The Unvaccinated have Blood on their Hands

Is this how the narrative will shift?

I’m constantly trying to work out how the narrative will shift if the link between vaccines and excess deaths is proven so much so that it cannot be ignored by the masses. That shift is already starting to happen with big names such as “Dillbert” creator, Scott Adams, admitting that “anti-vaxxers” were right.

In his recent YouTube rant, Scott wrongly calls the mRNA vaccine hesitant “anti-vaxxers” but says that they won. Natural immunity and no vaccination in you is the winning path, he said. “The smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn’t get the vaccination, and they’re still alive.”

Whether or not Scott’s video is tongue in cheek or not, it shows, in my opinion anyway, the slow shift in the mainstream towards that viewpoint.

I recently wrote about how con men leave behind an individual to ‘control the mark’ and whether this is what would happen if a link between excess deaths and vaccines was proven. This would ensure that a controlled release of anger rather than an unpredictable uprising would occur.

In the article, I suggested that one way to do this was to thank the vaccinated for their sacrifice as it was the only way to defeat the virus and get through the pandemic.

Progressing this idea further, I read an article in IQFY today which made me think how, once again, anger could be deflected onto the unvaccinated. The article titled “They knew: why didn’t the unvaccinated do more to warn us?” could well be a great example of satire or trolling but either way the psychological principle behind it remains.

The article begins by saying “the unvaccinated knew what we didn’t. Some of them said too little. Most said nothing at all. A lot of blood is now on their hands”. Why didn’t the unvaccinated warn about the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines, it asks.

While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations -- now seeming to do more harm than good -- their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.

Even though they knew what we didn't.

Our blood is now on their hands.

According to the article, the unvaccinated had access to important information about side effects, serious health complications, the fact that it wasn’t effective and that it can cause more harm than good. But instead of warning everybody, the article claims, we remained silent. We looked the other way.

Now, as a result, millions of good folk died and anti-vaxxers gloat online about how their “coin-flip” was the right bet.

It has become all too clear. The silence of the unvaccinated was a dangerous, sociopathic, and irresponsible decision that has had serious consequences for those of us who received the vaccinations.

And silence is, after all, consent.

The article concludes that the unvaccinated should do the right thing and ask for forgiveness. It says the vaccinated are good people who did the right thing and so they might just forgive us.

As I say, hopefully the article is an attempt at satire but even so, I can see this point of view being pushed from up high. The vaccinated sacrificed themselves for the greater good and the unvaccinated were selfish but lucky. Don’t listen to them in the future, their “coin-flip” landed correctly but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

P.S. The comments in the article are an interesting read!

---

Today’s reader-suggested book from the Ultimate Red Pill Reading List is:

A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic