Although I have written an unposted blog entry, I haven't shared in a while. I've been trying to nail down gainful employment, a rather passive endeavor with so little of the good kind being available, and trying my best to enjoy my Covid-limited time off work by spending some of that time with friends. Well, the deadline was March 2 and, as yet, I have no gainful employment. So it's now time to change tack and more actively pursue online teaching as opposed to jobs at physical institutes I have been predominantly concentrating my job hunt on. The visa/payment situation may present some difficulties and the salary will undoubtedly be lower, but I'll likely get some results within a couple weeks to a month. Teaching online, even part time, for 6 months or so won't get me any closer to my financial goals, let alone retirement, but it will get me through the Covid period and hopefully come September, I'll be able to get a job at a school again and with any luck get back to teaching in person.
Before that, however, the world needs to deal with some of its major issues, not the least of which will be our major topic today, and what I am convinced has been the primary contributor to my current occupational futility, the Covid crisis. Well, to be more accurate, the major example will be related to the Covid crisis, but today's topic is something I've been noticing amongst people I like. I often in this blog have bashed, slagged, badmouthed, panned, rebuked, upbraided and criticized people I don't like, one in particular, but this time I'm going to criticize some people I'm going to call the heavy-handed right. I like the heavy-handed right because they are right. Not in the sense that their political leanings are to the right, rather in the sense that I have little doubt that they are right, correct, in their beliefs/statements/sentiments/campaigns. That being said, it is their heavy-handedness that I believe has come with increased support for their beliefs/statements/sentiments/campaigns, that I would like to bash, slag, badmouth, pan, rebuke, upbraid and/or criticize at this time. Not severely, cuz I'm on their side, but gently with a precautionary tale from history.
To use a bit of an off topic example of what I'm talking about, I saw a post from Robert Reich, a guy I greatly admire and respect, that said, well, here's what it said:
But he's right. There are Republicans who, whether they know any of the facts that bring the legitimacy of US politics or their latest election into serious question or not, are continuing a ludicrous, and already violent, campaign to get their Dorito Dicktator into power against what the wishes of the country might have been shown to be if they had been legitimately measured. We can't know for certain unless we trust the notoriously illegitimate election system, but most likely, these people are just douchebags refusing to admit the majority of their country is happy to wave bye-bye to Trump. So he's probably right. I think he is. But that is not what I question. I question the heavy handedness. What's to be done with these people? Remove them from office for supporting the despotic leader of their party, a guy notorious for firing people, particularly people who don't show loyalty? Your cause is gaining power, Bob, this is a good thing. But let's not get blinded by power and start punishing the opposition. This is not the way to win hearts and minds.
What about the people who may not even be Republicans, the MANY people who don't trust the fucked up American system of government? From gerrymandering to supercandidates to corporate interference to the electoral college to the brother of one candidate being the governor of the deciding state in the election and hugely influencing the attempted "recount" of votes there... there is very good reason to wonder why else something that should be so simple, one vote for one person, would be purposely skewed and discombobulated if it WEREN'T to fix the elections. Will it help to get rid of certain members of the US government ostensibly for doubting the outcome of an election we can all safely suspect to have been the usual bag of political tricks, sleight of hand and deception? This would be an awfully harsh precedent to set. It might even result in the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish.
Again, I believe the majority of Americans want Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence. In this way, Reich is right. I also have a demonstrable distaste for the crazies Reich is talking about. But sweeping statements like these are grouping clear-headed folks with the crazies. There are plenty of American citizens who have no more faith in this election than the ones before, some of which we all KNOW were illegitimate including the one that got Trump into office. There's a reason his statements of election rigging were so easily accepted. And shame on America for that!
Some election doubters are Republican. Some would refuse to admit the legitimacy of the recent election. But they aren't supporting any "stop the steal" nonsense. Are they too helping to incite violence? Will they be punished too? This is the trend I'd like to point out in a tone of extreme caution today.
