An emotionally moving short film released this week, “Silent No More,” documents attempts by Covid vaccine-injured people in New Zealand to obtain recognition of their injuries, treatment, compensation, and a halt to the mRNA vaccine rollout. This factual and simple documentary of personal experiences was banned by YouTube before it was even released. Why?
This is a deep question that encompasses what is so challenging about the pandemic response around the world:
- Why has scientific debate been censored and cancelled by the media sources that the general public view?
- Why have scientists asking questions been cancelled?
- Why are so many concerned professionals still remaining silent?
The evidence of harm is piling up: unprecedented record excess all cause death rates in highly vaccinated nations, low birth rates, high incidence of cancers, cardiac events, strokes, and neurological conditions. In total, millions of people have registered their vaccine injuries on government databases around the world, many have died unacknowledged. So why the silence?
History Can Teach Us Some Important Lessons
In 1961, during his trial, holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichman argued in his defence that he was simply acting under orders and was, therefore, innocent of wrongdoing. Yale psychologist Dr. Stanley Milgram decided to test the power of authority to free perpetrators from guilt and empathy toward their victims. He set up an experiment where students were instructed to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to subjects behind a glass window.
The subjects were in on the deception. They were not, in fact, receiving electrical shocks. They were pretending. They were instructed to appear to be in agony, severely injured, beating on the window for relief, and even to collapse suddenly. Incredibly many of the perpetrators were unmoved by the suffering of the subjects they witnessed. Reassured that they were simply following the research protocol and instructions of the project leader, they were able to finish the experiment and return home with an untroubled conscience.
Milgram, and others since, believed his experiment demonstrated a psychological characteristic—people are remarkably receptive to new rules in a new setting. They are surprisingly willing to overlook the harming and even killing of others in the service of some higher purpose that had the sanction of authority.
Timothy Snyder, in his highly regarded 2017 book “0n Tyranny” warns that offering your unquestioning obedience to authority is a road to an oppressive government.
Snyder argues that anticipatory obedience (giving your consent in advance of the outcome) initiates a vicious cycle, whereby those in authority discover they have more influence than they at first realised, leading them to make more oppressive demands. This happened in Nazi Germany, where the excessive enthusiasm of those carrying out pogroms against Jews and intellectuals during the invasion of Russia, emboldened Hitler and others to design larger programmes of mass murder known as the Final Solution.
So is some similar psychological process at the root of the rejection of vaccine injury and the escalation to coercive vaccine mandates? Are officials and leaders like Ardern and Trudeau, doctors, media, and others sticking to the false ‘safe and effective’ narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because they have obediently adopted the PR propaganda of a safe healthy biotech future as their own?
In fact, Milgram’s experimental results have been widely questioned. Some commentators have labelled his conclusions controversial and inconsistent with his findings. Others believe that perpetrators of violence must, in their own right, be violent by nature and enjoy it. Modern experiments, however, confirm Milgram’s general view. A 2016 study reported in Scientific American concludes:
“…people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.”
Milgram’s hypothesis might in fact offer an explanation for the behaviour of those designing and administering the pandemic response—a sort of detachment. Patrick Haggard of University College, London, co-author of the study reported by Scientific American, writes:
“This suggests a reduced sense of agency[a psychological term that refers to one’s awareness of causing some external outcome], as if the participants’ actions under coercion began to feel more passive [uninvolved]…rather than fully voluntary.”
Why and How Has This Affected Billions of Innocent Vaccinated People?
Milgram’s ideas don’t really explain how billions of people around the world, the subjects of a biotech experiment rather than the perpetrators, unthinkingly became mRNA enthusiasts almost overnight to the extent that they labelled the vaccine injured scam artists and blamed the unvaccinated for the pandemic. An early study of attitudes found that many people would rather have a terrorist in the family than an unvaccinated member.
There doesn’t seem to be any precedent for such an instantaneous transformation of public opinion. Historical examples of misplaced allegiance mostly seem to have developed over long periods of time. Hitler rose to power and executed his ideas over two decades, after 1933 with the advantage of near total control of the media.
Moreover, Hitler had to first eliminate the political opposition, mRNA vaccination with few stand outs has largely enjoyed the compliance of all parties, left and right.
Are there other explanations? Certainly, there are multiple factors at work. Does one answer lie in a fundamental omission of modern science? Scientific disciplines have been largely isolated from each other and the role of the observer (or consciousness) excluded from discussion of genetics. How would its inclusion affect our understanding?
