Keep Calm and Don't Comply Without Informed Consent

Keep Calm and Don't Comply Without Informed Consent

Governments and health authorities, including the World Health Organization, are signaling plans to deploy new emergency health mitigations this fall, including resurrecting the old failures such as masks, social distancing, remote working, and learning, no doubt invoking a new health emergency, claiming to combat SARS-CoV-2 variants and the spread of COVID-19.

For populations worldwide, but certainly here in the U.S., the time has come for each one of us to confront whether we will blindly comply again or not, with more government overreach in response to another health emergency that violates our constitutionally protected rights and/or provably endangers our loved ones.

At a minimum, this time we had better stand resolute on having our questions openly addressed, including lingering inconsistencies satisfactorily resolved. We are now dealing with much bigger issues of survival as a community, as a country, as a species. Especially when you factor in the devastating economic fallout originating with COVID, but exponentially amplified with destructive legislation and policies that continue to erode our way of life.

Nothing less than the following will suffice: Demand full transparency relative to legitimate evidence for informed consent that includes (1) vaccine vial inserts that comprehensively disclose the known risks and side effects; (2) transparent public debate and disclosure with our health authorities, medical communities, research experts that include alternative viewpoints, and opposition to the official narratives; (3) public access to the CDC's and FDA's source evidence, including studies, and clinical trial data, relative to treating COVID; (4) a hard stop to the egregious mass violations of free speech, whether by government agencies in cahoots with social media, the workplace, wherever whatever and whenever et al, to suppress or censor competing information to official narratives; and (5) Forget mandates altogether. Respect oaths of office that bind authorities to the protection of our rights. The public has more than proven it will comply if we trust there is a legitimate and urgent need … but that ship has sailed.

Make a conscious decision to disallow and repel relentless media messaging and manipulation (broadcast, social, and print) that pierces our subconscious and triggers incoherent fear, immobilizing the stoutest of heart and savviest of mind. Turn it all off if you must. Consider more than one perspective this time. Be brave and listen, ask questions, and talk it through with reasonable people who can navigate the information and data with you, not against you. Be one of the rationale adults in the room this time.

The last pandemic protocols were considered mildly successful in achieving fully vaccinated populations. However, even though billions lined up for the experimental injections, compliance could not be sustained without relentless campaigns triggering fear. But then people began to lose their fear, observing glaring inconsistencies, contradictions and confusion as official narratives changed almost weekly. What was forbidden last week became perfectly acceptable this week. The public began quietly questioning and often rejecting incoherent messaging and mitigations that were causing no small level of social chaos.

Last week during a Louisiana court hearing on the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID, the FDA affirmed it never told doctors they could not prescribe Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. As doctors and providers around the country continue to face medical board investigations, have lost their positions after years of service, some even lost their licenses to practice medicine, based on the FDA not approving off-label use of Ivermectin in early treatment of COVID. Now the FDA denies ever taking that position, throwing employers under the bus and opening them up to potential liability for terminating providers who used Ivermectin in the early treatment of COVID. At least those doctors honored their oaths and did something, many with successful outcomes

Three years later, people should drill down on one single overarching fact about COVID-19, especially as it relates to future mitigations such as masking and distancing, early treatment, and mRNA injections that have not been adequately tested in humans: the human lethality from COVID-19 resulting from a SARS-CoV-2 infection is .0037 percent. This translates to approximately a 1/10th of 1 percent chance of dying from COVID-19.

This .0037-percent lethality rate has held from the very beginning of COVID detection. It's the one constant that never changed. And children in the 0-19 age cohort have a statistical zero chance of dying from COVID. So what is this exaggerated COVID response really about because it is absolutely not about public health? Maintaining official narratives that are not true, not even plausible, don't make it so. Eventually truth will out. An argument can legitimately be made that the mis-, dis-, and mal-information on the part of those orchestrating unlawful social engineering (governments, health authorities, pharma, and media) is arguably the real domestic terrorism afoot.

Time for an Open, Transparent Reassessment

Honesty and transparency demand the public health and medical communities confront the otherwise debunked argument that the primary reason to inject kids is to prevent them from becoming infected and transmitting COVID to Grandma and the vulnerable adults at their schools … except the mRNA injections have proven they can't do that.

So what exactly is the scientific rationale behind children being given the COVID injections, thereby absorbing far greater risk from potential adverse reactions from the shots, than by declining the shots and chance catching COVID, which equates to no threat, especially with the high probability that kids will be asymptomatic, if they get it at all.

