by William Skink
Montana’s new Governor is saying Governor-type things about protecting vulnerable populations while reopening the state’s economy. Sure he will. Here’s our new Gov:
Gianforte held a news conference through Zoom, his first since the transition began. In it, he made clear COVID-19 will still have to be a major focus of his administration.
“We have to recognize we’re in the midst of a public health crisis,” he said. “The trends right now are alarming, and it’s clear we need to get a better handle on this virus.”
Gianforte said he will wait for recommendations from his COVID-19 Task Force before providing more details about his plans for state action on the coronavirus.
However, he again emphasized his priority will be protecting people in vulnerable populations…
Yes, we are definitely in a public health crisis, and it’s so serious our airports are adding flights. How are we going to get a handle on this, especially for vulnerable populations?
The only path being discussed by Gianforte is the almighty vaccine, and the only problem with the vaccine being discussed is how long we might have to wait to get our poke (and, if you listen to liberal media, how equitable the distribution of the vaccine will be). From the link:
He said he is optimistic about the progress toward vaccines, but that people should realize it will be some time before they’re widely available in the state.
“In the meantime, I encourage Montanans to take care of their loved ones and neighbors, and to protect their health and well-being,” he said. “I trust Montanans to do what’s right. I choose to wear a mask, and I encourage others to do the same.”
I wish there was a real conversation happening about what it actually means to protect vulnerable populations, but that’s not happening. Instead there is an assumption that everything hinges on a vaccine.
Even with all the vaccine talk happening, there is little attention being paid to the convenient set-up Big Pharma got for itself called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The subtitle to this Atlantic article reads as follows: A little-known deal protects drug companies in the U.S. from being sued—and feeds conspiracy theories in the process.
Here’s more from the link:
For most drugs—actually, every type of drug other than vaccines—the manufacturer can be legally liable for harm that results from a product it sells. Vaccines are produced by privately held pharmaceutical companies, but they have a unique arrangement with the U.S. government: When a person reports harm that could feasibly be related to a vaccine, a government program—not a pharmaceutical company—pays compensation.
Am I perpetrating “vaccine hesitancy” by referencing this FACTUAL LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY for harm done by vaccines by Big Pharma? Does the concept of INFORMED CONSENT mean a damn thing anymore?
If you’re not sure what “informed consent” means, it’s one of those foundational concepts you really should be familiar with. From the American Medical Association:
Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.
People who are asking questions about the rush to vaccinate the world against Covid are simply invoking their right to be informed about a vaccine before providing consent. Is this critical concept going to be just discarded, and any dissenters labeled and smeared as ANTI-VAXXERS?
It sure looks like it.