My sister works as a PA in a hospital in WI. The letter they received has this same wording and more- her letter went further stating the employees should not even attempt an argument against the "science" of the vaccines because that would get them nowhere and specifically not even to call the V experimental, etc. . I kid you not. I read the letter. It also said very few if any religious exemptions would be provided. She tried both a medical (she was just recovering from Lyme disease) and religious exemption and both were denied. She then wrote a more forceful, convicted religious exemption and it was accepted. These letters to these hospitals came down from the CMS with threats to withhold funding unless enforced. I remain utterly baffled on the legality of any of this- particularly based on the science. How is science NOT the ENTIRE argument or even allowed to be the argument? I suppose the answer is simple and in front of us- because there is NO possible way of them winning on the merits of science so they just shut it all down. The product is still EUA. The FDA product is not even available. I honestly think this is against all medical ethics laws. It has to be. WHERE ARE THE GOOD LAWYERS AND JUDGES??

And yet another otherwise healthy person we know aged 50 just had a heart attack...

Expand full comment

Bravo. Thanks for your courage, Jordan Hayes, both physical and moral. Looking forward to the next installment and wishing you the best.

Expand full comment

I honestly think this is the "golden ticket" So much of this has to do with spineless liability issues. For example, how could we ever expect a single news media outlet to report anything negative about the V when they forced their employees to get it?? Think of THAT liability? You are 100% right, bullies back down when you bully them back.

Expand full comment

I notice both the pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax narratives have changed over time, and this is a problem for both sides.

At first, with the original variant, pro-vax people said the vaccine was 95% effective, and safe.

Then the reality got complicated. We learned it’s still safe and somewhat effective, but (1) less effective against the newer variant (at the time, delta); (2) you need a booster to promote (we hope “durable”) immunity. Otherwise it wears off. And (3) if it’s less effective in preventing illness in the vaccinated, that means the benefits in preventing _transmission_ are decreased as well. In other words, sick people can transmit whether they’re vaccinated or not. (The way transmission is prevented among the vaccinated is by them not getting sick.)

With omicron prevention from infection is even less effective even with a booster.

So then the pro-covid-vax narrative changed over time and became “we never said it decreased transmission; we never said it keeps you from getting sick; we said it prevents hospitalization and death.”

While the term “gaslighting” is very much overused, the pro-covid-vax people definitely gaslit everyone else, with predictable results. Of course all the hesitant people were rightly suspicious of a changing narrative from people who said the narrative had never changed at all. People aren’t stupid. They have memories of what was said before.

By the way, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death— but is that protection short-lived too? We don’t yet know. Will we be asked to get 4, 5, 6 shots or is that strategy played out (as some of the data from Israel suggest)? We know protection from infection fades, but what about protection from the worst consequences? We don’t know. So let’s acknowledge that. We don’t know.

The problem is: the pro-covid-vax people started from a position of being pro-covid-vax. It was the magic bullet that would get us out of the pandemic. It was the basket into which our government put all its eggs (instead of anything else: there’s been no talk of, say, improved methods of testing or improving indoor ventilation in public spaces).

Then, no matter how the situation shifted and changed, the “pro” people changed what they said in order to remain pro-covid-vax, and in fact acted as if this is what they always said, all along. No, not really. Will that win anyone over to their side? Will this instill confidence in anyone with a brain? No not really.

But meanwhile, the anti-covid-vax people have been just as rigid and have done exactly the same thing. They changed their story as they went along, and then maintain they “were right all along.” Nope. They were not any more right than the pro-covid-vax people, and they’ve been just as slow to admit it, and just as prone to rewriting the history of what they said.

Many people started out reasonably hesitant to use a new technology. Fair enough. They were not “classic anti-vaxxers.” They often got other vaccines but were worried about this one. Reasonable.

But: Instead of the pro-covid-vaxxers patiently explaining the pros and cons (as those were understood at the time), they just resorted to social shaming: they tarred these folks with the anti-vax brush, which both scared and angered them, causing them to retreat into the same degree of rigid thinking as the pro-covid-vax people. They chose their side and by gum, they’ve stuck to it just as badly as the other team.

