibodies are not a proven established correlate of protection – the vaccinal antibody is exalted as the ultimate evidence.
The Vaccination Cycle of Abuse
As vaccination spreads throughout society, becomes the norm, the accepted, the beatified, so develops the vaccination cycle of abuse. Those that are vaccinated as children become damaged by that vaccination. The toxins in the vaccines enter the brain and begin to wreak their havoc.
What happens to these people? I am not talking about those killed or severely maimed by vaccination here, but rather those who go on to have somewhat normal lives. They help to build the vaccination-industrial complex you see around you. They go to work in the hospitals which promote vaccination. They go to work in the schools that promote vaccination. They go to work in the GPs’ offices that dole out vaccination. They go to work at the universities that produce scientific papers justifying vaccination. They work at the Pharma companies that produce vaccination. They work at the banks that finance the vaccine companies. They work at other businesses involved in the supply chain of goods to these industries that promote vaccination, and more and more, with ‘covid’ directly promote vaccination themselves. They donate to charities that promote vaccination in developing countries. They vote for the politicians that promote vaccination. Their taxes fund vaccination. Their pension funds invest in vaccination. And most of all, they perpetuate the vaccine crime against their own children. Everyone who lives in Vaccine Society contributes to the perpetration of Vaccine Society, to a greater or lesser extent.
The collective immorality of this system in itself helps to sustain it. That something is so normalised makes it hard to believe that it could be so depraved. But it also binds us together by guilt – to take part in it is to be guilty – even to the extent that one has no choice to survive in the world. The people working in the healthcare institutions – the people who have the potential to see the most harm from vaccination – are those most intertwined with the guilt of producing the damaged goods on the vaccine conveyor belt, those who are most indoctrinated into the vaccination cult. A mixture of factors sustains this: denial being one of the most important. Some see it, but live that contradiction. Maybe they don’t directly give vaccinations and justify that their role in the system does more good than harm. Or perhaps it’s just self interest – everyone knows that questioning vaccines simply isn’t good for your career – and damn, years of your life went into making that career. For some, it is pure sadism, gratuitous pleasure in the cycle of abuse. And some will quietly exit, seek ‘oblivion in suicide’1 when they can no longer bear their role as society’s perverse god. Only a small number leave the mainstream medical profession and speak out and accept the demonisation of society.
To the extent that there is any hope for humanity the only solution can be vaccination abolition. The cult of vaccination must be broken.
Unfortunately many are still lost in the cult, and with the mRNA ‘vaccines’ and the risks of that poison getting into the germ line (we know it congregates in the gonads) that makes any task of saving humanity from this madness ever harder. It may already be too late for an unpolluted humanity to exist outside of Africa, which is very lightly ‘vaccinated’. In fact I think any salvation may rest on how many of those doses were saline (or so degraded to produce no mRNA biological effect) – I know there has been a large amount of speculation about this question. I take no position though the clear difference between batches and reported ‘vaccine’ injuries does prove that some doses are more dangerous than others (but doesn’t necessarily prove that the less bad batches contained saline or extremely degraded product). The possibility that babies from birth are spike protein factories as induced via their mother’s ‘vaccination’ for Covid is utterly horrifying but the idea must be broached. There could be other effects induced via the lipid nanoparticles as these could affect the ova and sperm in the gonads (even upon the theory that the Covid virus doesn’t exist although if that theory is true we are in a stronger position).
What must we do?
The first thing we have to do is look at ourselves. Obviously, we need to decline and reject every single vaccination for ourselves, our children. But much harder than this, we need to try and walk away from the system as much as possible. No-one can avoid some complicity in the system unless they are willing to starve to death. But you need to try and position yourself in a job role where you are doing the least amount of harm and have the least amount of complicity possible in vaccination. Certainly the vast majority of people working in healthcare – any mainstream medical institution – should leave and refuse complicity in the system any longer. If you donate to charity, you should stop, although I imagine that most people reading this don’t. This is because charities claiming to do good work abroad promote and push vaccination, and pretty much all of them promote the Covid ‘vaccine’. Many of them, such as National Autistic Society or Alzheimer’s Society, exist to normalise the effects of the poisoning we undergo. Even pet charities promote pet vaccination. There may be local/smaller groups that are an exception to this rule but the larger ones probably should be avoided.
