fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

MORGAN: No, vaccines shouldn’t be mandatory. But they are our best way out of this

“I don’t support mandatory vaccines. No one who genuinely believes in liberty does. We don’t need everybody to vaccinate. We just need enough people to exercise good sense and get the jab.”

mm

Published

on

Human nature is an odd thing. One quirky element is that we will always have a segment of people who will vigorously oppose something from which they are benefiting greatly and directly.

People sitting in their gas-heated homes after having driven home in their personal automobile, spending their evening at a computer made from petrochemical products and writing in raging opposition to the oil industry. We are in a society where our poorest people are enjoying a lifestyle that kings and queens couldn’t have dreamed of two hundred years ago thanks to capitalism; yet they demand socialism.

Now we see a wave of people who enjoying healthy living and looking forward to the long lifespans provided to them by in part by vaccination, yet they dismiss any evidence that a vaccine may be what brings the world out of this pandemic horror story.

There are many people who have legitimate misgivings and concerns about vaccinations, and they don’t feel eager to take one that is relatively new. That is fair enough. They should take their time and see what the new COVID-19 vaccinations are all about and what risks they may or may not present. Unfortunately, it is tough for people to find legitimate facts about vaccines when social media is polluted with anti-vax conspiracy theorists who respond to all questions with a barrage of links to unreliable and often non-credible websites. We need to debunk some of these myths so that that rational people can make informed decisions one way or another.

There are legitimate vaccine skeptics, and this is not meant to denigrate them in any way. Instead, it’s meant to inform a thoughtful discussion.

Myth: Mind Control

To start with, vaccines are not filled with microchips to control our minds, nor are they part of any other kind of conspiracy to control people. They will not turn us into lizard people and they were not developed by aliens. I wish I was exaggerating, but these kinds of myths are gaining a shocking following in the online world.

Myth: Vaccines cause autism.

I attended an anti-lockdown rally just last week. There were several thoughtful speakers, but one man with the microphone claimed that vaccines cause autism.

This myth just won’t die despite it having been widely and thoroughly debunked a decade ago. The myth originated with a report created by the now-disgraced doctor Andrew Wakefield. The myth was then spread by vacuous celebrities and alternative medicine practitioners to the point where it very possibly may have led to the first outbreaks of whooping cough seen in decades as a generation of concerned mothers declined to vaccinate their kids. Due to the pervasiveness of this myth, there have been dozens of studies conducted by many organizations and they all conclude the same thing: vaccines have not, do not and will not cause autism.

Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine will alter your DNA

Some of the vaccines use a fragment of the genetic material called RNA (ribonucleic acid). Injecting RNA into a human will not and cannot alter DNA any more than consuming the DNA contained in a medium-rare steak will alter your DNA and turn you into a cow. Genetics and DNA studies are nebulous and complicated fields of work. That, unfortunately, leaves the work rife for misinterpretations and myths to be created and spread.

While no RNA vaccine had been approved before now, studies have been conducted on this technology for years. It has now been tested on tens of thousands of people around the world and not one has yet seen any alteration of their genetic makeup.

Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine contains aborted fetal tissue

This one comes from efforts to turn pro-lifers away from vaccinations.

This myth is utterly untrue. Cloned cells have been used in production, but they are not from aborted babies. Full stop.

Myth: I can catch COVID-19 from the vaccine

None of the latest approved vaccines – including the Pfizer vaccine – use live viruses. They are mRNA vaccines. The only way you will catch COVID-19 from the vaccination would be if the person vaccinating you was infected and transmitted it to you directly, as can happen from contact with anyone already infected.

Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine is virtually untested

To quote Matt Meier: “I get that we are all scienticianologists here, but let’s keep some context.”

The Pfizer vaccine has gone through three stages of trials. Phase 3 had 43,661 participants with 41,135 getting a second dose. Of that, only two had serious reactions, and both individuals had a history of reacting poorly to new medications. There were side effects for some, but the vast majority of those were reports of a sore spot at the injection site. That is often to be expected.