How has this played out? Well, at first when people were hesitant, and were being insulted and pressured instead of dialogued with, they needed someone to give them reasonable sounding “reasons” not to get this vaccine. Saying “I’m scared and hesitant to adopt a new technology” is less compelling than being able to give impressive and science-y sounding reasons A, B and C.

Enter, right on cue, Robert Malone. I’ve laid out in my own newsletter some of the ways he’s misrepresented reality (some might say “made factual claims without adequate support”; some might say “lied”) so I won’t rehash that here. A lot of people have done so.

But claims he made early on, such as about the animal testing, such as about the spike protein being “toxic” haven’t quite panned out.

There is no shame in being hesitant, because there are clearly no risk-free choices in life. You can get, say, Guillain Barre from a flu shot. You can get anaphylaxis from antibiotics. Strong “medicine” by definition has strong effects —and some of those effects will be bad.

Therefore it’s no surprise: It looks like you can (rarely) get TTS from the J&J vaccine which is why it’s no longer in favor. It looks like young men can (rarely) get myocarditis from a second or third dose, which is why reputable scientists like Paul Offit, while very much part of the pro-covid-vax mainstream, said publicly he recommends the covid shots overall but not a booster for his young adult son. (Offit got a lot of pushback for going against the pro-covid-vax grain; but this is one reason he has my trust as respect.)

So…the science is revealing the (real) rare side effects over time, which gives people more reasons to ponder whether they want the shot, all things considered. It’s not an easy choice. If I were initially one of the vaccine hesitant people, and if I were looking at the big picture, I’d probably be encouraged and way less hesitant a year later.

In fact, it would be an easy choice (in my view) if we had a highly effective, durable vaccine. It’s still an easy choice (in my view) for health care workers who are regularly exposed to covid. Possibly it’s an easy choice for people who work with the elderly and in other crowded settings like schools. These are discussions which rational people can have— and disagree on.

But instead of (either side) saying “this is complicated; the shots might or might not be for you, depending on the big picture,” both sides dug in.

In the anti-covid-vax camp, when the “toxic” spike protein didn’t turn out to be true, when the fertility claims didn’t turn out to be true, when the early animal research became less relevant (billions of doses in humans later), well, they just moved on to (real but rare) myocarditis and emotional appeals to “think of the children” as if kids were dropping like flies from the vaccine (they’re not).

Yes, the myocarditis is a real concern. The discussion needs to be had. It might or might not be a good choice for your child. But whether these vaccines pose such a danger that they’re killing people left and right, to the extent we need to be marching on Washington — well, I think the time would be much better spent on protesting gain of function research. No one’s talking about research that could wipe out humanity in the near future. (I’m rooting for the octopuses to succeed us.)

This is my very long-winded way of saying I’m very, very disappointed in the way in which everyone has gone into their little corners and refuses to leave. The guy who wrote this letter has a shaky understanding of a lot of stuff he referenced. He’s being set up as some kind of hero. He’s neither a hero nor a villain. He’s a guy with concerns. A guy who probably shouldn’t be made to have a vax he doesn’t want, even if his understanding of the science is shaky.

We could all have a reasonable conversation about why this guy doesn’t want this particular vaccine at this particular time, in this particular context (omicron being so mutated). But instead, it seems we’re all stuck looking for heroes and villains.

For the anti-covid-vax team, this guy will be a hero. To the pro-covid-vax team, this guy will be an ignorant obstacle.

No one on the “pro” side will concede anything and say, “well, a piece of what he says is accurate: do we want to force anyone to take a vaccine in the context of it being marginally effective at best? Should we wait and revisit the idea of mandates until (if and when) we have a more effective long-lasting vaccine that might really control this?”

No one in the “anti” side will concede anything and say, “well, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death. It really doesn’t turn out to be as dangerous as we initially feared. Maybe it is better for some people in some jobs (like health care) to agree to it. Maybe not truckers though.”

If we all saw a little bit of wisdom in the people on the other side, if we didn’t cast them as irredeemably evil and/or “captured” and/or corrupt and/or zombie victims of “mass psychosis” (!) and/or stupid, maybe our conversations and our ability to problem-solve would improve.

Expand full comment