In particular, do introduced genetic sequences affect human psychology and behaviour? Genetic sequences are highly mobile in any given population, a recognised phenomenon known as shedding, but do they also contain and propagate information relevant to the genesis of distinct psychological and behavioural traits?
Physical health is not separate from mental health. We can consider their overall relationship in terms of balance. This balance is mediated or controlled by our genes which are thought to design our physical structure and support our consciousness.
There are 37 trillion cells in the human body each containing DNA, but there is only one person involved. We can say the whole is more than the sum of the parts, the individual physiology is more than the sum of all the cells of the body. Our identity is dependent on our DNA, but also transcends it.
There is another point here of vital importance, summed up by the expression the whole is contained in every point. If we drill down to the ultimate physical reality at the smallest time and distance scales available at every point in the physiology, the entire unified power of natural law is operating.
Put these two expressions together and you learn something vitally important about genetic command and control, it depends on both the availability of the particular genetic intelligence in every cell and its expression as a field of bio-intelligence. Part and whole, cell and physiology, gene and gene network, form an inseparable self-referral net of intelligent operation. Alter any one part, then you can both damage the whole physiology and disconnect it from its source in the unified intelligence of natural law.
Genetic intelligence is highly specific and sequential. The precise sequential unfoldment of the physiology from conception is paired with the gradual emergence of developmental stages of mental ability which are mediated by social and environmental circumstances, experiences, and opportunities. Therefore it could be anticipated that if mRNA inoculations have mental effects these would involve specific characteristics identifiable in multiple subjects. If this is the case, these could be exhibited by whole populations as a collective psychological profile and shared behavioural tendencies.
Does redirection of genetic traits through mass inoculation disrupt not just the health of individuals, but the health of society in specific and measurable ways? This could indeed be the case and may point to a facilitating role of mRNA vaccination in the pandemic disruption of social stability and integration. In other words, has mRNA vaccination induced a form of mass psychosis?
The Times They Are a Changing
This discussion has taken us a long way from our starting point. People are injured and dying as a result of a medical intervention. Authorities and the media appear determined to ignore the mounting evidence of harm. In the normal course of events, as the history of harmful medical drugs indicates, we would expect the product to be withdrawn and the commercial interests brought to account.
This has not happened. In fact the reverse has gained momentum. Some governments including ours are currently investigating vaccine hesitancy as a form of terrorism. Treaties are being drafted to ensure future mandatory compliance with medical interventions. This is not following prior patterns.
Yet it is evident that some people are more affected than others, which is normal. It is also clear that some people have changed their minds on the basis of evidence.
Therefore should we describe the psychological effect of mRNA vaccination as a temporary impairment affecting some people? Do we discern a tendency for those affected to fall back on more primitive and less independent responses to circumstances and challenges? Less independent responses similar to those described by Milgram—a loss of a sense of individual agency and empathy. It is a subject that deserves thorough investigation.
Fortunately, the film ‘Silent No More’ is not an isolated attempt to restore a measure of balanced assessment to pandemic policy. In the UK, Doctors For Patients has released a film on Vimeo in which numerous working NHS doctors and specialists call for an end to and review of government support for mRNA vaccination.
Even some highly vocal vaccine advocates who led the charge calling for restrictive mandates early this year are bowing to the inevitable and admitting errors were made, such Dr. Leana Wen, who has a US media profile similar to our Professor Michael Baker and had extreme pro-vaccine mandate views like Ardern’s. This week in a press conference she said:
The CDC has determined that “vaccinated people who never had Covid were at least three times as likely to be infected as unvaccinated people with prior infection and a Lancet study found that those who were vaccinated but never had Covid were four times as likely to have severe illness resulting in hospitalisation or death compared to the unvaccinated who recovered from it.”
As most New Zealanders have by now had Covid, you can draw your own conclusion about whether you should get boosted again, take the bivalent vaccine, or inoculate your baby, as our government is still advising. A study from the prestigious Cleveland Clinic published last week found that each successive vaccination against Covid increases your risk of infection.
Just remember Dr. Wen is not an anti vaxxer, she is following the evidence and you should too. If you have formed fixed opinions about unvaccinated family members or colleagues, these need to be revised based on current published evidence. If you think the vaccine injured are scammers or grifters, step back from your unsubstantiated prejudice and regain your capacity for empathy. These good people trusted the government and were harmed as a result. It could have been you.