A vaccine is our best hope to end the lockdowns

These vaccines may be new, but they were created on the backs of a mountain of research compiled over decades.

Yes, a 10 year study on long term effects would be nice, but what kind of state will we be in with 10 years of rotating lockdowns? With the scores of widely used vaccines that have been in use for decades, long term effects have not been an issue.

I know. Dedicated anti-vaxxers can provide links ad-infinitum to all sorts of anecdotes and conspiracy sites which will claim all sorts of adverse outcomes. Established medical authorities around the world are not reporting this though, and it is doubtful that they have such a well-established conspiracy to give the world a medication with the intent to harm folks.

Will a vaccine be effective in containing COVID-19?

Some are asking, “The vaccine is only 95. per cent effective and the virus has a 99.8 per cent survival rate. Why should I take the vaccine?”

That is a valid question. There will never be a vaccine that is 100 per cent effective. At 95 per cent effectiveness – and if enough people take it – the bug can be contained. Seat belts in cars don’t provide perfect protection either, but most people understand that wearing them is a good idea.

Should we just left COVID-19 run its course?

Another question is, “If 99.8 per cent of people will survive COVID-19, why not just let the virus run it’s course?”

Well, if we let the virus run its course we would indeed achieve herd immunity, eventually. As we have seen though, states will impose lockdowns and much of the voting public are OK with that. Herd immunity will take years to be mostly effective. What will be left of the economy after all that? What will be left of our sanity? The social costs will be staggering, and we would still face millions of deaths.

A good idea. Not a mandatory one.

I don’t support mandatory vaccines. No one who genuinely believes in liberty does. We don’t need everybody to vaccinate. We just need enough people to exercise good sense and get the jab. It is a personal choice and if people ignore the anti-vax pap and look at the real science, enough people will choose to get vaccinated without being forced to do so. There will never be a zero risk vaccine but the risks are pretty low.

I just don’t see any other light at the end of the pandemic tunnel. Vaccines appear to be the best way to bring this nightmare to an end. If people have any other rational ways to bring the lockdowns to an end within a reasonable amount of time, I am all ears. In the meantime, I plan to get vaccinated when my turn comes up in line and I hope other folks choose to do the same.

Cory Morgan is the Podcast Editor and a columnist for the Western Standard

Cory Morgan the Alberta Political Columnist and Host of the Cory Morgan show for the Western Standard. cmorgan@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Rose215

    December 13, 2020 at 1:24 pm

    The main justification for the vaccine seems to be to avoid lockdowns, but many have suggested that lockdowns are excessive and unnecessary. Given the pattern of Covid why not just focus protection on the elderly, Young people do not tend to get severe cases of Covid — many symptom free. Why should they risk getting the vaccine.

  2. Allen

    December 12, 2020 at 11:23 am

    Imagine a vaccine so safe that you need to be threatened to take it, for a virus so deadly you need to be tested to know you have it.

    The same politicians who have been directing society’s self-destruction throughout this false pandemic are strongly advocating, and softly coercing us into taking it, and they are OBVIOUS liars. Welcome to the bait and switch.

    I’ll pass, thanks. Everything you’ve noted above is still disputed. The science is NOT settled, it is simply BOUGHT by big pharma.

  3. Charles Martell III

    December 11, 2020 at 4:43 pm

    You first Cory . . . then I will consider but likely a definite NO !

    You are aware that a healthy under 50 yo has only a .04% chance of dying from the Wuhan Flu?

    The CDC’s current best estimates for the C-19 fatality rate are:

    0.003% for people aged 0–19 years.
    0.02% for people aged 20–49 years.
    0.5% for people aged 50–69 years.
    5.4% for people aged 70+ years.

    of the first 3 groups . . . only 23 have died in BC . . . on what planet is that a Pandemic?

