Home Page
Home Page

What Do You Mean By Anti Vax Exactly?

by Chauncey Tinker – 14 Nov 2021

How many times in the last year have we heard these words:

I'm not anti-vax but ....

Here is an example of someone feeling compelled to defend themselves in this way, in this case these are the words of a care home worker. She is losing her job due to her concerns about the mandate on injections that are supposed to protect against serious illness and death from COVID-19 (she is just one of up to 57,000 according to the Daily Mail). From Christian Concern:

The phrase anti-vax has been used intensively in the public discourse to demonize those with a very wide range of views, from those who genuinely are opposed to all medical treatments that are called vaccinations, all the way to those who merely object to mandates that force people to accept injections against their will.

The first thing that we should always do when attempting to engage in rational debate is to define our terms. U.S. Senator Ron Johnson held an important and moving discussion in Washington D.C. last week, Dr Peter Doshi an editor at the British Medical Journal spoke at this meeting. Dr Doshi drew our attention to the fact that, according to Merriam Webster, the definition of anti-vaxxer is:

a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

As he points out, the second part of this definition is entirely ridiculous. Many people who oppose the mandates have in fact themselves been injected and even encouraged other people to get injected as well! A good example of such a person is Daily Telegraph columnist and podcaster Allison Pearson (who co-hosts the Planet Normal podcast). How on earth does it make sense to call these people anti-vax? What they are objecting to is the mandates, not the injections. Logically these people could only be referred to as "anti-injection mandates", and even then they might only be objecting to mandates on some specific injections but not on others.

The BBC took the definition a step further to include even those who are opposed to SOME injections but not others (this is a "newsround" article aimed at children):

Quote:

The anti-vaccination movement is when people don't believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing, and do not want themselves, family members or other people to be vaccinated.

Next there is the problem of what exactly constitutes a vaccination (you may have noticed that I refer to injections rather than vaccinations, because the definition has been disputed by many with regard to the so-called COVID-19 vaccinations)? If people are opposed to injections that they don't regard as vaccinations then again, how on earth does it make sense to call these people anti-vax? Dr Doshi also drew our attention to the fact that Merriam Webster changed the definition of vaccination:

“I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam Webster changed its definition of ‘vaccine’ earlier this year. mRNA products did not meet the definition of ‘vaccine’ that has been in place for 15 years at Merriam Webster but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now ‘vaccines’.

Incidentally the self-styled "fact-checking" website Politifact did a fact-check on claims about that changed definition, but they admitted that:

The current entry better captures how mRNA-based vaccines work compared with traditional vaccines.

Many of the people who are being described as "anti-vax" reject the definition of these mRNA products as vaccinations, therefore their opinion might more accurately be described as "anti-mRNA products".

Some people who are merely questioning the effectiveness of specific injections are being labelled as "anti-vax". Is it really so unreasonable to question the effectiveness of entirely new medical treatments? Dr Doshi also asks the question:

"Everybody knows" that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but if hospitalizations and deaths were exclusively occurring in the unvaccinated, why would booster shots be necessary?

Not long ago we were being told that the injections designed to combat COVID-19 would stop the spread of the virus. However just 2 days ago we hear that Bill Gates has apparently acknowledged that the vaccines don't stop transmission:

Is Bill Gates an anti-vaxxer now then? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also admitted this while encouraging people to get a third booster shot. Is he an anti-vaxxer as well?

Some people who are merely questioning the safety of specific injections are being labelled as anti-vax, we really have to question the motives of those who are trying to demonize people in this way. Those who question the safety often draw our attention to the fact that the injections that were sold to protect against the COVID-19 disease were rushed into use, bypassing the normal safety process with the approval coming through "Emergency Use Authorizations". Is it really so unreasonable to question the safety of entirely new medical procedures that have been rushed into use in this manner? Such people often draw our attention to the growing numbers of adverse reaction reports that have been submitted shortly after people were injected; even in the UK alone these reports are numbering in the hundreds of thousands already, with individual adverse reactions reported in excess of a million. Here is a recent report on the data so far from the UK Freedom Project, the tally so far is 1,768 deaths of people shortly after an injection, and many people suspect these reports only include a fraction of the real numbers as they say many potential adverse reaction events are not being reported:

Are people allowed to change their minds? The BBC claimed that the Pfizer injection was 100% safe, a claim they later had to retract. Are only the so-called "anti-vaxxers" to be accused of "spreading misinformation", why don't pro-vaxxers suffer similar censure when they make a wildly inaccurate claim like this? Why do so-called "fact-checking" websites only ever "check facts" as stated by so-called "anti-vaxxers"?

Some people who are simply suggesting that there may be cheaper and safer alternative treatments are also being demonized as "anti-vaxxers". These people are not necessarily even opposed to any injections, they might simply be asking the sensible question - is there a better way? This is another point that Dr Peter Doshi makes in the discussion (he is referring to the injections here as if they were a drug to make a point):

it doesn't prevent infection, nor does it stop viral transmission .... If that's all the drug does, why not use a normal medicine instead?

Why not indeed, when that alternative treatment might only cost 6 cents.

Where do I fall in this wide spectrum of opinions on the COVID-19 injections? I must confess that before 2020 I never even wondered about whether vaccines might be safe or not, and I have been injected with vaccines both in my childhood and my adult life. What has absolutely appalled me since the beginning of 2020 however is the relentless campaign of misinformation from the media, government and academia regarding the seriousness of the threat from COVID-19. Becoming aware of this campaign of misinformation has forced me to reconsider whether I can trust the same authorities to tell me the truth about the safety and effectiveness of the injections supposedly designed to protect the population from the disease. A lot of people have gone through a similar process. Some of those people were initially in favour of the injections or agreed to get the first and even a second jab thinking that they would be allowed to resume life as normal, only to find that their injection status is quickly being degraded thanks to the fact that the authorities are now admitting the injections have waning efficacy, and now they tell us a third jab is now needed. How long before the next one? The people of Israel are already being told they must have a fourth.

I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro science, I want to hear the evidence about the effectiveness and safety of a medical procedure, and also the relative risks compared to the risk from what it is designed to protect me from, before I agree to be treated. So far I am completely unconvinced that the danger from the sars-cov-2 virus is greater than the danger from the injections, or that the injections will stop me from passing the virus on to others.

RELATED LINKS:

The testimony of Dr Peter Doshi and others on the discussion panel mentioned above is well worth listening to in full. Here is the 5 minute clip of him speaking if you are short of time:

Here is a link to the full video (over 3 hours long), including many speakers, from the Highwire:

From the Guardian:

Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra FRCP speaks up on Twitter:

Quote:

BREAKING

‘We now know the vaccine has no significant impact on stopping transmission’

This completely changes the conversation

mandating it for #NHS staff would be devastating for the NHS

Are the doctors speaking out about adverse reactions to be condemned as anti-vax as well?

Are whistleblowers raising concerns about Pfizer trials to be condemned as anti-vax as well? Is the British Medical Journal an "anti-vax" publication for publishing this article?

What do you think? Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr