To the Editor: This is a rebuttal to your very slanted and misleading editorial "Freedom of choice, but not from consequences" appearing in the September, 30, 2021 edition, on page 11. I was extremely concerned that you, a hometown newspaper editor, and
To the Editor:
This is a rebuttal to your very slanted and misleading editorial “Freedom of choice, but not from consequences” appearing in the September, 30, 2021 edition, on page 11. I was extremely concerned that you, a hometown newspaper editor, and certainly not a scientist, doctor, or epidemiology-hobbyist made the audacious pronouncement that “… there exists zero legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the vaccine is unsafe to all but a tiny minority of those who have a history of proven allergic reactions to vaccinations.”
By whose measure and/or authority defines “legitimate” in your editorial? YOU?
By contrast, there are many “legitimate,” peer-reviewed studies published in many of the respected and well-read medical journals. I know, I’ve read some myself. I’ll refrain from any citations since you, yourself, did earlier. As part of my own personal research on this questionable-at-best “vaccine,” I made my best attempts to understand the scientific conclusions made by actual medical authorities (not hometown newspaper editors) regarding the reactions associated with the “vaccine.” I learned more about mRNA than I cared to and was able to discern that these “vaccines” are completely new, they’ve been promoted as effective at stopping COVID but aren’t, they inject “spike proteins” into every cell in every organ of the human body, and there isn’t a soul on Earth that knows what the long-term effects will be. NOT-A-SINGLE-SOUL.
Since I did my research and learned from actual experts (not hometown newspaper editors), I feel that the critical thought that I’ve applied in my personal health decision-making satisfies my conscience. And, no, I will not divulge what that choice is. I also know that comparing this “brand-new” mRNA “vaccine” to any others from history is an “apple-to-orange” comparison. Historically (and very simplified here), a “vaccine” took a portion of the disease and introduced it medically/chemically into the body to TRIGGER A NATURAL IMMUNITY RESPONSE. Up until a few short months ago, the CDC website even included that in their explanation of how the COVID-19 “vaccines” worked. But, because of the politicization of COVID, these “vaccines,” and subsequent freedom-robbing mandates, the CDC no longer refers to NATURAL IMMUNITY. Natural immunity is still with us … and you failed to consider that in your hit-piece against critical thinking citizens regarding the “vaccine” and their personal health choices. In fact, science has determined, unquestionably, that natural immunity is far superior to the “vaccines.” But I’m not surprised …
I think it’s important for a journalist to present information fairly and accurately. I didn’t see any attempt here because doing so would have refuted your slanted point. The folks reading your editorial aren’t the ignorant sheep that you suppose. We are intelligent, we understand good from bad, we’re generous and considerate, and most of all … we’re AMERICANS. And being an American comes with responsibilities and rewards.
Our Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights understanding that we have a responsibility to ourselves, our families, our communities, our States, our Country, and our God. They also understood that we have the intelligence to consider all of these as we pursue our Creator-given (not government-given) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many of us cherish and wish to preserve those rights … in spite of a “pandemic” … in spite of detractors … in spite of an over-reaching, power-hungry government. We also look to our Media to be the champions of those rights as our objective voice against tyranny … I mean, mandates. In this case (and many others in the past few decades), the Media has turned into a propaganda machine, satisfied with taking the government’s word on issues, and avoiding having to do any investigations into uncovering the real truth on any (like this one). We do not thank you for that.
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Saturday, October 16 Report this