    H1N1, Sars, Seasonal Flu & Common Cold . . . are ALL Corona Viruses . . . no reliable vaccines for any of them . . . and Scientists say that Covid does not mutate, which is a positive.
    More deaths occurred two years ago in BC by about Double . . . and no one knew!

    Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye . . . including the Fake PCR Test . . . a test designed to Amplify Genetic Material for scientific and forensic purposes.
    Even the inventor says it is not reliable for detecting disease . . .

    Why not do what so few in the Media do today . . . Ask Probing Questions and Investigate!

    • Allen

      December 12, 2020 at 11:23 am

      Conspiracy theorist! White supremacist! How DARE you point out facts!!!!

    • Sanford Thompson

      December 12, 2020 at 7:53 am

      Perhaps if personal liability were assigned to everyone involved in producing and pushing this new wonder jab thinking people would not be so hesitant. That is if they are unaware that the .1% have been talking openly about depopulation since Pierre Trudeau joined the club of Rome.

      • Allen

        December 12, 2020 at 11:23 am

        If only more people knew this. But they refuse to research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

SLOBODIAN: Disgraced Catholic priest banned from Northern Manitoba reserves

Father Rheal Forest accused residential school survivors of fabricating abuse claims to cash in on settlement money.

mm

Published

on

A Catholic priest could land himself in the back of an RCMP cruiser if he steps foot on a Manitoba First Nation he served and lived on for years.

Father Rheal Forest, who accused residential school survivors of fabricating abuse claims to cash in on settlement money, will be considered a trespasser in Bloodvein First Nation, located 210 km north of Winnipeg.

A Band Council Resolution (BCR) barring Forest from the community is being drafted and when signed this week by council will be given to RCMP to enforce, Bloodvein Chief Derek Cook confirmed.

“I know a lot of people are upset. It’s bringing back a lot of the stories they have to deal with and are continuing to deal with from residential schools,” Cook told CBC.

“I hope he abides by the process and respects our decision.”

Despite not having worked in Bloodvein for a few years, Forest continued to visit.

The Archdiocese of St. Boniface also banned Forest from all preaching and teaching for remarks he made about residential school survivors in sermons last month while filling in for a vacationing priest at Winnipeg’s St. Emile Roman Catholic Church.

The sermons that were live-streamed at the time to Facebook have been removed.

“If they wanted extra money, from the money that was given to them, they had to lie sometimes, lie that they were abused sexually and, oop, another $50,000,” Forest told the congregation.

“It’s kind of hard if you’re poor not to lie.”

Forest also absolved priests and nuns from any abuse and blamed laymen.

Anywhere from $3 billion to $4.7 billion has been paid to thousands of people who claimed they were victims of abuse at residential schools.

Almost 50 churches have been burned and desecrated in Canada since unmarked graves were allegedly discovered on former residential school sites.

Foster also made controversial comments during one mass about the criminals responsible for the destruction.

He admitted to having “thoughts of anger” when he passed by a church that had been vandalized.

“If I had a shotgun at night and I’d see them, I’d go ‘Boom’ just to scare them and if they don’t run away, I’ll shoot them,” he said laughing.

He immediately added: “This would not help. It’s bad to do that. I’d go have a chat with them.”

Forest also made it clear he is not a fan of the “evil” media which he said is controlled by Freemasons. 

Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standard

lslobodian@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

GIEDE: Happy 150th British Columbia!

“It’s been a tumultuous 150 years, but this province is still the Most Beautiful Place on Earth.”

mm

Published

on

BC Flag

While everywhere else in Canada it’s simply known as “August long weekend,” technically speaking the statutory holiday is called “British Columbia Day” west of the Rockies. For those of us who enjoy official designations and labels, this will be the sesquicentennial of BC’s entrance into Canadian confederation, a much harassed political project within these pages. Still, a century-and-a-half is worthy of exhortation.

