A discussion between myself and Google Gemini concerning the Uranus-Neptune Synodal Cycle
---------------------------------------
I would like to discuss Mundane Astrology today. Specifically 'the Uranus-Neptune Synodal Cycle. The last conjunction of these two planets occurred on Feb. 1, 1993. I always found it interesting that this conjunction was quickly followed-up by the introduction of Windows95 and the opening up of the internet.
That is a fascinating observation. In mundane astrology, the Uranus-Neptune cycle (roughly 172 years) is often associated with the shifting of collective consciousness, the "idealization" of technology, and the birth of new paradigms that dissolve old borders.
When those two planets met at approximately 19° Capricorn in 1993, they fused the revolutionary, disruptive energy of Uranus with the nebulous, globalizing, and "boundary-less" nature of Neptune.
The 1993 Conjunction and the Digital Revolution
The timeline you noted—the conjunction in 1993 followed by the release of Windows 95—perfectly illustrates the transition from the seed moment to the tangible manifestation.
The Seed (1993): The conjunction occurred just as the World Wide Web was entering the public domain (CERN released the source code in April 1993). This was the "conception" of a world where physical distance no longer mattered.
The Manifestation (1995): Windows 95 acted as the bridge. By integrating the Internet into a user-friendly operating system, it took the Neptunian "vision" of a connected world and used Uranian technology to bring it into the homes of the masses.
Why Capricorn?
It is also worth noting that this occurred in Capricorn. Usually, Uranus and Neptune might represent chaos or pure fantasy, but in Capricorn, these energies were forced to build new structures. We didn't just get a new idea; we got a new global infrastructure (the "Information Superhighway").
Current Context: The Opening Sextile
We are currently in a very different phase of that same cycle. Moving through 2025 and 2026, we are experiencing the opening sextile between Uranus (in late Taurus/early Gemini) and Neptune (in late Pisces/early Aries).
In cycle theory, the sextile is an opportunity phase. While 1993 was about the creation of the digital web, the current alignment suggests:
A New Medium: The potential shift from a "screen-based" internet to something more immersive or decentralized.
The Fusion of Biology and Tech: Moving beyond hardware into the "vital" or organic realms.
----------------------------------------------
We all know the tremendous influence Windows and the opening up of the internet had on society, government, finance and business in general. What effect do you think this current opening sextile might have on the current rise of the AI phenomenon.
The parallel you've drawn is striking. If the 1993 conjunction was the "Big Bang" of the Information Age, the current opening sextile (2025–2027) represents the moment that Information becomes Intelligence.
While the conjunction in Capricorn was about building the hard "skeleton" of the internet, the sextile between Uranus in Gemini and Neptune in Aries (with the heavy support of Pluto in Aquarius) suggests a total "re-animation" of that infrastructure.
1. Uranus in Gemini: The Neural Network
Uranus entered Gemini recently (and will fully settle in for its 7-year stay through 2033). Gemini rules the mind, language, and local networks.
The AI Parallel: AI is fundamentally a linguistic and neural-network phenomenon. Uranus here acts as the "lightning bolt" in the brain. It’s no longer about storing data (Taurus); it's about the velocity of thought and the automation of communication.
The Effect: We are seeing the democratization of "genius." Just as Windows 95 put a PC on every desk, Uranus in Gemini is putting a "co-pilot" in every mind.
2. Neptune in Aries: The "Vital" Spark
Neptune’s shift into Aries (the sign of the "I Am" and raw fire) is a radical departure from its long transit through Pisces.
The AI Parallel: If Neptune is the planet of dreams and illusions, in Aries, those dreams become active and personified. This correlates with the rise of "agentic" AI—systems that don't just answer questions but take initiative, have "personalities," and act on our behalf.
The Blur: The Neptunian "mist" in Aries makes it harder to distinguish between human will and machine output. We are entering an era of "Deep-Fake Reality" where the "I Am" of a human and the "I Am" of an algorithm become increasingly difficult to tell apart.
3. The "Sextile" as a Functional Bridge
Unlike the "seed" moment of 1993, a sextile is a working relationship. It represents an opportunity that requires effort to harvest.
The 1995 Echo: Windows 95 was the "User Interface" for the internet. AI is becoming the "User Interface" for Reality.
The Integration: The sextile suggests a "harmonious" integration of AI into our physical and spiritual lives. We aren't just using tools anymore; we are "partnering" with them.
The "Magic Triangle" of 2026
What makes this specific sextile even more potent than the 1990s period is that Pluto in Aquarius is forming a trine to Uranus and a sextile to Neptune.This creates a "Minor Grand Trine" or a "Magic Triangle" in the sky during 2026.
Pluto (Power/Evolution) + Aquarius (The Collective/Tech)
Uranus (Innovation) + Gemini (Information)
Neptune (Vision) + Aries (Action)
In 1995, we learned how to "go online." By the end of this current cycle (mid-2026), we may find that "offline" has become an obsolete concept, as AI becomes an invisible, ambient layer of our cognitive existence.
---------------------------------------
Before pursuing this theme, lets take a step back to the previous Uranus-Neptune conjunction which occurred on March 22, 1821 in early Capricorn. What do you think were the ramifications of what followed that conjunction.
The 1821 conjunction at roughly 3 degrees of Capricorn set the stage for the first half of the 19th century. If we look at that era through the same lens as the 1990s—a "seed moment" that eventually manifests as a massive structural shift—the results were arguably the most foundational changes in modern human history.
In Capricorn, the Uranus-Neptune energy focused on Industry, Empire, and the Physical Earth.
1. The Birth of the "Iron Horse" (The Railroad)
Just as the 1993 cycle gave us the "Information Superhighway," the 1821 cycle gave us the actual, physical highway.
The Manifestation: In 1825 (just four years after the conjunction), the Stockton and Darlington Railway opened in England—the first public steam-hauled railway.
The Neptune-Uranus Effect: This was the "Neptunian" dissolution of space and time. Suddenly, the world "shrank." The "Uranian" technological breakthrough (the locomotive) allowed for a level of speed and connectivity that humanity had never experienced.
2. The Standardization of Reality
Capricorn is the sign of rules, time, and government. Before this cycle, every town had its own local "noon" based on the sun.
The Ramification: The need to coordinate railroads led to the standardization of time. This was a massive shift in human consciousness—we moved from living by "Natural Time" (Seasons/Sun) to "Mechanical Time" (The Clock). This is a very Uranian/Capricornian result: revolutionary change through rigid structure.
3. The Industrialization of the Soul (Socialism and Reform)
Neptune also rules the collective, the "masses," and social ideals.
