I recently came across a discussion on a local city's Reddit forum. Someone shared that a business owner had posted on their Facebook page claiming that mRNA vaccines are ineffective and more dangerous than the virus they purport to prevent. The overwhelming majority of responses disagreed with the business owner's post, viciously attacking them merely for questioning the safety of mRNA vaccines. The post by the business owner referenced the Epoch Times, a source known for its lack of reliability.
This situation exemplifies the path of modern-day propaganda, where the truth often gets associated with far-fetched conspiracy theories lacking factual or scientific evidence. Consequently, the genuine message gets undermined, and those who oppose the truth use such examples to discredit it. This creates a scenario where many struggle to discern what is true due to their lack of experience. They tend to argue in absolutes, in black and white, while reality is often much more intricate. However, some truths are fundamental. This phenomenon is a reflection of human psychology and extends beyond the realm of vaccinations. What I am describing encompasses elements of cognitive dissonance, but it is far more complex and is a natural part of the unhoned mind of man.
Considering the large number of people who have received ‘COVID-19’ vaccines, it's not surprising that the majority would be against claims that vaccines are dangerous and unnecessary. I have personally witnessed this firsthand. The fact that many vaccinated individuals haven't experienced any harmful side effects is a positive outcome, but puts the injectee under the false notion that future injections are danger-free and without accumulative effects, or that their past vaccinations caused no damage. However, one must also consider the future implications.
On one side, there are individuals who vehemently proclaim that mRNA vaccines are causing millions of deaths. These individuals often rely on anecdotal evidence or speculative claims that lack evidence. By making hyperbolic statements, they unintentionally weaken their overall arguments. Additionally, some of these individuals may heavily rely on their "gut instincts" or personal beliefs without doing rigorous investigation.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who believe in the supposed life-saving and disease-preventing properties of vaccines. The average person who believe such things often embrace any study that supports their viewpoint without subjecting it to critical scrutiny. Also consider that most science that is funded by pharmaceutical corporations inevitably shows that vaccines produce ‘immunity’. While it is essential to study scientific research and expert consensus, blindly accepting every study without questioning its methodology or potential biases can lead to a lack of discernment. Not understanding the nature of outside-the-body lab study compounds the problem further. Many such people rely solely on studies, having zero real-world experience or knowledge of the subjects themselves.
Both sides of the argument tend to exhibit limited personal experience or knowledge in the field of human biology because human biology is a complex and multidisciplinary subject.
Having invested numerous years in comprehending this subject, my viewpoint diverges from that of the average person. I recognize that individuals often make assumptions and pass them on to others, even when they lack a deep understanding of the topic to firmly support their beliefs.
The consequence of this apparent chaos is the emergence of rigid black-and-white thinking and tribalism, especially in contemporary times. This is precisely why I avoid engaging in such simplistic thought processes because reality is rarely so stark. Occasionally, I do consider such perspectives, but only as thought exercises, with the intention of gaining insight into the mindset of the average person who may not be fully aware of the complexities at play and why they believe what they believe. I have observed how the human mind can perceive something as true without thoroughly validating or researching the matter, leading to a cascade of misinformation among people, much of which begins as self-deception. This applies to both sides of the argument.
However, I must also acknowledge that at least some element of this confusion is a result of subtle propaganda employed by both sides to sow discord and create a state of perpetual confusion. In this state, numerous distractions arise, leading to a cycle of confusion and dead-ends. From my experience, much of this confusion arises naturally from the human mind. When you combine this with the overwhelming availability of information, encompassing both accurate and misleading content, it creates a scenario where many individuals either disregard or unquestioningly accept information without engaging in deep critical thinking.
Many people may lack the necessary skills or time to thoroughly evaluate the reliability of sources, fact-check claims, or critically analyze the information they come across. As a result, they may resort to ignoring new information altogether, dismissing it as overwhelming or unreliable, or they may simply accept it at face value without subjecting it to rigorous scrutiny.
Due to this cognitive tendency, the mind can be manipulated by various forms of outside manipulation.
The truth is self-evident, as I have discussed numerous times. However, we must also interpret our own experiences through the lens of reality and refrain from making scientific decisions based on single isolated observations, or knee-jerk conclusions that are often wrong when closely examined. Often, observations require repeated experiments while considering the totality of nature. Static observations limit our understanding of the natural world, which is the ultimate goal of science. Without considering the full scope of a subject, we cannot legitimately draw coherent conclusions about reality.