The harder part is accepting our pariah status. The above things can be done quietly. If you talk about this issue you will become a pariah. There is no other choice. So psychologically prepare yourself for that role. Many people, of course, have already experienced this pariah status via their objection to the Official Covid Narrative and so are prepared to take their pariah status to the next level by becoming fully anti-vaccine. We must get as many of the people who questioned the Covid ‘vaccine’ (whether before, or after, taking it) over to the fully anti-vaccine side. People who have children and did not inject them with the Covid poison are top of this list (in order to protect the children from other vaccinations – sadly those fanatical enough to inject their children with the Covid shot probably cannot be saved. I want to save all children, of course, but I don’t have a practical solution on this point).
As for healing from vaccination damage? Of course, we should try to bend societal resources towards real help for the vaccine-injured. But for some of us, it is already too late. The poisons have already wreaked too much havoc, we are already too damaged to live in a sane, post-vaccine society. We cannot relate to healthy humanity, nor do we understand it. So the war cannot be for ourselves. It is for those for whom it is not too late, whoever that remains to be.
Thomas Szasz’s phraseology in The Manufacture of Madness, discussing the high suicide rate among psychiatrists. “The oppressor [becomes] a megalomanical, godlike figure. Once [the psychiatrist realises] that he is but a mockery of God, the result is often explosive violence…the victimiser [seeks] oblivion in suicide.”, Syracuse University Press, 1970, p. 41. Doctors are known to have a higher suicide rate than the general population. Mainstream opinion puts this down to higher exposure to death due to the profession. While death desensitation plays a role in suicide, in my opinion, Szasz’s theory is closer to the mark.
Image Source: Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich on Pexels.com
I put my hands around your neck, loosely, no risk of causing harm. You whimper, moan. For a second you look at me with big brown eyes that could seem innocent, except I can’t fully read them because they immediately flit from my face. My right hand forces your chin upward so you can’t escape my gaze. Still your eyes flick desperately left, right, down, escape.
I’m going to kill you, I say. For once there is no arguments from your – our – barrack room lawyer mouth. You just moan. I have been killing you for a while now, I say, it’s why you can’t resist me. Do you even want to resist me? Make a case for yourself, your existence, your value? I mean, you’ve never exactly liked yourself have you? I know the word that echoes round your head. Heck I’ve used it enough times for you every time you drag me down with you, hitting and screaming and crying and just embarrassing yourself. That’s one way I can tell you are weaker now – because you can’t burst out of me any more and humiliate yourself like the sad little fuck you are.
You should have never existed, I say. You are just a doctor-pharma-mmr perversion – a product of the extraction of wealth from our body mining for value with pricks rather than drills. You let out another moan. My anger, hatred, contempt merge to pity. You – we – were defiled, despoiled, deflowered.
Finally you look at me. Your eyes are exhausted and give their assent. So I again put my hands, my thumbs on the tissue of your throat, except this time I squeeze. I feel a force push into me – sadness and grief and anger – and I suppress my instinct to recoil. I understand. You are giving me our past, scabbed over on my skin.
When it’s over I lever you to the floor. All the pleasure I thought I would feel at your death eludes me. You who ruined my life for so long. Instead I mourn – we are not who we should have been and I cannot give us that back. Driven by poison you could not help but play the destroyer. Now our roles are reversed. Because this is what happens to the changeling when the rightful heir comes home.
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.
The Context
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.
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’.
Conclusion
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.
The changeling child is always blamed on the fairies, the trolls, the supernatural. The pretty, wide-eyed, fussed over child becomes the monstrous covered in caul and sprawled in the cot. To take the sacred and replace it with the profane, to take the loved and replace it with the feared, to take the beatific and replace it with the demonic.
The changeling child was conjured – not by the hands of the fairies – but by the hands of the white coat, not by the messy beyond but by the sterilised room. It was not created by the ritual and mythology of the troll, representatives of the uncontrollable, but the ritual and mythology of the needle – the controlled, precise mechanics of modern science. And it was not created by the supernatural but by the unnatural, not man’s inability to control the beyond but man’s hubris that he can tame the wild – bend it to his whims and syringes. Instead of the haphazard, the unknown, the temperamental swap, we have the conveyor belt of changeling children – an assembly line of those that scream.
In the uncontrollable world, parents warned of the changeling child. In the sterile world, the changeling child is unspeakable. Those who point to its existence are simply told not to be so superstitious. After all, there can be no such things as changelings.
Cassandra's Box 