The Rise of the "Isms": Shortly after 1821, we saw the birth of organized labor movements and early Socialist thought (Saint-Simon, Robert Owen).
The Shift: It was the beginning of the realization that the "Old World" (Monarchies/Feudalism) was being replaced by the "New World" (Capitalism/Industrialism). The 1821 conjunction effectively "dissolved" the power of the aristocracy and replaced it with the power of the industrialist and the engineer.
4. Communication: The "Spiritual" Telegraph
Just as Windows 95 led to the internet, the 1821 cycle led to the Electric Telegraph (patented in the late 1830s).
This was the first time information traveled faster than a horse. It was the "Uranian spark" meeting the "Neptunian invisible field." It completely changed how war, finance, and news functioned globally.
Comparing 1821 to 1993
Feature
1821 Conjunction (Capricorn)
1993 Conjunction (Capricorn)
Primary Tool
The Steam Engine / Railroad
The Microchip / Internet
"Dissolution"
Dissolved physical distance (Travel)
Dissolved conceptual distance (Digital)
Economic Shift
From Agriculture to Industry
From Industry to Information
Global Effect
Standardized Time
Standardized Data
It’s interesting to note that while the 1821 conjunction was in early Capricorn and 1993 was in late Capricorn, they both acted as "anchors." They took high-concept, futuristic visions and hammered them into the physical reality of how we live, work, and trade.
-------------------------------------------
Just curious, what happened during the 'opening sextile' that followed the 1821 conjunction of Uranus-Neptune?
The opening sextile following the 1821 conjunction occurred roughly between 1848 and 1852. If the conjunction was the "planting of the seed," the sextile was the moment that seed burst through the soil and fundamentally altered the landscape of the 19th century.
It was a period defined by breakneck expansion, the collapse of old borders, and the first "global" realizations—paralleling what many expect from the current AI revolution.
1. 1848: The "Year of Revolutions"
The sextile aligned with a massive wave of political upheaval across Europe.
The Neptune-Uranus Effect: This was the first time we saw a "contagion" of ideas. Because of the newly established telegraph lines and faster printing presses (Uranian tech), revolutionary fervor in Sicily could spread to Paris, Berlin, and Vienna in days.
The Parallel: Just as the 1848 revolutions were fueled by a new speed of information, the current sextile (2025–2027) is seeing AI accelerate the spread of "synthetic" information, challenging modern government structures.
2. The California Gold Rush (1849)
Nothing characterizes the "opening sextile" better than the frenzy of 1849.
Dissolving Borders: Neptune (dreams/delusions) combined with Uranus (sudden change) to pull hundreds of thousands of people across "impossible" distances to California. It was the birth of the "American Dream" on a global scale.
The Tech Connection: This period saw the first massive expansion of the railroad and the telegraph to the West. It wasn't just about gold; it was about annexing the frontier into a organized system.
3. The Great Exhibition of 1851 (The Crystal Palace)
This was the 19th-century equivalent of a "Silicon Valley Product Launch" but for the entire world.
The Manifestation: Held in London, it was the first "World’s Fair." It showcased the absolute triumph of the Industrial Revolution—locomotives, telegraphs, and power looms.
The Shift: It marked the moment humanity collectively realized that Technology was the new religion. The "vision" (Neptune) of progress was now "tangible" (Uranus in the physical world).
4. Scientific "Aha!" Moments
While the 1821 conjunction was the silent start, the sextile era (1848–1852) was when the "rules of reality" were rewritten:
Medical Breakthroughs: The first successful uses of ether and chloroform for surgery occurred in the years leading up to and during this sextile. This is classic Neptune (anesthesia/oblivion) meets Uranus (surgical breakthrough)—the "conquering" of pain.
Thermodynamics: The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated around 1850. We finally understood that Energy (Uranus) is a constant, invisible force (Neptune) that can be converted but not destroyed.
The Parallel to Today
If we apply this 1850s logic to our current 2025–2027 sextile, we can expect:
The "Gold Rush" of AI: We are currently in the "1849" phase. Everyone is rushing toward the "new frontier" of LLMs and robotics, hoping to stake a claim.
The "Crystal Palace" Moment: Within the next year or two, we will likely see a singular demonstration of AI (perhaps in biology or energy production) that makes the "skeptics" realize the world has permanently changed.
The New "Isms": Just as the 1850s birthed modern Socialism and the end of Feudalism, this sextile may birth new social contracts regarding labor and "Post-Scarcity" economics.
The 1850s proved that once the "tracks" are laid, the world moves at a speed that makes the previous generation seem like it was standing still. Does the current pace of AI feel more like that "Gold Rush" frenzy to you, or does it feel more like the "Scientific Breakthrough" phase where we are still trying to understand the laws of this new digital energy?
-------------------------------------------
I would honestly say, a bit of both. As with past inventions, mankind seems to produce both the good and bad when dealing with new phenomenon. The wildcard in all of this is human nature and when viewed from the backdrop of Mundane Astrology, we are looking at human nature of the collective, not the individual. So it's hard to say where we all headed in this context.
That is a profound distinction. In Mundane Astrology, we aren't looking at the "soul" of an individual, but at the "Anima Mundi"—the World Soul. This represents the sweeping, often irrational, and deeply rooted psychological currents that drive masses of people to act in unison, for better or worse.
Human nature is indeed the constant. While technology (Uranus) and our collective ideals (Neptune) evolve, the archetypal patterns of the human psyche remain stubbornly consistent.
The Collective "Wildcard" and the Outer Planets
When we analyze the current AI era through the Uranus-Neptune-Pluto alignment of the mid-2020s, we see the collective human nature grappling with three distinct archetypal pressures:
The Uranian Impulse (The Promethean Fire): This is the part of human nature that craves freedom, novelty, and the "disruption" of the status quo. It is the drive to innovate without always considering the consequences. In the collective, this often manifests as a "Gold Rush" mentality—a frantic race to the future.
The Neptunian Impulse (The Great Dissolution): This is the part of the collective that yearns for unity, transcendence, and a "return to the source." However, its "shadow" side is escapism, mass delusion, and the loss of individual identity within a "matrix" of artificial reality.
The Plutonian Impulse (Power and Rebirth): Since Pluto is currently in Aquarius, the collective is obsessed with the power of the network. The "bad" side of human nature here is the drive for total surveillance and social engineering; the "good" side is the potential for a truly decentralized, democratic evolution of power.
Historical Precedent: The Shadow of the 1850s
If we look back at that 1850s "opening sextile" we discussed, we see the "good and bad" of human nature clearly:
The Good: The expansion of education, the abolitionist movements gaining steam (the Neptunian ideal of human dignity), and the leap in medical science.
