2026-06-09
Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Legally.
OK, so it's like crossing the road, right? You might get run down by a car or a lorry or an omnibus, but that's pretty rare and we live with that kind of unsafe all the time.
Well, no.
We have pedestrian crossings for crossing the road, and traffic in busy places is stopped by traffic lights or school crossing patrols so that we can cross safely. And if somebody does run us over, they can be prosecuted for dangerous driving, running a red light, and we can sue them for damages.
For vaccines, in place of pedestrian crossings we have "informed consent" - the risks have to be honestly explained to us before we agree to take the jab, and if we don't like those risks then the jab can be refused.
When was the last time a medical person did that for you? Told you that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" and spelled out the risks?
Infinitely more likely they just intoned that the jab was "safe and effective" without explaining that it was safe for the pharmaceutical company but not necessarily for the patient, and effective at swelling the company's profits (and our tax bill) but not necessarily for defending the patient against catching the disease or defending our health if we do.
Oh, and if we do have any unfortunate (but rare!) adverse event then we cannot sue the pharmaceutical company as we might sue a motorist, we have to claim under a bureaucratic government compensation scheme that will take forever, require copious paperwork, and is unlikely to provide compensation adequate to the injury as the costs to the public purse must be minimised. Meanwhile the pharmaceutical company suffers no adverse effect whatever.
Add to that the fact that these "rare" adverse events may take a long time to both become apparent and be conclusively linked back to the jab (even if that were possible, unlike the effects of a road accident) and we can see that no, it's not at all like crossing the road.
