Among the many alarming revelations from the "Facebook Files" is the discovery of a strange official policy that dominated the platform in the COVID-19 years.
“For content that doesn’t meet that threshold, we instituted borderline demotions,” the company wrote on July 16, 2021.
“For example, someone sharing negative side effect posts. Similarly, posts questioning whether you get a vaccine under a mandate, whether it’s government overreach. We demote those. That’s not false information but it leads to a vaccine-negative environment.”
This formerly trusted platform had become a major source of news for millions. Users believed it to be an authentic expression of what their friends were thinking and doing. It turns out that, regarding any injury caused by the vaccine, people were silenced. Meanwhile, major media was screaming at everyone that these shots are necessary, safe, and effective—none of which was true. But users didn't know that this was occurring.
The policy was pushed by the federal government on all major social media platforms, which massively distorted public debate. Anyone who spoke about the downsides of the vaccine was treated as a crank and a public danger. All claims that contradicted the government and pharmaceutical line were demoted or deleted for creating a “vaccine-negative environment.”
I was personally denounced in many articles for raising questions about the shots.
It’s no wonder, then, why it has been so incredibly difficult to gain any real clarity about the risk profile of these shots. The age gradient of risk was widely obscured throughout the entire period, all in the interest of imposing universal lockdowns and then shots for everyone, even those who were at zero risk from the virus.
To this day, there's no honest discussion of this topic in official circles. No major media or tech company has apologized. We only have the above policy documentation because the House of Representatives under Republican control forced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to cough it up. Now, we know that the official policy of government and its allied tech companies was to keep the public in the dark.
The extent of the damage and death caused by the vaccine is left to independent researchers who are working from a tsunami of anecdotes and hard-to-find data. There's a concerted effort to cover it all up, no doubt. It's all done on behalf of the winning pharmaceutical companies and their deployment of a new platform technology for what they call vaccines, even though mRNA shots would never have been called that a few years ago.
Some people aren't surprised by the power of this industry. I am. It’s all new to me. When the lockdowns came, my operating theory was that a bunch of scary intellectuals were using the social order as an experiment in pathogenic control, one destined to fail. I never imagined a larger agenda aside from an appalling exercise of power. I certainly never imagined that pharma was the hand in the glove.
When we first started hearing news of the coming antidote, I dismissed this possibility out of hand. I knew from my reading that vaccines were only workable for stable viruses with unchanging profiles. Smallpox, measles, mumps, polio, and others qualify. But a coronavirus is fast-mutating, especially because we knew that it spread widely because of a fairly low fatality rate.
Incredibly, I never imagined that a vaccine for such a virus would ever gain approval. My operating understanding of the Food and Drug Administration was that it was bureaucratically risk-averse. It was more inclined to refuse approval than to grant it prematurely. This was wrong. Using the excuse of emergency, and smearing and deprecating all therapeutics as a condition for emergency approval, it sailed through.
When uptake on the shots was low, the government went hardcore with mandates. Major cities actually segregated based on vaccine status. There were attempts to implement digital passports. These mostly flopped. People quit their jobs and moved to new cities, and vast numbers somehow managed to avoid the needle. Uptake was lower on the boosters and bivalents, which similarly sailed through the approval process.
How can we explain this?
The regulatory agencies get half or more of their own funding from pharmaceutical companies. Media broadcasts the propaganda because three-quarters or more of their advertising revenue comes from pharma. The development of the shots themselves benefitted from enormous government grants. The companies that are given approval are then given a complete patent monopoly on the drugs, so that they can take legal action against all attempts to reproduce them.
More than anything else, these vaccines benefit from protection from liability for any harm that they cause.
Just think about this.
Why would any government ever grant such an exclusion from liability?
It makes no sense. If the shots are safe, indemnification wouldn't be necessary. If they aren't safe, such indemnification would be grossly irresponsible.
Nonetheless, in 1986, lawmakers approved 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 further codified this.
This was invoked in March 2020. The government might as well have announced to the country and the world: We're coming to hurt you. It’s the very opposite of the Hippocratic Oath. Indeed, this case shows why such an oath was necessary in the first place.
Adding all of this together, you have a completely indefensible industrial monopoly in operation and fully out in the open.
These days, the FDA, having driven out anyone with integrity from its ranks, routinely approves drugs without proper successful trials. It seems to happen daily: RSV shots and an over-the-counter birth control pill are two recent cases. The new head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) introduced herself to the public with a big push for everyone to get the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, especially infants.
There's simply no theory of political economy, medicine, political science, philosophy, or ethics—whether ancient or modern, left or right—that can justify such an absurdly dangerous system. It would be one thing if such an industrial monopoly made a mess of a single sector of life, but our times have revealed something much more shocking. Pharma has essentially bought most governments in the West and converted them into doing their bidding.
This is simply intolerable. I’ve just about had it with the claims that the adverse effects of these vaccines are rare. We don’t know that. In any case, “rare” has no firm definition. Plus, if I’m dead on the street from having been run over by a bus, it does me no good for bystanders to stand around proclaiming that my death is rare. Indeed for me, my chance of getting killed by a bus is ex post facto 100 percent.
What the vaccine-injured need is compassion, public attention, care, and compensation. It adds gross insult to injury to demote their plight as irrelevant because knowing about it contributes to a “vaccine-negative environment.” This isn't the Soviet Union, and we don’t live in a country founded as a biomedical security state ruled by pharmaceutical monopolies using the people as guinea pigs in genetic experiments.
The whole machinery must come to an immediate end, starting with the end of indemnification against harm. It never should have been granted. Moderna and Pfizer are already facing dramatic declines in stock valuation after the discrediting of their shots. What would happen to their stocks if they bore some financial repercussions for the damages that they have caused?
Brownstone Institute is cooperating with The Epoch Times for a showing of the marvelous film “Unseen Crisis,” which is about vaccine injury. Finding a venue to host the film wasn't easy. As soon as the “independent” theaters in town found out the subject, they figured out a way not to accept new showings. Fascinating.
The crisis is indeed unseen. It must be seen if we expect to regain our status as a civilized and self-governing people.
