To Raise Questions About a Particular Vaccine is Not to Be an 'Anti-Vaxxer'

A propaganda war has been waged across the West on a range of issues. One crucial aspect of this war is the shameless re-invention of language. "Public emergency” used to mean an imminent threat to life and limb or a lethal bio-weapon with a high infection mortality rate. It then came to mean a coronavirus with an IFR under 0.3%. “Cases” of disease used to be clinically diagnosed, symptomatic cases; now, a “case” is equated with a positive PCR test, with no proof of infection or disease needed. “Man” used to mean a person with male biological markers; it is now used to mean anyone who “self-identifies” mentally and emotionally as a man.

---

To gain full access to all of my posts and give additional support to my work in defence of a free society, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription

---

I could go on. But for now, let’s just examine one particularly egregious instance of the propagandistic re-invention of language: the re-invention of the term “anti-vaxxer.” It used to refer to people who were opposed to the use of vaccines in general; it is now little more than a cheap term of abuse to be directed against anyone who questions any official opinion about any government-approved vaccine (or gene therapy, for that matter).

So let's clear up some of the confusion:

The term, "anti-vaxxer" should be reserved for people who are opposed to the technology of vaccination in general, not for people who object to a specific vaccine or a specific type of vaccine technology. Outside of someone absolutely opposed to vaccination in general, it is very unhelpful, and frankly dishonest, to categorise vaccine critics as "anti-vaxxers." It insinuates they are absolutely opposed to vaccines in general, which is often not the case.

Of course, there are people who are adamantly opposed to vaccines in general. I am guessing they would not have an objection to being called “anti-vaxxers.” I believe they have a right to make their case in the public sphere, and to be challenged with respect and evidence.

But the cause of truth, science, and transparent policymaking is not served by muddying the waters and confusing the specific safety concerns surrounding Covid vaccines with a broader opposition to vaccinations in general. The only people who benefit from this confusion are those who wish to avoid an open and candid conversation about Covid vaccines and the injuries and deaths associated with them.

It is dishonourable and manipulative to put everyone who raises any criticism of any vaccine whatsoever as “anti-vaxxers”; and anyone who does so is either slavishly repeating cheap slogans handed down to them, or consciously seeking to discredit vaccine critics by attributing to them a position that is very difficult to make a persuasive case for, certainly far more difficult than making a case against a specific vaccine or gene therapy.

Evidently, not everyone who has raised concerns about the injuries associated with mRNA vaccines would consider themselves opposed to vaccine technology in general. Those who believe the risks of mRNA or other Covid vaccines are unacceptable or that the risks of mRNA vaccines are not justified by their likely benefits, should be referred to as Covid vaccine critics or Covid mRNA vaccine critics. Defenders of Covid vaccines should argue their case and offer evidence in defence of Covid vaccines, not dismiss Covid vaccine critics as "anti-vaxxers."

---

Thanks for reading! I am basically a one-man show, and rely entirely on reader support to help me maintain and develop the Freedom Blog. Here are four ways you can support my work in defence of a free society:

1. upgrading to a paid subscription (giving you access to subscriber-exclusive content, such as the posts listed below)

2. making a one-off donation to my work, through my ko-fi page.

3. signing up to my social media channels, in particular Youtube, Twitter, Rumble, Telegram, and Spotify.

4. sharing this post on your social media accounts.

P.S. In case it’s of interest to you, I thought I’d share a link to a recent “Think Twice” symposium I participated in with Aaron Kheriaty, Simon Elmer, and Daniel Broudy, “What are we up against and what can we do about it?"

---

Paying subscribers get access to subscriber-exclusive content such as the following:

• True Freedom Does Not Come Cheap

• How Meaningful is My Work? Answer these Fifteen Questions to Find Out

• Social Engineering Experiments Have an Appalling Track Record

• We Must Awaken from the Slumber of Servitude

• Romantic Individualism, However Seductive, Cannot Undo the Individual's Profound Dependence on Social Structures

• Why National Democracy is Condemned to Wobble Between Technocracy and Populism