Of course the proper birthday was July 20, corresponding with our joining up in 1871. But no one in BC is interested in a bon fete they cannot properly observe with beverage in hand. Thus, BC Day has been permanently tacked to the first Monday of August to ensure an annual long weekend in perpetuity – which is how all significant non-religious holidays ought to be scheduled from sea to sea to sea.

British Columbia was bribed into confederation by a drunk Scotsman who dreamed of transcontinental railways.

We almost broke out again when the delivery of the Canadian Pacific Railway seemed doomed, and would of likely joined the United States, which had a sizable ex-patriot population here (particularly Civil War veterans from the South.) We stayed on with the reassurance the CPR would be finished, even returning Sir John A. Macdonald to Parliament from Victoria once after he lost his seat in Kingston, Ont.

Of course, our 150 birthday as a province has also been overshadowed by pandemic, then the church fires, and now the wildfires which rage throughout the Southern Interior. British Columbians will still be cracking our famous IPA’s despite the smoke, but perhaps being seen to be celebrating our legacy in such dire times is too much for even our self-aggrandizing political class to bear, let alone the rest of us.

British Columbia is a series of paradoxes. While sovereigntist fervor is most strongly felt east of the Rockies, particularly in Wildrose country, only BC has the surest chance of ever leaving the Dominion with its borders intact: save for minor disputes with America along the coast, our borders are the same as when we took up Sir John A.’s invitation, unlike the rest of the West. Yet this does not motivate us.

If anything, the peculiar history and geography of the Western cordillera makes separation from itself just as likely as a break at the federal level. Outside of the Lower Mainland and South Island, people are far more different than they are similar, despite waving the same flag. Each part of British Columbia is a land entirely unto itself: river valleys, plateaus, and atolls all littered with dozens of siloed cultures.

This is not a new phenomena or collateral damage due to the post rural-urban divide: before contact, a plethora of indigenous languages flourished; after contact, successive waves of development happened at different rates throughout the province – the fur trade, gold rush, railway, forestry, mining, and finally oil and gas, as well as hydro – layering BC with company towns, ghost towns, and peculiar infrastructure.

Our vehicle fleets are by far the oldest of the provinces, just as independent contractors number more greatly amongst our workforce than nearly everywhere else in Canada. Economic cycles strike our province without uniformity, as there’s always some other resource that needs extracting from her natural bounty. Considering the remoteness, BC really could be considered the “fourth Territory.”

Perhaps this latent independence is what makes the manifestation of sovereignty so difficult.

There are more eccentrics per square kilometre here than anywhere else on God’s green earth, and each of them can tell you exactly whats wrong — as well as how to fix the place. Without a central tenet of BC identity, just thousands of caricatures brought to life in every quarter, from marijuana addicts to moral puritans, there is no single point of focus for British Columbians to rally around within the separation agenda.

But perhaps the key to understanding British Columbians lax attitude about sticking it to Ottawa is we’re too busy enjoying where we live, even as costs rise egregiously. While living in a closet west of Hope isn’t my jam, people do it by the thousands just to enjoy the Lower Mainland lifestyle; and in the rest of the province the water and wilderness goes on for eternity, beckoning every kind of adventurer.

Not unlike the wild child we all knew in class, British Columbia cannot be marshalled easily to march in step with her sister provinces, West of Lakehead on the secession question. Until confederation impedes the natural freedoms we enjoy in BC, federalism by convenience will rule the day. No doubt, its been a tumultuous 150 years, but this province is still the Most Beautiful Place on Earth.

Nathan Giede is the BC Affairs Columnist and the host of Mountain Standard Time

Continue Reading

Opinion

WAGNER: The prominent Toronto political scientist who called Communism ‘democratic’

As it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism.

mm

Published

on

Some commentators have noted the silence of Canada’s Left in the face of anti-government protests in Cuba. Why the reluctance to condemn a communist dictatorship?