Here's an interesting article. It's not long. Read it if you haven't exhausted your four free WSJ articles for the week. Or read this one if you don't want to sign up for the Wall Street Journal. Both articles talk about privileges and freedoms that are being granted to people who can prove they've received their Covid shots, and NOT being granted to people who haven't. When you get past how seemingly unfair this is to those at lower risk or who are just not vaccinated due to the greater needs of other people, you will come to those who are voluntarily avoiding the vaccinations. Many would call them "Anti-vaxxers," a term I have described as ignorantly dismissive a few times on this blog already and I will illustrate again in this post.
At this time, I would say that the people getting the vaccinations against Covid 19 are right. They are doing what will most help the world... most likely. Their ethics and intelligence are what I currently side with. Those refusing are in the wrong. But are they wrong for not trusting this new, VERY new vaccine? Absolutely not. All vaccines have setbacks. And to dismiss them as ignorant without the facts could show your OWN ignorance. I'm not saying all vaccine refusers even know the facts, nor do all people who take them. What I would like to do is give you some facts here so that the people who believe God will protect them from Corona and Trump said we'll have herd immunity soon so it's gonna happen, don't get grouped with the people who conscientiously object to inoculation on the grounds of legitimate concerns about vaccine safety and ethics related to their creation, production and distribution.
In order to achieve this, let's look at the history of the yellow fever vaccine. It's a vaccine that's been around for over 80 years, it's safe and almost everyone gets it once and is yellow fever-free for life. This is a vaccine "anti-vaxxers" might even get. But its history comes to bear on our current Covid 19 situation.
Like the examples in the articles above, certain privileges are given to people who can prove they've received their yellow fever shots, and not granted to those who cannot. Entry into some countries is an example though I don't know if it's a privilege to go to a country with yellow fever-sporting mosquitoes buzzing around. The vaccine is recommended for travel to high risk areas like parts of Africa and South America. About 15% of non-vaccinated people contract the virus and severe yellow fever develops. About half of people with severe yellow fever die within 7-10 days. So this is no joke. Frigging mosquitoes!
The name "Yellow Fever" comes from jaundice, a yellowing of the skin, which is one of the symptoms associated with yellow fever. It has noting to do with liking Asian girls. That's just terrible! And only a naughty blogger would even mention that. Let's move on.
In 1951 Max Theiler won a Nobel Prize for making the yellow fever vaccine better, but it had been in use since 1938. At the close of the 1800's yellow fever was sometimes known as Yellow Jack because of yellow flags that contaminated ships in quarantine flew. It was a huge disruption to trade in this way. For this reason, a yellow fever vaccine would be valuable so there were a lot of investigators claiming to have found the bacteria responsible for yellow fever and the first "vaccines" were produced. Dr. George Sternberg, an investigator appointed by President Grover Cleveland to investigate the investigators, determined that the early "vaccines" were ill conceived and ineffective. So at the beginning of the 20th century there was no progress being made. Only fake vaccines being made by people who wanted the notoriety and money that would undoubtedly come from the discovery of a yellow fever vaccine. This, you will find with research, has been a problem with many vaccines. It happens in the early stages of a vaccine's history, which we are currently in with the Covid 19 vaccine. Not saying these vaccines are fake, just that it wouldn't be as surprising as you might think.
Fortunately for the world, at the beginning of the 20th century there were billionaires like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller who were trying to help the world with their money even though they had no obligation to do so! The Rockefeller Institute chose to make yellow fever a project of theirs. In 1918 a medical team was dispatched to Ecuador to research yellow fever there. The team included a young doctor named Hideyo Noguchi who had risen from extreme poverty in Japan to get a medical degree.