How claims of safety and efficacy of mRNA injections were ever persuasive is unclear when you consider 85 percent of all people infected with SARS-CoV-2, not just children, were classified as “asymptomatic,” experiencing no symptoms of COVID-19 after testing positive using PCR with an unusually high threshold of 40 cycles.

It begs the question: How do you differentiate between outcomes of an unvaccinated asymptomatic person versus a person who has been vaccinated and boosted if neither experienced severe illness and/or death. How do you know the vaccinated person wasn't infected and just asymptomatic, especially since testing stopped for vaccinated persons unless they had symptoms, versus the mRNA injection effectively protecting them from severe disease and death? I'm betting you can't, but if I'm wrong, by all means let's hear how.

Never forget by the end of 2022, the CDC had to dial back its claim of one million U.S. deaths with COVID, to approximately 40,000 deaths from COVID, after it had been discovered that the CDC ordered hospitals, coroners, and medical examiners nationwide, to record deceased patients with positive PCR test results, as primary COVID deaths on their death certificates. Regardless of actual causes of death, especially where overwhelming comorbidities existed, the causes of death were listed as COVID-19, greatly inflating the number of COVID-19 deaths and distorting the lethality of COVID. To date, no accountability for this breach in ethics is known to have been pursued.

You Cannot Comply Your Way Out of Tyranny

More treacherous and cruel is imposing extreme mitigations that include closing businesses (mostly small to medium-sized) and schools. These extreme measures were further exacerbated by mandating injections without requisite informed consent that, if refused, jeopardize life and limb, livelihoods that include being shamed, shunned, and shuttered. Conversely, complying for some meant forced compromise of deeply held religious beliefs. And for all, egregious violations of a host of constitutionally protected rights, whether oath-breaking by government and public health employees, law-breaking by employers and academia, or worst of all, your own resigned compliance. No truer words were ever uttered: “You can never comply your way out of tyranny.”

It is greatly appreciated that the super majority of parents in 2023 are declining mRNA injections and/or boosters for their children. This important reversal finally acknowledges their kids' low risk for harm from COVID-19, especially against the high-risk of potential devastating health consequences from adverse reactions to the mRNA injections. Further informing oversight of their kids' interests are parental objections to unreasonable, unjustifiable mitigations of constant masking, absurd social distancing, ineffective remote video learning, and extreme isolation, all manifesting in children in countless painful ways, such as severe depression; isolation and loneliness; gender dysphoria, 50 percent increase in suicides of 12-19 year old girls; drug, alcohol, and sex addictions; atypical cancers and diseases; and violence toward others.

Equally sad, however, 60-plus colleges and universities are still mandating students inject mRNA gene therapies before they can enroll in/attend 2023 fall classes. This collective psychosis festering in these administrations' demonstrates one of the hidden costs of Common Core educators: a collective loss of the simplest discernment, chronically unaware of the liberal hypocrisy that permeates such campuses, and severely diminishing academia's capacity to steward students into futures of self-determination.

An oxymoron-ish perception surfaces when you consider why anyone would want to attend a place of higher learning that is harshly narrow-minded, almost assuredly basing its mandated vaccine policy on grants and funding it would not otherwise be eligible for, and so rigidly authoritarian that constitutionally violating its students' and employees' rights is an acceptable casualty in a Progressive education model that values learning by indoctrination; scientific exploration that recoils from opposition, instead embracing suppression; discourages open discourse and debate, favoring incurious censorship and low-information ridicule.

Traditionally, the most desirable, not to mention successful, attributes found in academic environments are individualism, self-expression, and actualization, empowerment of robust and diverse free speech, creative curiosity inspiring intense thought provocation, and compassionate tolerance and acceptance of difference. Oh yeah, and securing a useful education that launches a productive life after college.

Are We Self-Determinant Individuals or Not? Do Our Rights Matter or Not?

So the dilemma looming larger by the day for Americans: Are we going to accept one sided narratives again or not? Are we going to continue tolerating unresolvable inconsistencies again or not? Are we going to suffer physically, mentally, emotionally, and socioeconomically based on politics again or not? Are we going to deprive our children of their education and right to live with the least amount of risk to their health and well being again or not? Are we going to stay silent again or not? Are we going to incuriously comply again or not? Because doing any one or all of these things again is no longer forgivable.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher