Supreme Court of India Recalibrates “The Science” on Vaccine Mandates
Covid injections are safe and effective enough for governments to force their citizens to choose between having them and losing employment. According to most of the media, at least in subtext, that is a fact long settled by experts.
However, the Supreme Court of India would beg to differ, if begging had anything to do with it:
On vaccine mandates, the court said that “no data has been placed by the Union of India or the states appearing before us, controverting the material placed by the petitioner in the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons” and therefore, the “various vaccine mandates by state governments / Union territories cannot be said to be proportionate”.
Out of all the arguments issued from federal and state levels, nothing was deemed to controvert the legal opinion that vaccine mandates are unjustified. How could that be? Since covid arrived, no credible person doubted that the vaccines would, and then did, warrant univocal promotion and zero hesitance with regard to uptake.
Some might question this by noting that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris expressed and indeed urged major hesitancy while Trump presided over the warp-speed operation to create the vaccines. So let’s consider unambiguous statements in a video featuring the now President and Vice-President of the US. (Click the unmute button obscured in the white space at the bottom right corner.)
Biden: “….take it?…only if we knew all of what went into it.”
Harris: “…but if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
Directly in response to “Would you take it?,” she radiates and implicitly advocates maximal hesitancy: “Well I think that’s gonna be an issue for all of us.”
However, Politifact did a lot to obfuscate this by way of “checking facts.” The latter included several other plain statements clarifying that the faith of these top Democrats in any Covid19 vaccine was entirely conditional on profound modes of assurance that require no type of reliance on Donald Trump. For each of these comments, Politifact included the broader quote from which they were excerpts, which only served to further anchor and deepen the understanding just related, except for one pivotal ruse: “The parts that are left out make clear that Biden and Harris were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout.” On the contrary, the included parts demonstrate their anxiety about both and it would obviously be incoherent to think the product so vulnerable to his involvement was nothing to worry about. It is a vacuous distraction here to distinguish “the vaccines themselves.”
The video went viral because it underscored how trust in the vaccines must be conditional, not with merely with respect to Trump, but also with respect to Biden and Harris, along with any and all other syndicates that make its production, distribution and promotion subject to conflicting interests.
Yet we made these vaccines compulsory, by compelling people to choose between taking them or losing their jobs.
As quoted above, one of Biden’s explicit conditions for trusting a covid vaccine was that “we know all of what went into it.” But such contents remain far from being fully disclosed and little if any of what we learnt of them in the interim is reassuring as opposed to troubling.
Why did Fauci say the vaccines are 100% effective against hospitalisation and death? With regard to him personally, or whatever edifice he staked the claims on, would lying or incompetence be worse?
Why did Biden say you’re not going to transmit the disease if you get vaccinated?
We might even wonder why he made another stage production of his second booster, when constantly retreating claims for all the covid jabs were originally predicated on two shots as opposed to four and rising.
Perhaps he says and does these things for the same reason as most other establishment figures, because it has been the means to both manage and manipulate general panic. But these control strategies naturally come at a real cost of injustice, now rendered increasingly undeniable by bodies like India’s Supreme Court which expose the poverty and superficiality of much “consensus” to date.
In reality many experts have strongly dissented with every aspect of pandemic management since early 2020, when most of it inverted with respect to prior orthodoxy. Countless others have remained silent in fear for their livelihoods as regulatory bodies and universities ruthlessly demanded compliance with official public health messaging.
Of all the new approaches, mandatory inoculation with novel coronavirus shots was the most staunchly resisted, but that was effortlessly taken care of by revising dictionaries and savaging logic to decry pro-vaccination authorities in medicine who object to vaccine mandates as anti-vax. Could there be an uglier or more grave example of superstitious and puerile abuse of language?
Either way, the tag is unlikely to gather additional clout from any effort to pin it on the Supreme Court of India. The same obviously goes for ‘anti-science’, ‘conspiracy theorists’ and above all, ‘agents of disinformation’. Scapegoats thus branded have been driven out of contemporary discourse as a matter of official policy worldwide. But even orthodox bigotry has a limit and it has finally been discovered. In that respect, the judgement of this court is a crucial milestone.