Source: AMidwesternDoctor.com
Throughout my lifetime, I have heard people claim that the future will bring better technology and that science will make the world a better place and solve all our problems. Yet, again and again, these promises fail to materialize, and we are perpetually stuck waiting for science’s promised future.
In many cases however, the technology was in fact developed. The problem however was that the technology’s development threatened someone’s ability to make money (or gain power) so the technology was buried and never saw the light of day. For example, throughout COVID-19 we heard numerous promises that a solution to the pandemic was around the corner (e.g., the miraculous vaccines) yet each time an un-patentable solution (e.g., ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine) was found, the pandemic-industrial-complex ruthless suppressed it to ensure their grift could continue.
Within the field of data, a similar issue exists. The mantra from Silicon Valley which has gradually entered the rest of the culture is that “more data” is the solution to all of our problems. However, once that data gets in the way of someone’s ability to make money, it often never sees the light of day.
In a recent article, I showed how there have been numerous vaccine disasters where a rushed vaccine was developed, the FDA was warned by its own scientists the vaccine was not safe (often due to its rushed production method) and then rather than heed those warnings, the government chose to bring the vaccine to market and have every authority repeat the mantra that the vaccine was “safe and effective.” Then once Americans began to be injected and data started accumulating showing the vaccine was indeed not safe, the government instead chose to double-down on its position, insisting the vaccine was safe and doing whatever it could to cover up that inconvenient data—all of which also happened with the COVID-19 vaccines.
In each of the past vaccine disasters, the dangers of the vaccine were eventually exposed by the media, before long the unsafe vaccine was pulled from the market, and ultimately, there was some degree of accountability (e.g., the responsible officials had to resign or the victims received financial compensation through the courts).
Seeing that this was not good for business, the vaccine industry in turn adopted a few strategies which radically tilted the deck in their favor:
•Bill Clinton in 1997 legalized direct to consumer pharmaceutical (drug) advertisement (something only otherwise legal in New Zealand). Since most of the pharmaceutical industry’s expenditures are in advertising, this allowed them to become the dominant advertisers on television, and within a few years, the networks stopped being willing to air stories critical of vaccinations, even when the CEO personally supported the story being aired.
Note: the final unsafe vaccine the American media exposed was George W. Bush’s 2002 “emergency” smallpox vaccine (which rapidly ended the program because there were too many injuries in the military). Not long after, in 2006, the incredibly dangerous HPV vaccine entered the market, and despite a deluge of injuries, the American media would not touch it—instead it was exposed by a Danish network in 2015.
•Vaccine manufacturers were exempted from liability for their products—instead vaccine injuries were delegated to a federal compensation program which only allowed a narrow range of injuries to receive compensation. This understandably took away the industry’s motivation to produce safer vaccines.
•The vaccine industry worked with the FDA to create a variety of regulations for “emergency” vaccines which waived both the existing requirements to prove safety or efficacy and the ability to pursue the manufacturers in the legal system (either by directly suing them or though the federal vaccine injury compensation program)…