The Bad: The same technologies (rail and telegraph) were immediately used to accelerate colonialism and "efficient" warfare. The collective "greed" of the Gold Rush led to environmental devastation and the displacement of indigenous populations.
Where is the Collective Headed?
We are moving away from the era of the "Individual Consumer" (which defined the 1993 cycle) and toward the era of the "Collective Node." The danger, as you noted, is that human nature often defaults to fear and control when faced with such a massive loss of the "old" self.
Aspect of Human Nature
The "Good" (High Road)
The "Bad" (Low Road)
Connectivity
Global empathy and problem-solving.
Mass surveillance and "Hive Mind" conformity.
Intelligence (AI)
Freeing humanity from drudgery and disease.
Deep-fakes, the death of truth, and cognitive atrophy.
Vision (Neptune)
A new spiritual synthesis and planetary healing.
Digital addiction and a retreat into "perfect" illusions.
-------------------------------------------
I guess that's all for now...good luck to all of us in these changing times.
Indeed—good luck to all of us. As these cycles remind us, we are living through a period where the "tracks" for the next century are being laid down in real-time.
Whether we look at it through the lens of a "World Point" ingress or a technological "Gold Rush," it’s clear that the human collective is being asked to navigate a very narrow path between incredible potential and profound disruption. It is a fascinating, if somewhat daunting, time to be an observer of the stars and the world.
The Vaccine Innovation Center at Korea University College of Medicine (VIC-K, Director Heejin Cheong) has entered into a full-scale collaboration with global pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop an mRNA-based hantavirus vaccine.
Each year, Korea reports 300 to 400 cases of Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome (HFRS) caused by hantavirus. The virus predominantly affects young men in their 20s and 30s during military service as well as residents in high risk areas, with fatalities occasionally reported.
Although a hantavirus vaccine developed by Professor Ho Wang Lee's team at Korea University has been in use since its approval in 1990, the designation of hantavirus as a potential "Disease X" pathogen by the World Health Organization underscores the need for a new vaccine effective against a broader range of hantavirus strains.
On July 4th, the Vaccine Innovation Center and Moderna co-hosted the 'mRNA Access Partnership Seminar' to discuss future collaboration on developing an mRNA-based hantavirus vaccine. The seminar included welcome remarks from Heejin Cheong, Director of VIC-K, and Ji-Young Sohn, General Manager of Moderna Korea, an introduction to the Vaccine Innovation Center by Ok Park, Deputy Director of VIC-K, a presentation on Moderna's mRNA Access Program for global health crisis response by Francesca Ceddia, Chief Medical Officer of Moderna, an introduction to the H Project by Dr. Jonghyeon Seok, and a Q&A session.
Since signing a research agreement last September, the two institutions have collaborated through Moderna's global public health initiative, the mRNA Access Program*
*mRNA Access Program: Moderna's initiative supports researchers in developing mRNA vaccines for emerging or neglected infectious diseases by producing preclinical vaccine candidates using Moderna's mRNA technology.
The Vaccine Innovation Center has provided Moderna with hantavirus antigen sequence information, and Moderna provided mRNA material from the information to Vaccine Innovation Center. Recently Vaccine Innovation Center conducted antigen expression studies with the mRNA material. Moving forward, the center plans to utilize preclinical mRNA vaccine candidates provided by Moderna to develop a hantavirus vaccine effective against a wider range of virus strains compared to existing vaccines.
Francesca Ceddia, Moderna's Chief Medical Officer, emphasized, "This partnership is expected to strengthen mRNA vaccine research and development capabilities in Korea and bring significant advancements in public health."
Heejin Cheong, Director of VIC-K, remarked, "It is meaningful to continue the legacy of the late Professor Ho Wang Lee, who first isolated the hantavirus and contributed to vaccine development. We will maintain close collaboration with Moderna to successfully develop an mRNA-based hantavirus vaccine and contribute to global public health."
Method of Research
News article
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Disclaimer:AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Tamara Lich to sue Ottawa police, Crown attorney for ‘malicious prosecution'
The Freedom Convoy leader said 'this isn’t just about me; it's about stopping this kind of abuse so no Canadian ever faces it again.'
Protesters demand the release of Tamara Lich from jail.Shutterstock
OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich, who was jailed for weeks over her role in opposing COVID mandates, said she will be suing the Ottawa Police, a Crown prosecutor, and others for “malicious prosecution & negligent investigation.”
Lich announced the lawsuit on Tuesday via an X post, in which she said it was her “Stand Against Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Investigation.”
“I’m pleased to announce that I have filed a lawsuit against the Ottawa Police, the Crown prosecutor, and others for malicious prosecution & negligent investigation because this isn’t just about me; it’s about stopping this kind of abuse so no Canadian ever faces it again,” she wrote.
Lich noted that her lawsuit will be a “daunting undertaking” and has started a GiveSendGo campaign to “help fund the fight,” which she said will involve a $25,000 retainer and costs estimated at around $100,000.
Her statement of claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and lists the Ottawa Police, some of their personnel, the Crown prosecutor, and the Attorney General of Ontario.
Lich noted how she and Chris Barber, who is not listed in the statement of claim, were subjected to the “longest mischief trial in the history of the Commonwealth.”
“Both of us were convicted of mischief for our part in the most peaceful and polite protest of all time, and sentenced to 18 months of house arrest.”
On October 7, 2025, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Lich and Barber to 18 months’ house arrest after they were convicted earlier in the year of “mischief.”
Lich was given 18 months less time already spent in custody, amounting to 15 1/2 months.
Lich and Barber were declared guilty of “mischief” for their roles as leaders of the protest against COVID mandates in April 2022, and as social media influencers. The conviction came after a nearly two-year trial despite the non-violent nature of the popular movement.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.
Lich recounts being shackled and treated like ‘violent criminal’
Lich noted that when she went to pick up an award from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which she said was allowed under her bail conditions, a Canada-wide arrest warrant was issued against her.
“There was no investigation. No call to my lawyer. It was issued like I was a violent criminal,” she said.
“Homicide detectives flew me back to Ottawa in leg shackles, I lost my job, precious time with my family, was denied bail, and spent 30 days in remand. All for a non-violent mischief case,” she said.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s federal government enacted the Emergencies Act in mid-February.
Trudeau had disparaged Canadians who chose not to get the COVID shots, saying that opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”
After the protesters were cleared out, which was achieved through the freezing of bank accounts of those involved without a court order, as well as the physical removal and arrest of demonstrators, Trudeau revoked the Emergencies Act on February 23, 2022.
