The vaccine injured must be compensated. But who should pay?
No. To qualify – not the Government. But obviously someone should. In this piece I’ll set out why the Government should not be the party to pay compensation; why the Government won’t, in any case, at least not in any meaningful way, and; who should pay. The answer to this last question is a no-brainer, but the real issue is whether and how the legal hurdles can be surmounted.
It’s distressing to read first person accounts of how lives have been smashed by what are indisputably the most unsafe government-sponsored medications in modern history – the covid injections. Under an avalanche of media, NHS and ministerial pressure, most people caved in and did as they were told. For some, the price has been horrific. Those who have paid the ultimate price may number in the tens of thousands. A scientist leading a study in Germany says the actual number of serious adverse effects there is likely to be 40 times higher than the officially recorded number. Is our medical establishment any more diligent than the German one?
Reading the above-linked first-person account triggers both sadness and rage at the callous treatment meted out to those who have suffered. This account conveys how some of these people succumbed to the pressure to get jabbed. There is no doubt that the pressure was immense, but that pressure was expedited by a trusting naivety that it was applied in good faith. One expression that sticks out for me from that piece was they “took [their] jab as told to do so”. Without any loss of sympathy for the victims, it prompted me to ask how we can all claim to live in democracies premised on us telling our governments what to do and that public servants…well… serve us, and yet many did as they were told, instead of making up their own minds?
The answer to that is as complex as the whole covid deception itself. You can trace the origins of the covid deception back to global pandemic simulation wargames held over many years, which were critical in priming public health systems across the world to fall like dominoes and propagate covid hysteria. Mattias Desmet’s mass formation theory, the Government’s disgraceful weaponization of fear and military grade psyops to induce widespread compliance, the craven corporate mass media machine – all fed into a perfect storm that reduced entire populations across the Western world to a quivering mass of obedient jelly. But there is something else in this mix that aided and abetted the Government’s tyrannical mass lockdown, mass masking and mass coerced vaccination; something that will be reinforced by suing the wrong party for compensation.
The sham bargain of health and emotional harm statism
That something else is a creeping statism which, over the last 40 years, has played a role in the insidious degradation of personal responsibility. The unholy bargain at the core of statism is that you surrender to the state your responsibility for managing certain risks. The state reciprocates, not by rescuing you from the peril of these risks but by pledging to rescue you from them, knowing that it can’t. It’s a sham bargain. Government ministers know that, but most voters don’t. I’m going to restrict the discussion to two forms of statism most relevant to this piece because adopting a sweeping view of statism (positive or negative) doesn’t help in analysing specific problems. These two forms of statism are health statism and a closely related offshoot, which I will call ‘emotional harm’ statism.
The struggle for human rights, individual liberty and dignity has brought us, or so we thought, to the position where we believe that health is a private matter between the individual and their doctor. If health matters are not between an individual and their doctor, why do we constantly fight for the right to protect the privacy of our individual health records? And what was the point of hanging Nazi doctors in 1946 if not to make a very clear statement about the individual’s right to voluntary informed consent? Yes, I know – under the planned biosecurity state, nothing will be private or voluntary, but that aspiration is a criminal one so let’s put it aside for now when discussing self-evident principles of individual rights and human dignity.
Under the health statist contract, we collectively begged the Government to make good on an impossible promise – to rescue us from the peril of a virus. This deception was fostered on the statist premise that if a virus is sweeping the land, it’s the state’s job to halt it. Which brings us to the apparent contradiction between a National Health Service and the position that personal health is a private matter to be managed by the individual as they see fit. But there is no contradiction.
My health is none of the state’s business. The existence of a National Health Service touted as being “free at the point of delivery” does not change that: not least for reasons of individual rights and dignity but also crucially because, in the final analysis, it is not “free”. It is paid for by the individual and collective taxpayer. The Government is not an entity separate from us. It cannot open and abuse your private health ledger on the grounds that it pays for your health. It is our government and any service it provides is paid for by us. So, the provision of a “national” health service does not give the Government the right to manage my health risks, and I have certainly not abdicated that responsibility. This all seems like stating the obvious, but if over the last two years the entire nation handed over its responsibility for staying healthy, including the responsibility to decide for itself whether or not to get jabbed, then maybe the obvious needs stating.
Common sense and proper science, as opposed to The Science™, told us that you cannot stop a respiratory virus from circulating, but health statism is the compound that alchemised the impossible into the possible. Health statism was a key ingredient in the heady mix of reasons why people did as they were told on everything from lockdowns to masking to coerced jabs, as well as being open to the prospect of flashing a revolting ‘vaccine passport’ when Government ministers were doing their best to introduce them.
All these things had a government “good health” stamp on them and all of them have been inimical to the collective health of the nation. We should not be surprised by this perversion. A government can’t roll out tailor-made health solutions to 65 million people, even when there is good faith in the effort, and there was no good faith in covid policies.
65 million potential abdicators of personal health responsibility imploring the Government to manage their health risks is an unhealthy contract doomed to fail. If you need proof that health is a private matter between you and your doctor, you will find it in the incontrovertible fact that there is no one-size-fits-all health solution. Sadly, if you ask the Government to insure your health risk, don’t be surprised if everyone gets locked down, everyone gets told to wear a mask and everyone gets told to take a jab.
In stressing the unfeasibility of one-size-fits-all health solutions, it would be remiss not to mention the WHO’s efforts to forcibly impose pandemic response measures on the entire world. This is the madness of one-size-fits-all on steroids. It also converts the global elitist aspiration of a One World Government from a ‘conspiracy theory’ to reality. The WHO is a demonstrably and grossly incompetent international organisation, captured by Big Pharma with the Gates Foundation as its second largest donor, fully on board with the pandemic industry’s goal of endless pandemics, followed by an endless erosion of liberty, followed by endlessly pumping humanity with ‘vaccines’. And it wants the right to impose its universal ‘health’ solution on 193 countries and 7.5 billion people. Happy with that?
The Government had a pandemic preparedness plan, and it didn’t need the WHO to rubber stamp it. That original plan, hastily abandoned, wisely embraced the proper science that acknowledged you can’t stop the spread of a respiratory virus. In a nutshell, the plan was to keep calm and carry on. Not to lock down or impose any of the other humiliations that we ended up enduring. The abandonment of a perfectly good plan for no good reason is one of many things reinforcing my belief that it was always the intention of the Government to lock down and mass vaccinate – this scenario had been carefully rehearsed – but that this was made a lot easier by the clamour from statists on all sides to do far more than simply keep calm and carry on.
As far as this unhealthy health statism goes, it is no accident that this clamour was far louder from the faux left than the right. The corporate right-wing Labour left miscalculated that it could embarrass the Conservatives into engaging the state on a massive scale to deal with a health scare, when all along Johnson’s cabal had decided on the health statist course of action and was grateful to have Labour as its lapdogs to cheer it on.
The outcomes of health statism are far worse than just bad health. A public clamouring for the Government to do more was like a lamb expecting a wolf to look after it. Willingly accepting the power granted to it, the covid state zeroed in on the thing that it does exceptionally well – it went for second and third helpings of power by enacting legislation to rule under the state-of-emergency paradigm when, in reality, no state of emergency existed.
A government cannot save me from the plague and nor would I ever invite it to. The price of freedom is personal responsibility. The cost of asking the Government to underwrite total safety is Government tyranny. That’s why the tragedy of covid ‘vaccine’ injuries should not be used to reinforce a responsibility that no state should ever have been granted in the first place – the responsibility to manage individuals’ health risk.
At any rate, we have come so far down the road of health statism that the government is confident that it has been given a licence to pretend to manage not just our physical health risks but our emotional health risks as well. This is emotional harm statism, evidenced by the fact that many people take as given the supremely infantilising proposition that the state has a duty to protect adults of ‘ordinary sensibilities’ from psychological harm caused by exposure to the written online word. The public signals that it needs protection from ‘online harms’ and the state, once again, exploits this by using it as a pretext to grab power.
The online ‘protection’ proposition now seeks legal endorsement in the free-speech-crushing Orwellian Online Safety Bill, a fig leaf for legalised censorship, which is of course a key pillar of the New World Order power grab. The idea that the Government, of all institutions, can or should protect adults from written content is preposterous. The failure to comprehend that the Government would use this power chiefly for narrative management of its own policies and objectives stems from a naivety which I can only attribute to Western populations having had it too good for too long. But this is where we are. Infantilising statism is now a cancer that cuts across the political divide.
Working hand in glove with the health statism at the heart of the covid deception, emotional harm statism has exploited another societal cancer – wokery. To be sure, wokery is a complex phenomenon. It is many things, but one of the qualities it encapsulates is the desire to be agreeable even if it means being stupid and often paradoxically downright mean. Wear a mask to protect others (when masks don’t protect the wearer), don’t kill granny, and so on.
I want to stress that I’m not arguing that the Government, under the NHS umbrella, should not provide health services: the issue is that, under health and emotional harm statism, it is not providing the health service that we’ve paid for. Instead, it’s stepping into people’s private lives on the pretext that it will prevent bad things from happening to them. It is saying in loud totalitarian overtones, “I will stop the virus reaching you even if I must lock you up and force vaccinate you. I will protect you from unpleasant words even if I must censor your online content.” The only response from any self-respecting adult to HMG’s proposition should be: “Turn around and take a running jump.”
The government won’t pay out so let’s get the Godfather
Returning to the question of compensation, I don’t deny there is a very strong case for holding the Government to account through a proper compensation scheme given that it used the full weight of its power to coerce people into vaccination. But there is another party to this crime: Big Pharma. If we go after the hand that ultimately pulls the strings, we stand a chance of killing two birds with one stone. This might initiate a move away from health statism that poisons personal responsibility. And we would be targeting the Godfather of vaccine failure before going on to deal with its government puppet enforcers. We should marvel at how Big Pharma has, so far, succeeded in heaping insult on injury by getting its government puppets to open the taxpayer money taps for the ‘vaccines’ and then getting us to pay, albeit in token fashion, for the injury caused by them.
Big Pharma knew the dangerous nature of the experiment it was conducting, which is why it got governments everywhere to underwrite the risk. To make matters worse, most governments have miserly and meaningless vaccine compensation schemes. These pathetic compensation schemes are the direct consequence of successful Big Pharma lobbying to shift liability onto the Government, which in turn has abdicated its role to compensate properly by enacting inadequate legislation. The truth is that both parties think they are being quite clever in letting the liability for damage fall between two stools, pun intended.
A big part of the reason why the Government simply won’t do the right thing by compensating people fairly and squarely is because an even-handed compensation scheme might attract the sort of publicity that could severely dent the New World Order agenda of its corporate masters. Part of that agenda involves coercing humanity into a never-ending ‘vaccine’ regimen that will have your doctor examining the results of your blood tests and being pleasantly surprised that some blood has been detected in your polyethylene glycol. So, the ‘vaccine’ juggernaut is not to be impeded by minor considerations of safety. Government pay-outs of huge damage claims for covid injections might alert the public to the possibility that the whole ‘vaccine’ industry has less stringent quality control than a Columbian cocaine lab – somewhat of a narrative management problem for the Great Reset project.
The UK Column’s harrowing account of a vaccine injured claimant’s attempt to get compensation provides clear evidence of the Government’s determination to evade responsibility for vaccine injury. For starters, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme’s (VDPS) capped amount of £120,000 for each claim is appallingly scant redress for the devastating injuries that too many people have suffered. Inordinate delays in replying to claimants seems to be standard operating procedure for the VDPS and, when the automatons deign to respond to the victim’s case letters, they do so not with care and compassion, but with a callousness and indifference to rival Kafka’s most absurd visions of bureaucratic despotism.
Some hard facts about VDPS performance:
- 2,347 claims were submitted to the VDPS in the 21 years up to June 2021. The scheme paid out on just 41 of those claims. That’s a payment rate of 1.75%.
- Since the roll-out of covid ‘vaccines’ up to 18 February 2022 (roughly a year), 920 claims have been made, which is a 720% increase on the previous annual average. Based on the historical payment rate of 1.75%, we can expect just 16 of those 920 claims to be paid.
Be in no doubt about the Government’s strategy on covid vaccine damage – erect an impenetrable stone wall guaranteed to condemn already traumatised victims to deeper despair. Applying the historical payment rate to the 920 covid vaccine claims received thus far would see a maximum pay-out of £1.9m. That’s the price the Government would place on damaged lives, many of whom would arguably not have been damaged had it not been for the industrial scale coercion and propaganda to which the Government subjected them in its effort to ensure that mass vaccination was the only way out of its manufactured ‘health crisis’. Compare that to the £37 billion it splurged on consultants for the Test and Trace surveillance project, to track and trace you like animals, and which a parliamentary committee concluded made no “measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic.” It has of course made a measurable difference to the pockets of the corporate masters the Government serves.
Proving contract fraud – do we still have rule of law?
Evidence of fraud in the clinical trials, if you can even call them that, is mounting as investigative reporters and scientists who care about real science pore over the releases of the Pfizer trial data. Surely what we need now is a serious legal project in the UK to prove contract fraud, thus paving the way for legal action which would in effect nullify the indemnities granted to Big Pharma companies like Pfizer.
Citing the case of a vaccine injured Argentinian lawyer whose trial medical records appear to have been doctored to obfuscate the true cause of his injury, The Daily Sceptic claims:
“The evidence of malpractice and possible fraud in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trials is certainly stacking up now. But very few people are aware of it as it is mostly only being reported in alternative media.”
Ventavia is a large Texan CRO (contract research organisation) contracted by Pfizer to conduct Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials. In January 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked briefly in 2020 for Ventavia, filed a lawsuit against Pfizer alleging that it made false and fraudulent claims. The case was placed under seal, preventing the evidence from entering the public domain at the very time that it should have – when the ‘vaccines’ were rolled out. A sinister move to say the least. In February 2022, the case was unsealed but Pfizer has filed a motion for dismissal on a US contract technicality – namely that the contract was executed by the Department of Defence and not the civilian Department of Health.
And of course, your head would be firmly screwed on if you asked some basic questions like: Why would a pharmaceutical company contract with the government’s military instead of the civilian health department for the domestic supply of drugs for the civilian population? Was this a cynical ruse to shield the US Government from any accountability?
We cannot overestimate what is at stake here. If Pfizer succeeds in dismissing the case, then American citizens, and indeed everyone in the West, will have to accept that the ‘rule of law’ is a fig leaf for dictatorships ruling for the benefit of powerful corporations. But if Pfizer fails, it would signal a turning in the tide of global corporate totalitarianism.
You can find more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com