The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Vaccine Smackdown: Editor Ron Unz vs Anti-Vaxx Crackpot
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

MW Question 1– Thanks for taking time for this interview, but I want to be upfront with you: I’m going to challenge your views on the vaccine by pointing out what-I-think are the glaring flaws in your logic.

In your latest article Obesity and the End of the Vaxxing Debate, you disparage the group you call “anti-vaxxers” while—at the same time—you defend the very ideas that form the cornerstone of their beliefs. Let me explain. You openly admit that there is some basis to anti-vaxxer “fears of the Covid vaccines”. You also acknowledge that “The vaccines” use “an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences.” Following these admissions, you quickly move on to your own assumption “that the risks of the Covid vaccine were considerably lower than the risks of serious Covid illness.”

That’s fine; you made your own decision based on your grasp of the information available. But, here’s the thing: Your analysis actually supports the anti-vaxxer position. You have actually made our case for us.

When you admit that these injections are an entirely new and insufficiently tested technology that “hijacks” the “body’s own cellular machinery” forcing it to produce the spike protein”; you are, in fact, adopting the core position of the anti-vaxx movement. This is it. This is what we oppose. Do you see that?

And, what you are saying (surprisingly) is that that point of view “hardly seem unreasonable”. In other words, you accept that the central tenets of the anti-vax movement are reasonable. But that’s not all you say. You go on to say in the next paragraph: “the vaccines were rushed into production and release, circumventing the long process of clinical trials that would otherwise have been required.”

This is another stunning admission. Once again, you are making the anti-vax case and then (only later) quibbling about issues that are clearly debatable among reasonably well-informed people. But on the central issues; you are admitting that anti-vaxx views are reasonable.

One gets the feeling that your issue with the antivaxx people has less to do with their core beliefs than it does with the fact that we tend to be resolutely inflexible in our views, a point that I would agree with 100%.

So here’s my question to you: Do you think your article is consistently pro-vaxx or can you see where readers might think you are sending a mixed-message?


Ron Unz: Sure, I started my article by deliberately emphasizing that many of the fundamental concerns of the anti-vaxxers seemed perfectly reasonable to me, namely that a radical new medical technology rushed into widespread release without extensive testing might be a very dangerous thing.

That’s why I wouldn’t really say that I necessarily “disparage” all the anti-vaxxers in my article. However, I do think that the evidence that has come out over the last couple of years indicates that they were probably wrong and that their fears proved to be greatly exaggerated.

Meanwhile, some of the more extreme anti-vaxxers are still claiming that millions or even many hundreds of millions of people will soon be dead from vaxxing. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for such wild claims and I think that the apparent refusal of more moderate anti-vaxxers to publicly criticize such doubtful “allies” seriously damages their own credibility.

For example, some commenter on my article cited a certain anti-vaxxer calling herself “Prof. Dolores Cahill, Ph.D” who flatly stated:

“Everyone who has had an mRNA injection dies within 3 to 5 years, even if they’ve only had one injection!”

I suppose what she’s claiming is possible, but I tend to doubt it, so I’d certainly “disparage” someone like that.


MW Question 2– I want to go back to an observation you made in the beginning of your article. You said: “The vaccines” use “an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences.”

This is really the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Unfortunately, the point has been so belabored that most people are just tired of talking about it. But it’s an important point, all the same, so let me see if I can frame it a little differently. Let’s say you have a head cold that is getting worse. So, you go to the doctor to get a perscription. But—to your surprise—the doctor tells you:

“I don’t have any medicine that will make you better, but I do have a pill that will rewire your immune system so it produces the medication you need to improve.”

So—all of a sudden—you are given the option of returning home with no medicine at all or taking an experimental chemical that will (in your words) hijack “the body’s own cellular machinery… to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein.”

Explain to me how this is different than the decision we were all asked to make when the combined medical, state and media establishments all decided that everyone needed to get jabbed with their experimental injection?


Ron Unz: Sure, there are obvious dangers in using a new medical technology such as mRNA vaccines.

In fact, the government of China has refused to approve the general use of mRNA vaccines for exactly those sorts of reasons. Western media outlets claim that mRNA vaccines are more effective against Covid than the traditional vaccines China is using, but the Chinese government is taking a very cautious approach and I certainly can’t blame them.

There’s another important related point I didn’t bother including in this article, but I’ve mentioned in some previous ones. I thought there were some very suspicious aspects to the massive establishment media campaigns against using HCQ and IVM as possible Covid treatments. Whether those compounds are effective or not I can’t really say, but the immediate, coordinated attacks against them raised all sorts of dark suspicions in my mind.

Under normal circumstances, the Covid vaccines would have needed to undergo lengthy clinical trials before they were approved for widespread use, but those requirements were waived under the emergency provisions that no other possible medical treatments existed. So HCQ and IVM had to be declared worthless and banned for Covid use in order to allow the controversial vaxxing campaign to go forward without testing. Maybe the medical criticism was warranted, but a cynical observer would naturally have some doubts.