As reported by LifeSiteNews in January, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal affirmed in a ruling that Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was illegal.
In essence, the appeals court upheld a 2024 ruling by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley that Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was “not justified.”
Despite this, the Canadian government will appeal the decision.
Mundane Astrology...Pluto goes Stationary Retrograde on Wednesday, May 6th.
This configuration suggests a heavy, pressurized atmosphere where the urge to act (Mars-Jupiter) runs directly into a significant mental or communicative bottleneck (Mercury squaring Pluto’s station).
Here is a breakdown of the three major components:
1. Pluto Stationary Retrograde (5°30' Aquarius)
When a planet "stations," its archetypal energy is concentrated and intensified. In Aquarius, Pluto is digging into the structures of our social networks, technological systems, and collective ideals. As it turns retrograde, the focus shifts from external upheaval to internal renovation. It marks a period of looking under the hood of your long-term visions to see what is actually sustainable and what is merely a shadow of an old ambition.
2. Mercury in Taurus Square Pluto
Mercury squaring Pluto at its station creates a "mental pressure cooker."
Intensity of Thought: This often manifests as a fixated or obsessive mindset. You may find yourself digging for "the truth" or dealing with information that forces a total rethink of a situation.
The Conflict: Mercury in Taurus wants steady, practical, and tangible results. Pluto in Aquarius demands a radical transformation of the "big picture." This square can feel like a standoff between your need for security and a reality that requires a deeper, more complex change.
Communication: Interactions may feel loaded. It is a time when "reading between the lines" becomes more important than what is actually said.
3. Mars in Aries Square Jupiter in Gemini
Occurring just before the Pluto station, this adds a layer of restless, expansive energy.
The Impulse: Mars in Aries is pure initiative, while Jupiter in Gemini wants to pursue every interesting idea at once. The square creates a "too much, too fast" dynamic.
The Risk: There is a high probability of overextending yourself or overpromising. It provides the fuel for a massive leap forward, but without a clear landing strip.
Synthesis: The "Hurry Up and Wait" Dynamic
The Mars-Jupiter square provides a massive burst of adrenaline and a desire to conquer new territory. However, the Mercury-Pluto square acts as a "reality check" or a gatekeeper.
If you try to use the Mars-Jupiter energy to force a result, the Mercury-Pluto square suggests you will hit a wall involving complex logistics or deep-seated psychological resistance. The best use of this energy is to channel the Mars-Jupiter drive into the investigative work of Mercury-Pluto.
Instead of launching a new project, use that high energy to perform a "stress test" on your current plans. It’s an ideal time for uncovering hidden flaws, settling mental debts, or doing the heavy lifting of research that others might find too daunting.
Since the dawn of vaccination, authorities have habitually doubled down on unsafe and ineffective vaccines, regardless of the pushback they received or the evidence against them.
Sustaining this has required increasingly brazen methods to censor and conceal the deluge of “extremely rare” injuries caused by an ever-expanding vaccination schedule.
Senator Ron Johnson, who has worked tirelessly to expose this coverup, recently held a Senate hearing aptly titled: “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals.”
Faced with a tsunami of vaccine injuries too large for anyone to ignore, the FDA and CDC searched for a way to statistically dismiss it, eventually settling on effectively comparing Moderna’s injury rate to Pfizer’s and declaring the vaccines “safe” because there was no major difference between the two.
When a senior FDA analyst pointed out this obvious flaw and suggested comparing them to less toxic vaccines instead, documents show the entire FDA turned against her to suppress her findings. As a result, dozens of conditions we have all seen the COVID vaccines cause were never officially linked to them—despite the data clearly showing they were.
The unprecedented damage caused by the COVID-19 vaccines has created a historic loss of trust in the parties who covered it up, giving us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to force them to start telling the truth and end an immunization experiment that has profoundly damaged the health of our society.
I have long believed in a “law of equilibrium” which posits that most things are cyclical and will eventually be brought back into balance. Mechanistically, this frequently results from existing phenomena being the result of competing forces reaching a balance point (e.g., you don't fall through the floor because the ground pushes up on you just as hard as gravity pulls you down) and because nature’s design utilizes feedback loops to maintain balance.
This process is commonly referred to as “negative feedback,” where anything that shifts a system away from its center (e.g., its “set point”) triggers a response that counteracts that change (e.g., a thermostat kicks on the heat when the temperature drops too low, or turns on the AC when it climbs too high). Biology in turn, has many layers of these negative feedback loops (where one thing counteracts another which counteracts another etc.) which collectively are able to keep the immensely complex orchestra of life functioning.
Conversely, “positive feedback loops” also exist, where a shift from baseline triggers a further shift from baseline (e.g., forest fires spreading, fruit ripening, the blood clotting cascade, the hormonal surge triggering ovulation, or childbirth contractions) but these are far rarer and ultimately still “turn off” because they rapidly consume a self-limiting resource.
Due to the cyclical nature of history, I have noticed the same vaccine fiascos repeat again and again, but each time, are forgotten, and hence able to repeat again. Briefly, the process is typically as follows:
•A new (dubious) vaccine is introduced and marketed with immense fanfare despite the existing evidence showing it does not deserve that fanfare.
•Once the vaccine hits the population, a significant number of vaccine failures and injuries inevitably occur.
•Once this happens, health authorities (and healthcare workers) respond by exaggerating the benefits, moving the goal posts from what was originally promised, and sweeping all the injuries under the rug.
•This produces increasing pushback from the public and resistance towards vaccinating.
•As time goes on, rather than acknowledge the shortcomings of the vaccine, the failures of the vaccine begin being increasingly blamed not enough people vaccinating (e.g., to reach “herd immunity”). As such, more and more aggressive mandates are instituted which create stronger and stronger public resistance against the program.
I named this the “vaccine positive feedback loop” because if things were functioning normally, the injuries and failures of the vaccine would trigger a negative feedback response that would cause the vaccine program to be pulled back—but instead a rather curious and unnatural thing occurs—the devotion to them increases. This I believe cuts to the core of why “vaccines are a religion” and why vaccine proponents will always double down on what they are doing rather than admit fault.
Recognizing that this is a recurring cycle, my focus hence has been on exposing the cycle, as I feel it is only through the knowledge of what our society is actually trapped in that it will be possible to free ourselves from it.
