Interview: The Increasing Authoritarianism of Public Vaccine Policy

by May 1, 2019Health & Vaccines, Liberty & Economy8 comments

A vaccine under development (John Keith/NIH)

I illuminate how the public is being lied to about vaccine safety and effectiveness and how public vaccine policy violates the right to informed consent.

Last week, I had a great discussion about vaccines with Adam Crazz, reaching his Australian audience on his podcast The Crazz Files. We covered a very broad range of issues, highlighting just how unserious the mainstream media’s reporting is on this critically important subject, how the public is being systematically lied to about vaccines by the government, how the media are serving the state by doing public policy advocacy rather than journalism, and how governments are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their efforts to enforce compliance with vaccine mandates.

We talk about measles, chicken pox, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), influenza; differences between naturally acquired and vaccine-conferred immunity; unintended consequences of vaccination and the myopia of the medical establishment; the corruption of the science by industry and government funding; how the US government has shifted the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical corporations and onto the taxpaying consumers; how vaccines are designed to permanently affect how a child’s immune system develops and functions, yet it’s practically considered heresy to inquire whether this could possibly have something to do with the alarming increases in chronic diseases among children associated with immune dysfunction; and a whole lot more.

So be sure to scroll up and click the play button to half a listen!

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

Related Articles

8 Comments

  1. Leonard Sugarman

    You should place your ideas about vaccination and it’s politics onto the ‘Respectful Insolence ‘ blog and see how they fare in the open market of contested ideas. At this moment they have a piece by Orac on the violent language being used by some antivaxxers.

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Leonard, this interview is already on the open market of ideas.

      Reply
  2. Leonard Sugarman

    So it is , but your specific ‘takes’ would be exposed to the most critical and intelligent scrutiny and to validly sustain and defend your views you would have to respond with equal intelligence. There is little value in placing your views where only the converted ( whichever position you take), supportive, or like minded ideas are expounded. This is really a challenge since ‘Respectful Insolence’ has many knowledgeable contributors.
    Regards
    Len

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Leonard, I don’t share your high opinion of that blog and disagree with you about the value of publishing my writings on my own website. If you or anyone else thinks I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic, you are welcome to identify it for me. I see you haven’t done so.

      Reply
    • Leonard Sugarman

      It is not anything to do with having a ‘high opinion’ of the blog. But there you will experience people who have the time, energy and intellect to dissect your varying opinions on vaccination matters and surely show where you are in error of fact and ‘logic’ not just with this latest interview but other of your writings and possibly some of your offerings in the light of their opinions, if you dare to do so I am not sure what Bertrand Russell would have made, if still alive, of your continuing misuse of the word ‘logic’ but I suspect quite unfavourable.
      At least we can agree on matters Palestine/Israel.

      Reply
      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        But it has everything to do with your high opinion of the blog. I disagree with you that Orac is intellectually honest, as you assume. I have no interest in submitting my writings to him and see no value in doing so. My views are already on the open marketplace of ideas, for you or anyone else to dissect and criticize.

        You are telling me you disagree with my views, yet you still have not identified anything I’ve said in the interview or written elsewhere that isn’t true or doesn’t logically follow. You say I’ve a continued “misuse of the word ‘logic’”. Where? How so? I have repeatedly challenged you to identify any errors in fact or logic on my part. You do understand that there is such a thing as logical errors, right? They are called “fallacies”. Your logic that since my work isn’t published on Orac’s website, therefore it isn’t in the free marketplace of ideas is an example of a logical error. It is a non sequitur fallacy.

  3. Leonard Sugarman

    You’ve got that wrong. I never mentioned the word ‘honest’: you assume too much. I did not limit my challenge just to exposing your views to Orac but also to some those who contribute to his blog. I have debated via email in the past with you and know you to be implacable in some of your your erroneous views on vaccination and matters of health.
    The example of your use of ‘logic’ in creating the false straw man that ‘since my work isn’t published on Orac’s website, therefore it isn’t in the free marketplace of ideas is an example of a logical error. Well it might be if that is what I said or even implied, but it is not. Orac’s blog seems to be one market you have yet to engage with and seems unlikely you ever will. I suppose it’s safer in the main to preach to the converted or scientifically ignorant . Or is this belief just another case of my faulty logic?

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Leonard,

      Your suggestion for me to send my work to Orac’s blog “see how they fare in the open market of contested ideas” makes no sense absent an assumption on your part that it’s a place of intellectual honesty.

      There is also an inherent false assumption in that suggestion that by publishing my own work, it is not in the open market of ideas.

      Now you are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty by claiming that you have identified views of mine that are erroneous, but that is untrue. I have repeatedly challenged you to identify even a single factual or logical error in the interview or any article I’ve written about vaccines, and yet you continue to refuse to even attempt to do so.

      That troll-like behavior violates the terms of use of the comments section of this site. Please provide substance to your criticism and accusation. If you persist in trolling, your commenting privilege will be revoked.

      Reply

Share your thoughts.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This