Returning to the example of the business owner I mentioned earlier, it resembles the issue of climate change I addressed in one of my previous articles. Both topics have been subject to propaganda that pushes individuals towards extreme and polarized thinking, with almost religious fervor. Nevertheless, the truth remains consistent regardless of who supports it—manmade pollution indeed affects our atmosphere and all life on Earth. That is why we must rely on true logic and reason that separates itself from what anyone else may say or claim, any political bias, or any other bias—one must gain knowledge through experience.
And yet, even the phrase “logic and reason” has been co-opted by agenda-driven groups to support their own arguments. The 'No-virus' movement is a prime example. True logic and reason can only be applied by individuals who possess logical and reasonable thinking, and who have demonstrated it appropriately. Without these qualities, the label of 'logic and reason' holds no substance. This term is now used by such groups to deceive their audience, despite the fact that anyone with a basic understanding of the natural world can easily disprove their claims given the opportunity, no matter how many studies they cite or how many long diatribes they concoct. Consequently, they constantly feel the need to lash out and defend their position against any challenges anytime someone merely questions what they claim. This same behavior is prevalent among many of those who dogmatically support vaccines and the medical establishment.
Based on my personal experience and observations, I have lived for many years without receiving vaccines and have maintained good health. I am aware of others who have done the same. Consequently, throughout my study, I have come to the conclusion that vaccines are entirely unnecessary and unnatural, and that their repeated usage can lead to long-term health issues. This sentiment extends to my view on modern medicine as a whole. I have also discussed the potential long-term negative effects of vaccines, which many individuals I mentioned earlier tend to dismiss outright.
The biochemical processes of the human body shows us that when foreign manmade substances are repeatedly introduced through injections, some portion of those compounds are stored in cells and tissues for extended periods, ranging from years to decades. These man-made toxins can become permanent components of the body, causing gradual harm over time, particularly impacting the neurological system, as well as glands and organs.
Some pro-vaccine adherents may attempt to argue that certain ingredients in vaccines are "natural," but I strongly maintain that when compounds are isolated from their natural complexes and processed chemically or through heating methods, imbalances can occur, rendering their natural forms unnatural. This process often leads to the degradation or loss of essential nutrients and minerals, in the case of food. Repeatedly injecting these man-made compounds can gradually degrade the bodily system over many years.
With vaccines, it becomes apparent, with careful consideration, that the repetitive injection of various synthetic compounds can potentially have harmful effects on the human body. But, as with most toxins, their effects are normally accumulative. Expanding this line of thought further, one can extrapolate the potential long-term consequences. Organisms, including humans, have coevolved with nature for millions of years, while vaccines are a relatively recent invention in the grand timeline of human existence. I ask the reader to reflect on this point…
Considering these facts, the debate surrounding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines becomes inconsequential. By examining the evidence, one can arrive at the conclusion that vaccines are both unnecessary and unnatural, incapable of promoting our well-being as humans. But I state again, that one must have real-world experience to be fully certain in their belief. Embracing this realization allows us to sidestep unnecessary arguments and take the path to enter into optimal health, while others engage in chaotic and confused disputes in poor health.
Lastly, it is crucial that when presenting our arguments, we substantiate them with scientific facts and logical reasoning, leaving no room for legitimate refutation—our arguments must be ironclad.
Jeff Green
Comment Guidelines:
If you hold a contrary viewpoint:
You must support your claims with well-founded evidence.
You must engage in the discussion in good faith, recognizing the principles of constructive debate.
You must refrain from personal attacks, misrepresentation of viewpoints, and misrepresentation of scientific information, or gross mischaracterization.
You must acknowledge and consider the evidence that has been presented, rather than disregarding it outright.
You must not engage in dishonest or deceptive intent.
If individuals fail to adhere to these guidelines, their commenting privileges will be revoked, and they will be banned.
I have a question for you. Have you heard of Valley Fever? It affects humans but I have only heard of dogs getting it. It supposedly infects dogs by breathing in a fungus that is in the soil. I was thinking that dogs get it not because of inhaling it but because the body is using the fungus to cleanse the lungs. I find it quite a coincidence that my parents dog 'got it' after he got his rabies vaccine and I believe he got two other vaccines that I am not sure of the name. Maybe this is something similar to TB. Not sure but it feels like a detoxification to me. What are your thoughts? Thank you.
With this marxist term (you inject into the article) 'evolution' is it natural or is it synthetic man made fallacy? You used it to finalize your statements near the last paragraph as if it's part of God's natural creation. Adaptation is different than this fallacy invention evolution. Can you conjour any evidence of the rat bat to support the evolution fraud? Maybe you were ignorant to using such a term but it tainted your whole article by using it.