The problem is that everything in life has risks and we must weigh them against each other. I don’t have any medical expertise and it seemed clear that Covid was a dangerous illness, while there was also considerable uncertainly about the mRNA vaccines, so I waited a few months to see if any major problems developed. By early June 2021, the AMA reported that roughly 96% of all the medical doctors they polled had already been fully vaxxed. Since doctors know more about balancing those risks than I do, a few weeks later I went ahead and got myself vaccinated.

All of us have to rely upon experts in subjects outside of our own. For example, I have a general idea about how planes fly and why they’re usually safe, but I’m mostly relying upon the expertise of pilots and aeronautical engineers on those issues, and it’s the same way with vaccines.


MW Question 3– Last question. There’s alot of information in your article that I don’t necessarily agree with, but that I won’t dispute here. You are aware, however, that “excess mortality” data has been compiled by a number of experts who arrived at entirely different conclusions then your own. The same rule applies to fertility issues, recurrent cancers, cardiac arrests, blood clots, immune system dysregulation and a myriad of other ailments. The fact is, this particular injection—which forces the production of the pathogenic spike protein—has resulted in more injuries than any vaccine in history. It has also garnered the support of billionaire oligarchs, the media, government officials and the entire political establishment. And, as we know now from the recent revelations at Twitter, critics of this unusual technology have been censored on the main social media platforms for simply acknowledging the fact that the vaccine neither prevents infection or stops transmission. Which, as you know, is true.

Did any of these truly strange and unprecedented developments impact your decision to get vaccinated?

In your article you say: “… it seemed that the overwhelming majority of medical professionals believed that the risks of the Covid vaccine were considerably lower than the risks of serious Covid illness.”

Do you still believe that? Do you still think the overwhelming majority of medical professionals support the mass vaccination of all age groups with an experimental concoction whose long-term effects remain entirely unknown? Do you still think that was a prudent, rational, science-based policy that helped diminish the impact of a US-created bioweapon attack? Do you think these “medical professionals” arrived at this decision by themselves or do you think they might have been coerced by the CDC, the FDA, the AMA and the other thoroughly-corrupted organizations that became the de facto enforcement arm of the big pharmaceutical giants and their billionaire bosses?

Knowing what you know now, would you still get vaccinated?


Ron Unz: Actually, I don’t think there’s any major dispute over “excess mortality,” which is a very simple, objective number and publicly available in most developed countries. All of the arguments have been over causes of death, which I completely avoided in my article. The number of people who died in a given week or a given year is not subject to much ambiguity.

Unfortunately, those official statistics are normally buried on government websites and not as easily available as they should be. Therefore, I was very pleasantly surprised a few days ago when someone pointed me to a website that displayed all that data in a very convenient form, allowing the user to select all sorts of categories and stratifications, and I began examining the mortality figures for some of the dozens of countries whose statistics it contained.

For example, the working-age population of the US has had very high “excess mortality” over the last couple of years just as I assumed. I think this probably helps to explain why so many Americans believe that the vaccines are killing people. Here’s the 2022 mortality chart for the working-age Americans:

However, I was shocked to discover that this was not the case with most European countries, which actually had “mortality deficits” in their working-age populations, with fewer people dying than anyone would have predicted in 2019. For example, here’s the 2022 mortality chart for working-age people in France:

According to the Wikipedia page for Covid vaccinations in France, Pfizer was approved on December 27, 2020 and Moderna a couple of weeks later. Those two mRNA vaccines account for nearly all the vaccinations, and by mid-2021 a large majority of the entire population had been vaxxed, while the boosting began towards the end of that year. Overall, 79% of the French have been fully vaxxed and well over half the population boosted.

So the French were much more heavily vaxxed with mRNA injections than Americans, but there was an unexpected drop in their deaths. If the mRNA vaxxing were killing significant numbers of people, this wouldn’t make any sense. And I discovered that the same situation was true for Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, and quite a lot of other countries.

Death rates are the hardest, most objective statistic, and although most European countries were more heavily vaxxed than America, their working-age deaths went down. I think that’s a very strong argument against the belief that vaxxing is killing large numbers of people.

Although our establishment is fervently pro-vaxx, these striking statistics were never reported in our mainstream media, which I think demonstrates the total incompetence of so many journalists and editors. I only bother looking into vaxxing issues every six months or so, but I noticed this pattern the moment someone pointed me to that useful website.

Given that none of the dire warnings of the louder anti-vaxxers have come to pass and the evidence seems to show that vaxxing produces very few deaths, I doubt whether any significant number of medical professionals have changed their minds.

Obviously, there can be very legitimate disagreements about which groups should be vaccinated, based upon age or other characteristics. But my article solely focused upon the question of whether the Covid vaccination drive had caused a significant number of deaths, and I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it didn’t.

Neither I nor anyone I know has had any problems with the vaxxing, so I certainly don’t regret my decision at the time, especially because no one at the time could predict that the existing Covid would shift into the much milder Omicron variant.

All Comments Hidden • Show  611 Comments • Reply