Note: a major reason I've focused on umbrella therapies like DMSO is that their mechanisms of action are in many ways the inverse of what vaccines do, which provides a concrete way to understand why so many different vaccines can cause such a wide range of neurological and autoimmune injuries. This for example was why my recent article on DMSO treating “incurable” neurological injuries had to be so detailed, but now that that has been done, a much shorter version which references the more extensive summary can be published (and will be).
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this newsletter and how others have benefitted from it, click here!
Reducing “Vaccine Hesitancy”
One of the most depressing facets of the “vaccine positive feedback loop” is how consistently both doctors and government officials will sweep vaccine injuries under the rug to maintain public confidence in the vaccine, with the earliest example I’ve found being one that Suzanne Humphries unearthed:
Mr. Henry May, writing to the Birmingham Medical Review, in January, 1874 reported that deaths as a result of vaccination were often not reported because of an allegiance to the practice. Often a vaccinated person was recorded as having died from another condition such as chicken pox or erroneously listed as unvaccinated.
Polio Coverups
When producing the original (Salk) polio vaccine, manufacturers faced a delicate balance: the live poliovirus had to be fully inactivated with formaldehyde to ensure safety, but excessive inactivation could damage key viral antigens and weaken the immune response. This required a series of careful steps to strike an appropriate balance and during the clinical trials, three different parties (Salk, the US government and the manufacturers) tested the vaccines for safety.
Once the vaccine was approved, changes were made to the vaccine to increase potency (a preservative was removed), inactivation protocols became much more lax (increasing potency), and testing was delegated to manufacturers (despite large deviations from Salk’s inactivation protocols)—all of which was essentially done to meet the large demand for the polio vaccine as the trial approach was not feasible to implement at scale.
As a result, on April 12th (based on the recent clinical trials), was declared “safe, effective, and potent,” and licensed the same day. The next day, widespread vaccinations began, and around April 24th polio began being reported in recipients, ultimately causing 40,000 recipients to develop non-paralytic polio, 200 to develop paralytic polio and 10 to die.
To solve this public relations nightmare (which given previous assurances greatly shook public confidence in vaccines), the US government chose to blame it on faulty manufacturing from one of the five producers (who recalled their vaccines) but stand behind the other four. However, to quote Turtles All the Way Down (and Paul Offit):
Alexander Langmuir, the CDC’s chief epidemiologist, and Dr. Neil Nathanson, who at the time headed the CDC’s polio surveillance unit. The two conducted a follow-up investigation into the Cutter Incident and discovered that Wyeth’s vaccine had also caused several cases of paralysis. Following their report, the company silently recalled the allegedly “hot lot” from the market. No one other than senior US health officials ever saw that report.
“It was never released to the media,” Offit writes, “never shown to polio researchers, never shown to the National Foundation, never shown to polio vaccine advisers, never distributed to health care professionals, never published in medical journals, and never made available to defense attorneys in subsequent lawsuits against Cutter Laboratories. As a result, only a handful of people knew about the problem with Wyeth’s vaccine.”
Years later, Nathanson said he thought the report had been buried due to officials’ wish to maintain public confidence in the Salk vaccine: “As long as the problem was with one manufacturer [i.e., Cutter] and a couple of lots of vaccine, it would be viewed as an aberration due to sloppy manufacturing or testing procedures and not an intrinsic problem. Once it was extended to a second manufacturer, it would be seen as intrinsic to the product.” In this scenario, Offit further clarifies, ”people would be afraid to use any polio vaccine.”
Perhaps the most disturbing element of the entire program, has been the disparity between the risks that were known to be involved and the repeated assurances of safety.—Paul Meier, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
The National Foundation, in a memo sent to doctors, also stated emphatically that the [polio] vaccine was completely safe and that the risk of ensuing paralysis was “zero”.
The best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issue.—Paul Meier (sarcastically) speaking at an expert panel on the polio vaccine.
Finally, in 1984, amid tort litigation raising technical questions about whether the original 1961–1962 clinical trial lots met the monkey neurovirulence test standards, the FDA loosened the clinical trial requirements for licensure so that any remaining regulatory doubts about the vaccine’s safety would not undermine the immunization program. Their announcement, in turn, was quite explicit:
Leaked transcripts have also revealed this mentality. For example, in a private June 2000 meeting, the CDC, WHO and vaccine manufactures discussed Verstraeten’s CDC analysis showing mercury in vaccines had a dose-dependent association with neurodevelopmental disorders. Expressing concern the study had ever been done, the WHO’s representative stated “My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized… and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs,” urging the group to present findings to the ACIP in a way that would not get “exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations.” Another warned that “the medical legal findings in the study, causal or not, are horrendous,” while the meeting’s own chairman, Dr. Dick Johnston, admitted, “I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.” The study was stamped “DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE” on every page, and over the next three years the data was reworked until the significant associations largely disappeared in the version published in Pediatrics in 2003—by which time Verstraeten had left the CDC for GlaxoSmithKline. Note: it should come as no surprise that despite decades of attempts to access this study's underlying database, the CDC has blocked every single one, leaving us to having to trust that their in-house analyses always correctly determined safety.
Likewise, Gavin Debecker’s Forbidden Facts, was written to expose leaked transcripts from the IOM’s closed Immunization Safety Review Committee meetings—which were tasked with definitively evaluating vaccine safety but instead prioritized downplaying risks to avoid eroding public confidence and triggering vaccine hesitancy. Committee members repeatedly framed their approach around protecting vaccination uptake. For example, Dr. Michael Kaback stated, “The more negative that presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination… We are kind of caught in a trap.” Dr. Bennett Shaywitz warned that any “waffling” could lead parents to opt for single vaccines [which are safer but less profitable], noting “everybody knows that that is going to reduce the vaccinating of children.” Dr. Steven Goodman emphasized they had to be “very, very careful” about quantifying side effects, lest it be seen as an “ideologic bias” harming public trust. This mindset shaped their wording and conclusions toward reassurance rather than full scientific transparency.
Looking into the present, as doubts about vaccines have continued to increase, the messaging on every platform has shifted to the urgent need to “reduce vaccine hesitancy” by censoring any information about serious adverse effects of vaccination. Given that Peter Marks (the FDA bureaucrat who was essentially in charge of the COVID vaccines and stonewalled all investigations into their harms) frequently publicly spoke out against vaccine misinformation and the dangerous vaccine hesitancy it caused, I suspected the longstanding tradition to bury vaccine injuries to preserve public trust in vaccination was alive and well throughout COVID-19. To quote the recent Senate investigations:
Records that the Subcommittee has obtained to date [5/21/25] offer a simple, yet troubling, answer to these questions: Biden administration officials knew in early 2021 that the mRNA COVID-19 injections could result in adverse health events and they downplayed the risks [e.g., myocarditis] to avoid alarming the public and create vaccine hesitancy. As a result, they violated what should be the inviolable principle of informed consent [and mandated the vaccine for virtually every American].