Noguchi, the mustachioed guy in the middle, had done successful work with syphilis and venomous snakes, but he would represent another setback for the research on yellow fever, and in the end actually died from it. He was an interesting character being nominated for several Nobel Prizes, but never winning one due to criticism of his work as inaccurate and even a scandal over inoculating children with syphilis. His theory on yellow fever was that it was a bacteria, not a virus and he became increasingly secretive working mostly at night by himself, and in the end paranoid and sloppy with his research. He never doubted his theory even after it was proved wrong. He produced a yellow fever "vaccine" that went into extensive use in the US, Latin America and French African Colonies. He published "successful" results in 7,964 vaccinations, but his results couldn't be replicated. By 1926 distribution of his "vaccine" was quietly discontinued by the Rockefeller Foundation. Maverick doctors, another possible problem with vaccines.
An early vaccine was produced after the virus was isolated and used for its production and WWII created a massive need for that vaccine. It still needed tweaking, but epidemics of yellow fever in North African war zones led to virtually all US troops receiving the vax from Jan. 1941-April 1942. 7 million doses were distributed at no charge by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Unfortunately, 60-150 days after vaccination, 26,771 cases of jaundice were reported by US personnel and many more were unreported. Three of every 1000 of the soldiers who reported died. Most press kept this quiet due to wartime secrecy, but the Chicago Tribune noted that 20X as many soldiers had fallen victim to the vaccine than had been wounded in the war to that point. Not to mention the, whoops, hepatitis that came with it.
Then in 1962, avian leukosis virus was detected in the vaccine. Thousands or millions of people had been inoculated with potentially oncogenic viruses. Potentially disastrous, but luckily, 10 years later this issue was laid to rest with no evidence of excess cancer found in the vaccines.
There have been other issues since including rising incidence of severe viscerotropic (internal organs) disease after vax mostly in the elderly and the introduction of other viruses such as dengue fever and Japanese B encephalitis using the yellow fever vax as a vehicle. So even LONG after its general use, there are problems.
However, the benefits outweigh the risks. If a person were afraid to get the yellow fever vaccine for the reasons above, I'd understand, but it would be unreasonable given the long term safety and effectiveness the vaccine has shown. After 1962 that is...
But if a person were to refuse the Covid 19 vaccine, which is yet in its infancy and doesn't have such a safety and success record, I wouldn't be too harsh on them. Don't buy a video game until the glitches are worked out. Don't get hair replacement surgery until it stops looking like a corn field on your head. And don't get the vaccine until you are sure the bugs are worked out. Those bugs could actually be life-threatening. But you can be sure in the months and possibly years ahead, people who are thinking logically like this will be grouped in with morons who think they are being shot full of microbots that will record their every move and transmit the details of their private lives to George Soros' computer... or some such craziness.
And let's not forget that there is no Rockefeller Institute footing the bill for these vaccines. Pfizer and other businesses are. So they are going to want to make a profit. There have been stories about these companies reigning in their greed and keeping prices reasonable, but I doubt that will happen. I doubt even more that a last-minute discovery of a possible danger in the vaccine would hold up the continued distribution. Just watch The Fugitive for another legitimate reason to be wary here.
I'm going to repeat, I am on the side of the people who are getting the vaccine and those who are endorsing the decision. But I hope, given the very good reasons why a person might refuse it, people will not be too harshly penalized for refusing the Covid 19 vaccine. I know those people could transmit the virus and endanger others. I know they could prolong the social distancing and mask-wearing and I will quietly hate them for that, but I can't heavy-handedly say they HAVE to get it or else. I don't think that is the right course of action and doing so just might accomplish the opposite of what is intended. I think the probable outcome of forcing every person in the world to get the Covid 19 vaccine would end the pandemic. This is why I think vaccine supporters are in the right. However, doing so would almost certainly create larger problems by strengthening the resolve of already militant believers in freedom limitations. Also... what if there are some as yet unknown but possibly disastrous side-effects of the vaccine?
This will be interesting to follow...
Here's a cartoon from the 1920's. It's a bit heavy-handed, don't you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment