The Vaccine Paradox

I was called an “anti-vaccine activist” in an article by Olavo Amaral, a doctor, writer, and professor at UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), published in Nexo Jornal, a major Brazilian media outlet. The article, titled The Silent Revenge of Hydroxychloroquine, finally acknowledges the undeniable effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19.

It was no longer possible to ignore the 418 clinical studies on hydroxychloroquine or to keep repeating canned phrases like “proven ineffective,” as the media—guided by either paid pro-Big Pharma science communicators or naive followers—had insisted on doing since the pandemic’s start.

After all, it was a study from the University of Oxford, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. It was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study that confirmed findings from other “gold standard” studies from respected universities like Harvard. In other words, HCQ’s efficacy against Covid-19 reached the highest possible level of evidence—something that, for example, 89% of cardiology’s standard treatments don’t achieve. Ignoring this development was no longer an option.

But I’m not here to talk about hydroxychloroquine or any other Covid-19 treatment. I already did that during the pandemic’s peak, explaining in detail that, based on risk-benefit analysis, it was always worthwhile and more than proven effective. Nor am I here to dissect Olavo’s article or the hysterical reaction it provoked. I want to focus solely on the derogatory label. So, let’s return to the paradox.

In the article, when Olavo calls me an “anti-vaccine activist,” he links to a talk I recently gave at the MPV—Doctors for Life and FLCCC—Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance congress.

I moved on to using humor as a tool to amplify the message, relying on official studies from Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, along with other solid facts and research. In the end, it turned into a stand-up routine about Covid vaccines. The theme I chose was “vaccine hesitancy,” explaining that I experience this when it comes to these vaccines. Interestingly, I shared that upon seeing the results of the old BCG vaccine against Covid, I went to a health clinic to ask for it, but they refused to give it to me. Ultimately, I explained that I was absolutely open to hearing counterarguments from anyone trying to convince me that taking these vaccines is worthwhile.

The video of the talk was posted on my Instagram and my X (formerly Twitter). On Instagram, it garnered 7,000 views. On X, it had over 160 shares. The result? Not a single person showed up with a comment attempting to explain why, based on a risk-benefit analysis, it would be worth taking the vaccines.

Note: For those who prefer text or face a language barrier, much of the data I used in the talk was also included in a previous article of mine: “Chronicles of an Unvaccinated Leftist”.

The Power of Big Pharma

I’ve written extensively about the power of Big Pharma, but it never ceases to amaze me.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past four years, it’s the absolutely colossal influence this industry wields. To give you an idea, here are some facts: Big Pharma boasts the largest lobbying machine in the world. Recently, the BMJ – British Medical Journal published an article stating, in no uncertain terms, that “evidence-based medicine” is nothing more than an illusion. In the article, the authors explain how the pharmaceutical industry, in pursuit of profit, corrupts governments, much of academia, scientific journals, and research while persecuting its critics.

An average person, going about their daily life, might want to know if a pharmaceutical product, such as a vaccine or medication, is good, effective, and safe. Naturally, they’d look, for instance, at what regulatory agencies recommend. But check this out: the EMA (European Medicines Agency) receives 89% of its funding directly from the industry. The FDA in the United States? 65%. The WHO (World Health Organization) is also funded by Big Pharma. Essentially, regulatory agencies are nothing more than marketing offices for the industry. 

What about scientific journals? They’re just marketing tools as well, as explained by Richard Smith, who served as editor of the BMJ for 25 years.

And the industry easily dominates the press. Look at these numbers: 70% of all ad revenue for US broadcast television comes from Big Pharma. Let me explain that differently: advertisers for real estate, banks, McDonald’s, airlines, car manufacturers, breweries, furniture promotions, appliances, supermarkets—combined, they make up just 30% of the total. The other 70% comes from Big Pharma. Now, do you think that might influence editorial lines?

Big Pharma also has a historical knack for controlling specialized journalists. Burying scandals? That’s routine.

And what about the Brazilian media? Also dominated. Big Pharma even sponsors medical societies and a recently established institution: fact-checkers. Science journalism courses? Big Pharma teaches them too.

It doesn’t stop there. The industry’s domination is so extensive that Big Pharma compelled the US government, via the White House, to censor critics of major imperialist corporations. Big Tech platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., complied and banned whistleblowers.

Here in Brazil, we’re somewhat used to censorship, given our last dictatorship, with closed newspapers, lasted from 1964 to 1985. But in the US? They aren’t. They’ve never experienced a dictatorship. Freedom of speech has always represented—perhaps even defined—their core democratic value. And yet, the White House censored critics of American companies.

Still don’t grasp the gravity of this? Let me put it in perspective. In the US, freedom of speech is taken so seriously that they tolerate people marching in the streets with Nazi flags—in Brazil, anyone doing that would be arrested, as it’s against the law—but they decided to censor critics of Big Pharma products.

Recently, further illustrating Big Pharma’s complete dominance, the JAMA dismantled another myth surrounding the institution called “science.” A study revealed that the industry paid over $1 billion between 2020 and 2022 to reviewers of the most influential scientific journals. In other words, the much-vaunted “peer-review” process is nothing more than a mechanism to promote patented products and suppress results from non-lucrative alternatives. “It affects what gets published,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman of Georgetown University. And you think $1 billion is insignificant, incapable of influencing outcomes?

Historically, Big Pharma has always gotten away with its actions, and no one has ever been jailed. Why would they suddenly act ethically and honestly during Covid-19, especially when you’re the victim? Need examples and numbers to back this up?

Big Pharma has consistently buried effective treatments when they weren’t profitable. It happened with AIDS treatments to promote AZT, with Alzheimer’s drugs, and with the opioid crisis, which left 500,000 dead because it was lucrative. It happened with Vioxx, which killed 27,000 people. And let’s not forget: Big Pharma knowingly sold products contaminated with the AIDS virus because they were in stock and profitable. Yes, you heard that right—the manufacturer knew, the authorities knew, and they all decided to cover it up.

What about scandals with legal consequences in the US? Do you know which company paid the largest corporate fine in history? Think it was Enron? Bernie Madoff’s pyramid scheme? The global financial crisis caused by Lehman Brothers? Maybe Boeing, with those two 737 MAX planes nose-diving and another one losing a door mid-flight? None of the above. These are mere child’s play compared to the record-holder: Pfizer. According to the US Department of Justice, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. But of course, this barely dented their profits, given their $100 billion in revenue in 2022 alone.

And you, who were distracted throughout the pandemic, might assume I’m pulling this information from obscure conspiracy sites, right? Check my sources. The first references a biographical film that won three Oscars. The second sends readers to the Huffington Post. The third, to the Washington Post. The fourth, to a biographical series on Netflix. The fifth, to Istoé magazine. The sixth, to the New York Times. And the seventh? Directly to the US Department of Justice website—all mainstream or respected media sources. None of this comes from Carlos Bolsonaro’s Telegram channel or an Alex Jones show.

So, Let’s Get to the Paradox

With complete control over absolutely every institution and narrative, how have things turned out for those who chose not to take the Covid-19 vaccines? According to a recent study published in Nature, titled “Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic,” the general population views the unvaccinated as “unintelligent and incompetent.” This has fueled prejudice against them—prejudice that, interestingly, has surpassed the stigma faced by people who have served time in prison.

In other words, idiots. They think we’re people who believe the Earth is flat, that the moon landing never happened, or that reptilian creatures disguised as humans walk among us.

This perception has been expertly engineered, much like what Brazil’s most famous doctor, Drauzio Varella, does with his prominent platform on the country’s largest TV networks. He casually dismisses those who refused the vaccines as “ignorant.”

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the average person. They turn on the TV, and the experts—hired by Big Pharma—praise the vaccines as fantastic. They open the newspaper, and it explains they are safe and effective. They visit the WHO, FDA, or EMA websites and see enthusiastic recommendations. They check a medical association’s page, and it’s all there, laid out: the vaccines are wonderful. Not a single doubt ever crosses their mind because anything critical has been censored from YouTube, Instagram, and mainstream media.

So, for this person, rejecting such a marvel that everyone speaks so highly of? That person must be an idiot. There’s no other explanation. With complete dominance, public officials, judges, and elected authorities enforce mandates requiring everyone to take the vaccines.

Fair enough. Now, put yourself in my shoes. Labeled as an idiot, what’s left? To defend myself. And to defend myself, I deliver a talk packed with data from the vaccines’ official studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine (the world’s highest-impact scientific journal), facts reported by Reuters, numbers from the FDA website, major newspapers, and studies like the one from Cleveland Clinic—the second most renowned hospital in the world.

This study clearly shows that Covid-19 vaccines were never a “social contract” because they neither prevent infection nor reduce transmission. In fact, the data increasingly points to the opposite: the more vaccine doses you’ve taken, the higher your chances of catching and spreading the disease, even to grandma.

All of this delivered with a dose of humor. Armed with data and facts, I made it clear: the real fools are the others.

Follow the logic here with me. Everyone wants to call me stupid and restrict my rights. Yet, when faced with the data and facts I presented, no one can muster the arguments to even attempt to convince me that the risk-benefit ratio makes the vaccines worthwhile. On top of that, they want me to stay silent while being called ignorant and accept the imposition without complaint. And if I dare defend my position in a solid, evidence-based way? I’m suddenly labeled an “anti-vaccine activist.” Countering my arguments? Never happens. But I get it. They can’t.

It’s an interesting paradox, isn’t it? I laugh about it these days, but for those who don’t follow the discussion, this label is a serious insult. Big Pharma’s power is so immense that it has managed to paint its critics as lunatics. After all, in the public’s mind, “anti-vaxxer” and “flat-earther” are essentially the same type of person. The problem only arises when people Google our names.

The most fascinating part? The same crowd that finds it easy to insult me or assume I’m dumb would enthusiastically applaud me if I were giving a lecture on the corruption and poor quality of agrochemicals (popularly called pesticides). The owners of those companies are the same as Big Pharma’s, the same agencies approve both, and the same types of experts—solely interested in sales—recommend them, with the same profit-driven, health-be-damned objective. Can you imagine a term like “anti-pesticide” existing, where someone presenting poor data on these products is universally dismissed as crazy, not even worth listening to or responding to?

So what’s the difference between bad pesticides and bad vaccines? While one poison is sprayed on crops, then harvested, transported by truck to the supermarket, brought home, seasoned with olive oil and salt, placed on your table, eaten with a fork, and finally lands in your stomach, the other skips all that: it goes straight into your body via a needle. The profit is the same.

To be clear, not all pesticides are bad—just as not all vaccines are bad. For example, the BCG and rabies vaccines are excellent. And I seriously wonder if some of the attacks on glyphosate are simply because the product’s patent expired.

But don’t worry. Sure, some people were fired for not getting vaccinated, banned from restaurants, or prevented from traveling. None of that happened to me. I’m here defending the oppressed. Either way, I’ll keep doing something I love: giving these talks. I love leaving all of you speechless, feeling foolish, and not knowing where to start your rebuttal. Deal with it!