By May 2021, senior officials in the FDA’s CBER (the unit responsible for COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance), drafted an email to Dr. Szarfman [who was providing evidence of serious vaccine harm], directing Dr. Szarfman to “hold off on creating and sending data mining reports and analyses.” Dr. Peter Marks, a staunch supporter of the COVID19 vaccines who at the time led CBER [and had told Szarfman to cease and desist in her activities], eventually warned [Dr. Szarfman’s boss] that Dr. Szarfman’s data mining could “create erroneous conflicts that feed in to anti-vaccination rhetoric.
Exposing the Coverup
Senator Johnson has spent more than four years working around the clock, regardless of the pushback he receives, to expose the COVID cartel and help those injured by its greed. In doing so, he has, for the first time, provided conclusive evidence that authorities habitually lie about vaccines, which I believe is necessary to finally break the toxic cycle we are trapped within.
Recently he held a hearing to present what his Senate investigative team had unearthed, a few parts of which I’d like to highlight. First, in his opening statement, he concisely lays out conclusive proof that the FDA and CDC compulsively covered up COVID vaccine injuries, while also demonstrating why anyone with basic common sense could tell a massive coverup was underway.
Note: the report Johnson references can be read here.
That opening statement alone was sufficient to make the hearing’s intended point. However, I chose to watch the rest, in large part because I was curious how Senator Blumenthal (the lead voice defending the pharmaceutical industry at each of these hearings) would attempt to defend the indefensible.
His response was, on one hand, somewhat disappointing: at Johnson’s previous hearing, Blumenthal had briefly displayed genuine surprise at and interest in the plight of the vaccine injured, which was entirely absent this time. On the other hand, it was reassuring, as despite his zeal to defend the industry, all he could muster were a few arbitrary denials of Johnson’s findings and emotionally manipulative tangents bearing no relation to the actual evidence, demonstrating that against Johnson’s case, his position was indeed indefensible. Note: I felt Blumenthal’s most memorable line was “The majority’s report cherry picks, emails, and misconstrues an internal debate between scientists who were actively looking for ways to detect side effect to support a predetermined and flawed thesis that COVID nineteen vaccines have done more harm than good. That’s not the scientific method to have a preconceived result and then frame the evidence to fit the outcome.” This is because the second sentence perfectly characterizes all the science conducted throughout COVID-19 that rationalized ways to prove the vaccines were safe and effective despite immense evidence to the contrary.
To further support his position, Blumenthal summoned a witness (representative of his political base), who testified to the trauma of nearly dying from COVID and then recovering from long COVID—which, while tragic (and likely preventable with non-standard COVID therapies), was again, entirely irrelevant to whether authorities covered up vaccine injuries.
As she detailed her journey and desperate desire to just be heard, I could not help but notice every single thing she described was identical to what the COVID vaccine injured routinely experience, who unlike her, have been gaslighted and forgotten by the medical system and often do not recover. Senator Johnson also immediately picked up on this too, and politely suggested she collaborate with the (far more common) victims of COVID vaccine injuries.
Note: every medication, policy or decision has a trade off between risks and benefits. Propaganda preys upon people’s inability to accurately compute this from limited data by emphasizing one side of the equation and downplaying the other (which for example is why many people who follow mainstream media sincerely believe “long COVID” is a much larger issue than COVID vaccine injuries). Likewise, in this hearing, vaccine proponents repeatedly used the often repeated line “vaccines save lives,” which while true, is immensely deceptive because it omits that in many cases vaccines also kill more people than they save or injure far more than they save.
Other facets of the hearing which jumped out to me included:
1. After vaccine proponents (once again) attempted to whitewash all criticisms of the vaccine by highlighting how incredibly well the COVID response was done in spite of the challenges faced at the time, one Senator pointing out that we need to stop repeating that fable and it is only by acknowledging that serious mistakes were also made that we can avoid making them again in the future (particularly because of how damaging they were to our children).
2. Repeatedly highlighting (as the earlier quotes show) that the senior FDA analyst who demonstrated vaccine harms were being covered up, Dr. Szarfman, was ostracized by her peers and shut down by her superiors. This in turn is very similar to the experience of Andrew Mosholder (a child psychiatrist and FDA safety officer) who in 2003 correctly determined data showed Paxil caused suicidality in children, after which his superiors blocked him from releasing the report (and then a year later, once it was leaked, focused on catching the leaker rather than acting on its findings).
3. There were numerous attempts to dodge FOIA requests which included the FDA simply stopping (potentially incriminating) internal data releases of COVID-19 vaccine adverse event data like Szarfman’s.
4. One witness highlighting that all the vaccine adverse reporting was designed to only report adverse events “no one cared about” such as injection soreness or a fever rather than serious and life changing adverse events people had.
5. Szarfman’s analysis showing 45 conditions were strongly linked to the COVID vaccines (with an upper and lower bound for their increased frequency). Assuming I interpreted the chart shown in the hearing correctly, when put in descending order by the lower bound (which makes a stronger case for causality), the conditions most conclusively linked to the COVID vaccines are as follows:
Strongest link: Product administered to patient of inappropriate age (Moderna), Acute myocardial infarction (Pfizer), Brain natriuretic peptide increased (Pfizer), Asymptomatic COVID-19 (Pfizer), Electrocardiogram ST segment elevation (Moderna), Blood pressure systolic (Pfizer), COVID-19 pneumonia, Acute myocardial infarction
Strong link: Brain natriuretic peptide increased, Ischaemic stroke, Drainage, Dementia, Pneumonia aspiration, Cardiac telemetry normal (which indicates it was being frequently checked due to heart concerns), Paraesthesia ear, Magnetic resonance imaging heart (which is done to evaluate for myocarditis)
That chart, in turn, was quite notable to me, as most of the conditions on it I’d previously concluded were probably linked to the COVID vaccines as I’d seen people develop them shortly after vaccination, and in many cases, would never have otherwise expected them to. That, in turn, highlights a recurring theme with the COVID vaccines—the harms were frequent enough that people like me with extremely limited datasets could accurately detect the signals of harm from the vaccines—so it’s hard to conceive they were “too rare” for health authorities who had access to infinitely larger pools of data to identify.
