THERE is hardly a more important issue to discuss today than the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’, especially as society risks dividing itself into those who are perceived as clean (with a ‘passport’) and those who are not. What is worse, we the public are being played, or ‘nudged’, into this tyranny.
In the modern and highly-specialised world, people, including those who work in science and medicine, have no choice but to trust the terminology used by scientific and health authorities. Yet the terminology is very confusing, if not often deliberately misleading. This results in Government spokesmen, MPs answering constituents’ concerns, and the MSM (who should be questioning and investigating this) misleading the public.
As a scientific technical writer by profession, I feel that I have a duty to help, rather than watch society being ‘nudged’, as trusting and well-intentioned people become feeble subjects of the biggest-ever experiment in behavioural ‘science’.
Behavioural ‘scientists’ and behavioural psychologists seem suddenly to have more political power than HM Government. But these professionals are not objective archangels guiding society to its divinely ordained ends. They have their own worldview and some of them, perhaps all, are politically motivated in this ‘window of opportunity’ to change the mass psychology. Susan Michie, for instance, who sits on Sage and the Covid-19 Behavioural Science Advisory Group, is a member of the Communist Party of Britain. Her worldview is radically different from mine. I begrudge having my behaviour, and society’s behaviour, changed by her and her colleagues. I am deeply disturbed that my fellow citizens have been so easily manipulated, and that they are now attempting to manipulate me, whether they realise it or not. The key to this manipulation is the new science of ‘nudging’ and we need to become familiar with it.
This is the remit of the Behavioural Insights Unit, a ‘social purpose organisation’ originally set up within the UK Cabinet Office, which proudly calls itself The Nudge Unit and boasts that it exists to improve people’s lives and communities.
‘Nudging’ sounds innocuous enough, but it is Orwellian-speak for coercion. Already, families have been divisively nudged into becoming the Government’s agents. I know this, because I have been getting it in the ear from my mother (a former State Registered Nurse), and from relatives, friends and neighbours. ‘Has Mark had the jab yet?’, they ask my wife. ‘No,’ she replies. ‘Why not?’ they ask. On top of all this, I have had persistent nagging from the NHS, via phone calls and letters.
I imagine that my experience of ‘nudging’ is fairly typical. One has to hand it to the Government’s Nudge Unit: they are good at their job. And all this for an ‘experimental vaccine’ (I will return to the term ‘experimental vaccine’).
I should say that I am not radically opposed to the Covid-19 vaccines that are on the market for emergency use. Ex-Pfizer science chief Dr Mike Yeadon (who has contributed to TCW) suggests that those who are particularly vulnerable (such as the elderly) should discuss it with their doctor. Like many scientists and doctors, he advises the young not to accept it, and certainly not children. Yeadon is just one of many good and questioning scientists who have been marginalised by the international ‘Nudge Units’ of Big Tech. This hardly surprising, because Bill Gates has been obsessively enthusiastic about biotech vaccines for years, and the founders of Google are transhumanists, also obsessed with biotech, as the means to life extension if not eternal life. For Google, it seems, you can avoid taxes and death.
Analysis of the Terminology
I am beginning to realise that we need a glossary of terminology (perhaps I will write one), and comparison of the US and UK terminology. I will give a few examples here of why this is necessary. For instance, I am alarmed at the way the UK Government and the NHS seem to have imported text from the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), and made it more nudge-friendly. It almost feels as though PM Boris Johnson, a journalist/sketch writer by trade, has decided to ‘improve’ on what the Americans have written.
Now, I have often used the term ‘experimental vaccine’, as have other writers on TCW. Critics often scoff at the use of this term, and are likely to point to the NHS statement:
‘The vaccines approved for use in the UK have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
‘Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The MHRA follows international standards of safety.’ [My emphasis.]
There are many things wrong with this NHS statement. It is misleading at best. The medicines are not licensed. The medicines are not approved (certainly not according to the FDA, who in granting ‘emergency authorisation’ for three vaccines tell us ‘There is no US Food and Drug Administration approved vaccine to prevent Covid-19’), and the clinical trials are still in progress. We are now in the long-term trials, or Phase 3 of four phases, following which the medicine is assessed and either licensed or revoked. This is why I feel justified in calling the vaccines ‘experimental’. The medical term used by the health authorities is ‘investigational’. Here is the dictionary definition (Merriam Webster):
Investigational [medical]: relating to or being a drug or medical procedure that is not approved for general use but is under investigation in clinical trials regarding its safety and efficacy.
There is no mention of ‘investigational’ on the NHS description. But every letter of authorisation from the FDA to Janssen BioTech, to Moderna TX and to Pfizer Inc for the Covid-19 vaccines describes each product as: ‘an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication’.
Frankly, all this needs sorting out, and only then we can have meaningful and necessary dialogue, necessary to reverse our descent into Orwellian tyranny.