Well, as it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism. One such prominent Canadian leftist was C.B. Macpherson (1911-1987), an internationally-renowned political scientist who taught political theory at the University of Toronto. Among other things, he was especially known for his critiques of capitalism and individualism.

Interestingly, Macpherson also defended Soviet Communism as genuine democracy in action. This can be seen in a series of CBC radio messages he delivered in 1965 that were subsequently published as a book entitled The Real World of Democracy. These lectures argued there were three forms of government that could be legitimately called democracies: the liberal democracies of the West, the Soviet bloc countries, and the one-party states of the Third World. 

As Macpherson put it, “democracy is not properly to be equated with our unique Western liberal-democracy.” Instead, “the clearly non-liberal systems which prevail in the Soviet countries, and the somewhat different non-liberal systems of most of the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, have a genuine historical claim to the title democracy.”

Macpherson explained the meaning of democracy has undergone some change over time. It hasn’t always referred to the kind of constitutional system common in the Western countries: “Democracy originally meant rule by the common people, the plebeians. It was very much a class affair: it meant the sway of the lowest and largest class.” Thus, Macpherson argued Soviet Communism and other one-party states can legitimately be called democracies, based on this definition. That is, he used this conception of “democracy” to describe some of the world’s most brutal and repressive regimes. 

Karl Marx’s proposed “dictatorship of the proletariat” was an expression of genuine democracy in Macpherson’s view. He noted many people would find it outrageous to consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a form of democracy. “But,” he wrote, “to call it democracy was not outrageous at all: it was simply to use the word in its original and then normal sense.”

Macpherson’s analysis gets even worse. Lenin extended Marx’s theory by arguing a revolution would need to be undertaken by a relatively small group of class-conscious people he called the vanguard, which is to say, the Communist Party. 

From the Communist perspective, since the vast majority of people in any society are debased by the structures of capitalism, they cannot be trusted to participate in political decision-making. To allow their participation would just perpetuate the problems of the old, capitalist society. Only the vanguard could bring about the necessary reforms. As Macpherson explains: “Lenin, building on Marx, came out for a seizure of power by a vanguard who would forcibly transform the basic relations of society in such a way that the people would become undebased and capable of a fully human existence, at which point compulsive government would no longer be needed.” 

In Macpherson’s view, this rule of the vanguard to “forcibly transform” society is democracy in action, despite the fact that it involves politically motivated executions and concentration camps. Democracy, it seems, becomes indistinguishable from dictatorship.

Macpherson evokes what he calls the “broader concept of democracy” to legitimize the Marxist-Leninist state: “Wherever the circumstances are such that no motion towards this kind of society is possible except through the action of a vanguard, then the vanguard state, so long as it remains true to its purpose, may be called democratic.” Thus, in his view, an outright communist state can be legitimately called a democracy. Many of the most brutal, bloodthirsty, and repressive regimes in the 20th Century were democracies in this sense. Who knew?

Using a similar line of argumentation, the one-party dictatorships of the Third World can also be justified as democracies. Invoking Rousseau, Macpherson wrote one-party states can be legitimately called democracies because “there is in these countries a general will, which can express itself through, and probably only through, a single party.” As a result, “opposition to the dominant party appears to be, and sometimes actually is, destructive of the chances of nationhood. In such circumstances opposition appears as treason against the nation.” Thus, a one-party state, where opposition to the ruling party is punished as “treason,” can be a legitimate form of democracy. (Don’t tell Justin Trudeau.)

Macpherson was an internationally known and respected political scientist. The views he expressed were not the rantings of a black-clad activist running wild in the streets. Some elements of the intellectual Left truly believe that a Marxist-Leninist state (or any other Left-wing single-party state) is a genuine democracy. Despite the inescapably violent and murderous nature of communism, some Canadian leftists view it favourably. 

The lessons of the 20th Century have not been learned. Ideas that inspired inhuman tyranny – what C.B. Macpherson happily calls the “broader concept of democracy” – seem to be making a comeback.

Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

170 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.