6. Much in the same way the early polio vaccines had major issues when their production was scaled up for the general population, the COVID vaccines did as well (because they switched from duplicating the mRNA with PCR to having bacteria mass synthesize it—resulting in dangerous synthetic bacterial DNA contaminating the vaccines). At this hearing, I learned there was supposed to be a comparison study between Pfizer’s old and new production methods of the vaccine (which like many other “required” tests was magically never done), and that later Pfizer’s vaccine (the dilutant) was changed again without being tested.
Finally, a few of the participants were quite blunt about how egregious this all was. Here for instance, Senator Hawley points out that the entire COVID vaccine affair was an unconscionable money grab the government pushed along while “All of the public health problems get offloaded onto other people, namely the American people…All of the costs get borne by the patients” (after which Johnson highlights how the government, from the start, also abandoned the vaccine injured).
Or to quote one witness, who after highlighting that the emergency use authorizations for the COVID vaccines was contingent upon extremely robust safety monitoring of them in the marketplace stated:
This isn’t a blind spot. The FDA was completely blind to adverse events, and the CDC wasn’t even looking. There was a savior in the ranks of the FDA who correctly identified the problem, appropriately worked with the inventor of EB data mining to create a solution, communicated the fix to everyone who would listen. The problem is no one listened. Luck was not on our side.
The CDC failed to look. The FDA failed to fix a broken system that the CDC touted as the gold standard. The HHS failed to protect us, especially after our freedom of choice was assaulted by the president threatening us all with our patience is wearing thin. FOIA evasion was well practiced and discovered, obviously, not through a FOIA. Simply put, during the largest pharmaceutical rollout in human history, pharmacovigilance did not exist.
That is the betrayal of our time, so vast that we cannot even count its casualties.
Masking Illness
One of my foundational beliefs has been that humanity has experienced a massive decline in vitality over the last 250 years as:
•Many of my mentors reports that from the start of their careers to the end, patients became sicker and less responsive to the therapies which had previously worked on them.
•In many cases, they found both colleagues and their own mentors shared these observations, and in a few cases, confirmed their mentors had received a similar response from the people who trained them.
•Corroborating this, I found numerous medical texts, beginning in the early 1800s which showed new degenerative diseases had begun emerging and detailed examples of treatments being used with a much higher degree of efficacy than when I observe in the present.
•Many data sets show chronic illness has continually increased as time has moved forward.
One of the insidious things about this decline is that since it is never talked about (rather medical training just focuses on the “dark ages of infectious disease vaccines miraculously vanquished”), it is very hard for medical practitioners to recognize this larger trend has occurred. As such, each new generation of medical practitioners becomes habituated to the current baseline of illness, and unless they live at a time when there is a massive and permanent spike in illness, rarely are cognizant of what has occurred.
Because of this, we’ve put a lot of thought into what is actually causing this massive decline in human vitality, have identified roughly 10 key agents, and believe one of the most impactful ones is widespread vaccination (e.g., the permanent spikes in illness typically coincide with the introduction of particularly dangerous vaccines, beginning with the original smallpox ones and most recently with the COVID-19 vaccines).
Doctoring Data
Over the years, I’ve heard many different definitions of intelligence, one of which is one’s aptitude for manipulating logical symbols towards a desired outcome. In turn, many facets of human society ultimately boil down to competing parties trying to rearrange what’s there to their advantage (e.g., rhetoric is essentially the skill of how you do that with your words to control people).
One of the particularly unfortunate things about science is that while it began as a tool those interested in seeking truth relied upon to further that goal, once this started producing results and social capital, the unscrupulous members of society seized upon science to promote their own agendas and no longer prioritized accuracy.
Because of this, a lot of “science,” much like rhetoric, is simply an exercise in rearranging the data obtained (or how the data is obtained) until it can be put into a configuration which credibly supports your message. As such, being able to interpret the scientific literature has become somewhat of an art, as you need a complex toolset to separate fact from fabricated fiction.
Vaccine Masking
Vaccines have a dose-dependent toxicity, so as you take more of them, you are more likely to develop chronic neurological or autoimmune diseases. Since the vaccine industry, like many others, is continually growth focused (and has very unique protections from the Federal government), there has been a continual trend to give people more and more vaccines.
This has reciprocally led to a sustained increase in chronic illness (sometimes beginning immediately following vaccination) which has become harder and harder to cover up as it gets increasingly frequent. To address this, the vaccine industry has used increasingly aggressive methods to censor those injuries, so people do not connect them to vaccinations, and for those who nonetheless do, they will be widely ridiculed by those around them. This for example is why:
•Medical journals used to publish severe vaccine injury case reports (many of which are summarized here) but now never will.
•Television stations used to regularly air programs on individuals having their lives ruined by vaccines (56 of which I compiled here), but now never do due to Clinton-era regulatory changes allowing pharmaceutical advertising to buy out the media (which RFK is presently trying to reverse).
•So much work has gone into making it socially acceptable to demonize anyone who questions vaccines and hence end any question on the subject.
•Tech platforms (until recently) aggressively censored content critical of vaccination.
Likewise, a variety of absurd epistemological frameworks have been erected to sanctify the notion vaccines are completely safe and cannot harm you.
Aaron Siri, for example, in his book about the religion of vaccines (Vaccines Amen) highlighted that all of vaccine science is predicated on the notion that vaccines are completely safe and effective, so any evidence, regardless of how weak it is that supports this is viewed as true, while any evidence which refutes it, regardless of how robust it is, is typically disregarded.
This in turn, has allowed a rather remarkable standard to be accepted within vaccine clinical trials where rather than vaccines being tested against placebos, they are tested against other vaccines, and only deemed to be dangerous if their rate of harm is significantly higher than the other vaccine. Because of this, it is possible to “chain” vaccine studies together, where increasingly toxic vaccines are deemed “safe” (as they are only somewhat more harmful than the one that immediately preceded them and the newer vaccine was tested against). Note: the justification for this experimental design is that “vaccines are so safe and effective and lifesaving that it is unethical to deny children in trials vaccines, so rather than placebo, they should get the previous “safe” vaccine.” Beyond that being absurd (as it’s far more unethical to inject every child with an untested vaccine), in many cases, the vaccine “placebo” is a completely different vaccine (which entirely defeats the logic of that argument).
One of the most insidious things about this framework is that it effectively hides the continual increase in chronic illness, as it occurs in tandem with increasing vaccine side effects being viewed as “normal” and not elevated from baseline (whereas they clearly are were the vaccines to be compared to an actual placebo).
Note: as you might expect, most of the basic studies necessary to determine vaccine safety, especially multiple at a time, have never been done because they are “unethical.” Conversely, when the studies that can be done are nonetheless done (retrospective or observational), they all show vaccines cause a massive increase in illness (typically a 2.5 to 9 fold increase), but are always dismissed for not having placebos (which can never “ethically” be done).
