Yesterday, Jeff Childers fisked an article of unknown date of origin that asked the question in the headline. Why didn’t you warn us?
Please put down any beverage before reading this excerpt.
While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations — now seeming to do more harm than good — their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.
Even though they knew what we didn’t.
Our blood is now on their hands.
I won’t try to link the hundreds or perhaps thousands of posts on this site or remind you that there were as many or more on hundreds of other portals because you knew that. Nearly everyone you know knew. It wasn’t even considered crazy. And even where it was, people were free to decide for themselves. There was no “it’s dangerous anti-vaxxer mandate.”
It is obvious that whoever wrote this “AFRU Staff” post was deeply embedded in the swampy blue cistern, suffered a very unpleasant red-pill moment, and then tried to articulate the uncomfortable experience for public consumption the only way they knew.
It’s your fault!
The comments below that article are all you need if you seek vindication. It does not go well for “AFRU Staff.”
Some actual science (old or new) may have fallen out of the internet sky and struck them, breaking through the vaccine paradigm. I’m even willing to embrace the idea that the post was a parody, but even so what the institutions did was real and unconscionable. The world will take a long time to unravel that wool before most eyes are free to see clearly. 27% are willing to get the next COVID-19 flu shot booster thingy. Clearly, much work has been done, but more awaits.
If you search “unvaccinated silent,” you get some interesting results. MIT Review has a 2021 article titled How to Talk to Unvaccinated People. The first point? Realize that unvaccinated people aren’t all anti-vaxxers. How about realizing that none of them are anti-vaxxers, but it never comes up? MIT can’t bring itself to accept that almost no one in America has received zero vaccines except the Amish, who are otherwise quite healthy and don’t seem to have the food allergies, an obesity problem, or the spectrum disorders that plague the enlightened Western world. Most of the folks who suffer the derogatory label “anti-vaxxer” are just interested in health freedom and informed consent, which no one bothered to provide to the AFRU staff and billions of others.
Reuters has a fact check on an allegedly different article with a title similar to that noted above. “Fact Check: Fake headline from The Conversation asks why the unvaccinated didn’t ‘warn’ the vaccinated.” The alleged source cited did not, it seems, have such an article in development, but there was or was at least one like it.
There are numerous links to content about whether the unvaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated, but none point the other direction. Over at NPR (Sept. 2021), the short answer is this.
A: An unvaccinated person who is infected with COVID-19 poses a much greater risk to others who are also unvaccinated. But vaccines are not 100% effective, so there is a chance that an unvaccinated person could infect a vaccinated person — particularly the vulnerable, such as elderly and immunocompromised individuals.
What NPR didn’t know, but we did, was that the COVID-19 injections made the “vaccinated” more susceptible to COVID-19 and everything else. It got so bad the CDC decided vaccines didn’t even need to do anything (except launder money and have serious side effects, I guess).
The problem, as you all know well, is that some people continue to, and still do, trust the handmaiden media for their information while adopting the position that you can’t trust anyone else, that everyone else is misinforming you, and that science outside their lines is disinformation.
On a positive note, the 2024 Election provides evidence that more people are looking elsewhere and that disagreement and debate are better than the institutionalization of fact. If we can convince a majority of them, before every election, regardless of other differences, to protect this gift from the censorship industrial complex, sites like Facebook will eventually have to come around or find themselves in the company of MSNBC, a fringe outlet of declining interest, appealing to censorious left-wing extremists.
