Licensed to Live? Licensed to Lie? Unlicensed to Die?


Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Implications of Universal Vaccination — Voluntary or Otherwise


11 Jan 2021 – The question as to whether vaccination against COVID-19 should be voluntary or mandatory is now widely discussed. Increasingly any questions as to the value or dangers of such vaccination are framed as misinformation — if not deliberate disinformation and a feature of conspiracy theories, necessarily to be deprecated. This extends to complicity of some scientific authorities with proposals for government justifications for censorship, “taking down” websites and accounts, and possibly criminal proceedings

There is almost no sense of perspective on these matters. Information is now either valid, as having been conformed by authorities, or to be framed as misinformation or worse — disrupting the coherence of the response to COVID-19. The limited array of strategic tools deployed — vaccination, social distancing, lockdowns, masking, sanitisation and contact tracing — are now framed as constituting a panacea. This applies in particular to vaccination, with associated proposals for an “immunity passport”

Unfortunately it has been necessary to recognize that these measures, and vaccination in particular, only reduce the risk of infection. It is increasingly implied that:

  • more than one vaccination shot will be required to increase the level of protection, although with no guarantee that this will be complete
  • new mutations are emerging for which current vaccinations may — or may not — constitute adequate protection
  • there are various problems with the distribution of the vaccines and the priorities to be accorded to those deemed most at risk
  • there will necessarily be a percentage of people vaccinated who will suffer unspecified side-effects, however incidental this is held to be in terms of the benefits to others
  • it is unclear for how long the protective capacity of the vaccinations will last, and whether vaccination will be required regularly (as with flu shots)

For some there is considerable concern that any debate concerning these matters is increasingly deprecated or suppressed. Few media now dare to raise questions in this regard — for fear of being framed as purveyors of misinformation. Indicative exceptions include:

A particular example is offered by media complicity in marginalization and suppression of alternative views by relevant scientists with regard to responses to COVID-19 and vaccination — exemplified by institutional responses to the Great Barrington Declaration (4 October 2020), notably signed by epidemiologists. It is to be expected that reports of problematic side-effects will be treated as statistically incidental rather than of any wider significance — following the pattern of tolerable “collateral damage“.

Online platforms claim to be able to design algorithms to detect misinformation in order to “take down” sites. Given the ease with which this is purportedly done, it is appropriate to ask whether such algorithms are more sophisticated than the clumsy design of government lockdown policies. These have rendered evident the obvious inability of authorities to distinguish zones of high risk from those of lowest risk — a matter of data granularity

Strikingly absent is any capacity to consider these contradictory phenomena with any scientific objectivity. The focus is on the need for the perspective of government authorities to prevail at any cost — assisted by scientific institutions dependent on government funding, and reinforced by media complicit with government policy. Any challenge to that is consequently framed as a threat to public health and meriting the strictest response by authorities. This echoes a policy articulated with respect to other issues: There is No Alternative (TINA). It remains unclear how the trend towards excessive authoritarianism will progress in the absence of more insightful approaches to the challenge of COVID-19.


Tags: , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.