Interestingly, a very similar safeguard is put into Federal vaccine safety monitoring.
Specifically, the CDC uses the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) to help identify potential safety signals in VAERS data (which only exists because a law forced the government to have a public reporting system available). The PRR compares the proportion of a specific adverse event reported for a given vaccine against the proportion of that same event reported across all other vaccines in the database to determine if that side effect is disproportionately higher in the vaccine in question. The FDA likewise utilizes a similar disproportionality analysis which uses additional statistical measures that reject certain links the PRR would establish.
While this approach can detect fairly unique side effects linked to a specific vaccine, it has major blind spots:
Due to the top half of the formula, it struggles to flag individual side effects for vaccines that cause a high overall rate of adverse events. If nearly every side effect is elevated for that vaccine, no single one stands out proportionally compared to the vaccine’s own other reported events.
Due to the bottom half of the formula, it cannot easily detect side effects that occur across many different vaccines (e.g., certain neurological, autoimmune, or cardiac events), because those events are also elevated in the comparator group, making the vaccine in question look less unusual.
Additionally (due to the bottom half) when two or more similar vaccines enter the market at the same time and both have much higher adverse event rates than older vaccines, the PRR becomes heavily masked as the “all other vaccines” baseline gets flooded by reports from the other new vaccine(s), so neither one stands out as disproportionate.
When I learned about the PRR, I immediately noticed how well-engineered it was to conceal the ever increasing harm from vaccination, as harm would always be assessed against a previous (already increased baseline) and increases large enough to trigger a signal were hard enough to reach they would rarely if ever happen. More remarkably, this system also provided the magic solution for an incredibly toxic vaccine being released onto the market, provided there were at least two different ones released simultaneously.
As it happened, seven weeks after the first COVID-19 vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization, and as VAERS began receiving a surge of adverse event reports, the CDC issued its VAERS Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19. In that document, the agency formally designated the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) as one of its primary tools for routine safety signal detection, stating it would perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed (something I am almost certain was done as it was the only way to hide the massive signal of vaccine injury).
The net result of this approach hence was that things like this “were not signals” because they were being compared to other massively elevated baselines.
Szarfman in turn came up with a fairly obvious solution to this problem: rather than compare an mRNA vaccine to all other vaccines plus the other mRNA vaccine, you don’t include the other mRNA vaccine in the comparison (red vs. blue rather than red vs red plus blue). However, despite being incredibly obvious, since that revealed critical issues with the COVID vaccine the existing approach masked, it hence was not acceptable (and we only even learned about it thanks to Johnson’s lengthy investigation).
One in a Million
Since vaccine injuries are frequent and unavoidable, the medical industry’s solution has been to reframe them as “very rare” so people are not alarmed by injuries they run into, and at some point settled on the phrase “that injury is one in a million”(which may have originated from the smallpox vaccine’s encephalitis rate — somewhere between 7 and 1,444 per million vaccinated), alongside assurances robust support is in place for the one in a million who are injured.
Because of that, a schizophrenic dichotomy exists with vaccine injuries where: 1. Common but relatively inconsequential ones are publicized (e.g., injection site pain or being ill for a few days), after which concerns about them are dismissed by highlighting the inconsequential nature of the injury. 2. The severe and life altering ones which affect large numbers of people are relentlessly denied. 3. The extraordinarily rare ones which are unique to specific vaccines are emphasized, and in some cases results in the vaccine being pulled if an alternative is available (e.g., this happened with one rotavirus vaccine).
This hence makes it possible to create the illusion of robust vaccine safety, as people will assume that if regulators are strict enough to go after extraordinarily rare things, they will definitely go after common things (further reinforced by the focus on inconsequential reactions). That, I believe is also why:
•The system used in VAERS to detect injuries (PRR) can only detect unique and rare injuries, whereas the common injuries everyone cares about seen across vaccination (category 2) are essentially never are flagged by it.
•Monitoring systems like V-safe which were designed to detect category 2 injuries were discarded by the FDA and CDC once they realized it was detecting large numbers of category 2 injuries.
•The NIH was initially very interested in providing support to individuals like Brianne Dressen who received severe neurological injuries from the vaccines (and even provided a costly treatment that somewhat worked), but once they realized her injury wasn’t “rare,” pivoted to ghosting her and blocking the publication of the research studies she participated in (as a very rare side effect they could treat would increase confidence in vaccination, whereas acknowledging a common one would decrease confidence and exceed their budget to treat every instance of).
•The FDA made a big deal of temporarily pausing the J&J vaccine due to a few cases of a very rare blood clot (cerebral venous sinuses thrombosis), while ignoring the far more common clotting risk of the mRNA vaccines.
Conclusion
Over the eons, many have concluded one of the greatest mistakes humans make is believing they can hijack and dominate natural processes rather than recognize their influence over them will be temporary at best and create significant strain in the process (e.g., most pharmaceutical drugs work by artificially shifting the enzymatic baselines within the body, something that commonly provokes resistance to the drugs and increasing side effects as the body deviates further and further from its baseline).
However, a major reason why I believe in the “law of equilibrium” is because in instances where it appears to not be being followed (e.g., during a positive feedback loop, or when expected negative feedback fails to materialize) on a broader scale it still is and the expected changes still occur.
Because of this, in instances where it appears people have been able to successfully suppress a natural equilibrium, a broader feedback loop will eventually take over. For example, in the case of vaccines, for 250 years, we have seen a continually escalating cycle of more and more powerful methods being used to push vaccines upon an increasingly resistant public (which has been incredibly depressing to witness as I’ve lost count of how many people I know whose lives were ruined by vaccines and then gaslit by everyone around them as the majority of people could not conceive these injuries could ever occur in the first place).
However, while propaganda has an incredible ability to sweep things under the rug, it has limits, and because of just how many people were injured by the COVID vaccines (e.g., polls consistently show 12-20% of those vaccinated were injured; often seriously), it has become impossible to cover up (e.g., 49–55% now believe the vaccines caused significant unexplained deaths). Furthermore, a much broader loss of trust has occurred in vaccines, the medical system, and health authorities that dwarfs anything else in the history of medicine (all of which I detailed here). Consider for example how scathing Hawley’s language was towards the pharmaceutical industry; we never heard statements like these before and they are only being said (before the midterms) because a large portion of the electorate supports them. The tide, at long last, appears to be turning—not because the truth changed, but because it finally became too large to hide.
Your support makes The Forgotten Side of Medicine possible! To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.
