Why Did the US Government Lie About the COVID Vaccines?
The increasing freedom of information enabled by an uncensored media is gradually waking people up to the many harmful things being done to them on a daily basis
That uncomfortable reality is traumatic to come to terms with, which in turn leads many to want to understand why it’s happening.
In my own case, whenever I observe something pernicious, my question is always whether the events were:
- A naturally emergent phenomenon resulting from human nature and the specific circumstances at play — one that likely would have occurred regardless of who was involved.
- A coordinated plot by a group of bad actors (e.g., powerful sociopaths) who deliberately harmed the world for their own benefit.
The essential problem is that in most cases, a strong case can be made for either interpretation, so which one you settle on is typically a product of what your mind is primed to focus on.
In my own case, I seriously consider both — I’ve spent decades reading about the people behind the scenes who pull the strings, and I’ve lost count of how many malevolent things I’ve seen enacted in a coordinated, systematic manner over years if not decades.
But as time has gone on, I’ve leaned toward the naturally emergent perspective because:
- I keep seeing the same processes play out across so many different spheres.
- In many cases, bad actors don’t directly orchestrate things so much as amplify existing dysfunctional dynamics to move things in their preferred direction.
- Putting all your focus on one bad actor rarely proves productive. Those fights drag out for years and rarely go anywhere (e.g., we are still waiting for Fauci to be brought to justice for COVID), and intensely focusing on a single person just creates a niche for other bad actors to do the same thing. In contrast, focusing on the core dynamics that allow evil to arise provides a much more lasting immunity against it.
For example, all things considered, the COVID-19 health freedom movement has been incredibly successful — accomplishing much more than I ever expected — but it has still fallen short of many of its key goals.
Much of this stems from continual fracturing and infighting that has prevented MAHA from presenting a unified front to lobby for systematic policy changes. Partly because of this, RFK Jr. (who is still accomplishing a lot) has been unable to implement many of the most contested MAHA health policies the federal apparatus is doing everything it can to undermine.
As a result, many commentators have convinced their audiences that MAHA’s leadership sold out, while others are convinced the pharmaceutical industry has intentionally planted divisive voices to accelerate fractures — along with a smaller minority who believe pharma is using tools like bots to amplify divisive voices, incentivizing them through internet engagement rather than direct payments.
While I recognize it’s possible there are “controlled opposition” figures in the movement — particularly since both I and associates have periodically seen obvious plants inserted into much smaller movements we worked with — I believe the natural emergence hypothesis (likely amplified by bots and mainstream media) is far more probable because:
- I’ve seen the exact same dynamics in many smaller groups I’ve been involved with — disruptive members trying to defame or “controlled opposition” a leader I knew with certainty was completely committed to the cause. Ultimately, much of this resembles the gossip and reputational violence I dealt with from mean girls in high school, which I was then shocked to encounter again as a medical student and resident at multiple hospitals.
- In any movement, there will always be a spectrum from people deeply committed to the cause to those who join out of convenience or self-interest and are motivated to prioritize themselves over the group. No one is perfect, so even the most committed people, once put under a microscope, have potentially questionable traits. And individuals who have been marginalized their entire lives — who learned they can’t trust people when opposing the system — will be prone to traumatic, overreactive responses that can easily be misinterpreted as sinister.
Because of all this, my fear from the start was that the same fractures I’d seen everywhere else would appear in the COVID-19 health freedom movement.
My goal has been to serve as a positive counterweight: promoting people with integrity who I felt were doing good work, working to create a standard others would be incentivized to replicate (e.g., factual, clear positions strongly supported by evidence), advocating for unity and compassion, and — when it was necessary to speak out, regardless of my frustration — attacking ideas rather than people.
One of the major reasons why pernicious gossip and reputational violence often sticks is because when people do not fully understand a situation, they will default to filling in the blanks by assuming they know someone else’s intentions and then using that assumption to explain everything which has happened.
Sometimes those assumptions are correct, but in many other cases they are not (e.g., some of the caricatures I’ve seen made of people in this movement I know quite well have almost nothing to do with who these people actually are).
In law, a much higher standard applies: in civil defamation cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, it is quite difficult to hold someone liable unless there is strong evidence that they knew their statement was false at the time or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (which must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, which often requires near ironclad proof of the speaker’s state of mind).
Likewise, for criminal perjury, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly and willfully made a false statement under oath about a material matter (rather than just being careless or not knowing their statement was false).
Remarkably however, we have gradually met that (nearly impossible) standard with the COVID vaccines. For example, Anthony Fauci, to dispel the notion COVID-19 leaked from a lab (which he funded), at the start of the pandemic repeatedly cited an expert paper that stated COVID-19 could have only emerged naturally.
Documents provided by the House Oversight Committee subsequently revealed Fauci pushed for that study, was heavily involved in its drafting, and that he worked with the NIH director to quash “lab leak rumors” once the initial paper failed to.
Likewise, documents and Slack leaks showed that the authors of the paper seriously doubted the natural origin hypothesis they published.1,2,3
Note: while it is not possible to read minds, my experience has been that “past actions are the best predictor of future behavior,” so much in the same way governments or societies tend to repeatedly act the same way, if an individual has a history of acting in a specific dishonest or unscrupulous manner (e.g., Fauci always lies), you can reasonably assume they will continue to do so, and I cannot count how many times this has saved me (e.g., if someone I just met did something sketchy out of the blue, I immediately distanced myself from them and in a few cases, learned of them subsequently harming someone else when they were alone together in private or financially in some type of business arrangement).
With the COVID vaccines, while the focus was typically on the figurehead Anthony Fauci, when I went through everything, the issues kept on coming back to Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s center for biologics (which oversees the vaccine division).
Briefly:
•Within the FDA Peter Marks continually pushed for expediting COVID vaccine approvals (that were necessary for White House political goals), even as the FDA’s top vaccine experts (who strongly supported vaccination) said the timeline was too fast and too many corners were being cut—eventually resulting in Marks pushing them out and the approvals occurring.
•Throughout the COVID vaccine process, Marks insisted the vaccines were rigorously tested, no corners were being cut, and there was no evidence the vaccines had any safety issues.
•In private, he continually met with vaccine injured patients over vaccine safety concerns but would always find some type of way to deflect the validity of the evidence presented (e.g., refuse to discuss it, say the FDA needed more time to conduct an analysis to find a signal, blame the injuries on something else) and most importantly, despite many requests, would never define what would constitute acceptable proof of vaccine harm.
•As he stonewalled the vaccine injured patients he continually insisted he cared about them and was deeply empathetic for their suffering (a common manipulative tactic dishonest people use). Remarkably, as he was doing this, he attended a vaccine conference where he publicly stated “It’s crazy that they don’t get how great vaccines are…I am past trying to argue with people who think that vaccines are not safe.”
See more here midwesterndoctor.com