The Latest Google Censorship Due to Their Vaccine Investment

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

  • July 22, 2021


  • YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” This is why YouTube censors anything that threatens the rollout and future profits of COVID-19 gene modification therapies
  • Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system into a system based on telemedicine and personalized care through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Google is heavily involved in this movement
  • Google is also partnered directly with the U.S. military, which is increasingly working on a transhumanist agenda
  • DARPA is heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called “Wellcome Leap,” a movement to usher in transhumanism
  • Normally, there are very strict rules and regulations surrounding the testing and use of gene modification technology in humans. It’s only because they’re calling the COVID shots “vaccines” that they were able to get the EUA, which allows some standard safety regulations to be bypassed

In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?

Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’

As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.

While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8

  • Google Ventures
  • The Wellcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
  • The British government
  • BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
  • Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma

All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.

Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes

Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.

“They’ve started to sort of reimagine health care as a way of taking control over people’s lives, telling them it’s for the benefit of the public, the collective, and also their personal health, whereas it’s really a way to implement these transhumanist or technocratic technologies under the guise of that being a health-related venture,” Webb says.

Google, of course, is intimately involved in all of this. They’re also partnered directly with the U.S. military. “So, the fact that they’re censoring stuff that goes against the narrative that they want to put forth on matters relating to public health … really shouldn’t surprise anyone,” Webb says.

Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson’s COVID shot, meanwhile, is manufactured by an American company called Emergent BioSolutions, which was previously called BioPort. According to Webb, BioPort was created as a spinoff of the British biodefence facility at Porton Down.

In her April 2020 article, “A Killer Enterprise: How One of Big Pharma’s Most Corrupt Companies Plans to Corner the COVID-19 Cure Market,”9 Webb details the scandal-ridden history of BioPort and its role in the 2001 anthrax attacks and the opioid crisis. The company was rebranded as Emergent BioSolutions in 2004. In the featured video, she says:

“They were intimately involved in what happened with the 2001 anthrax attacks, because it was basically the only way they were going to manage to save their mandatory — for U.S. military personnel — anthrax vaccine program,” she says.

“They’ve been involved in scandals really ever since then … but were chosen to manufacture [the Johnson & Johnson COVID shot] despite that, and the person they put in charge of quality control at this facility that was manufacturing these Johnson & Johnson vaccines has no experience in that at all, or really in the field of any sort of pharmaceutical development or chemistry.

His background is being head of military intelligence teams for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. [He] is also an expert on Iran and North Korea …

More recently, the scandal that’s developed in the U.S. with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that these batches were ‘ruined,’ they say basically unusable, and who knows what would have happened to people if that had been widely used …

Of course, they gave Johnson & Johnson a pass on that, and the blame has been placed on Emergent BioSolutions, but of course, nothing has really been done to them as a company. They’re intimately connected to the U.S. military and also to the CIA and a military contractor in Ohio, Battelle, which has a lot of ties to the anthrax attacks as well.”

Many Unanswered Questions

One of several deep concerns raised in this interview is whether there are any independent controls or reviews of the contents of these COVID jabs. What’s really in them? Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, German physician and epidemiologist, asks. They’re all used under emergency use authorization (EUA), which allows many standard controls to be bypassed.

Wodarg wonders whether the drug industry may simply be using the EUA to learn more about how the mRNA technology actually works, using the public as guinea pigs.

Normally, there are very strict rules and regulations surrounding the use of gene modification technology in humans. It’s only because they’re calling them “vaccines” that they were able to get the EUA that allows a lot of standard safety regulations to be bypassed. 

DARPA is heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called ‘Wellcome Leap,’ a rather unsettling movement to usher in transhumanism.

So, who controls what goes into these shots? Wodarg points out that some injections have been found to be nothing but saline, which suggests some people are actually getting a placebo injection, even though they’re being told they’re getting the real thing and they’ve not signed up for a formal trial.

Are “undercover” studies being performed that we’ve not been told about? There are many unanswered questions about what’s really going on with this COVID “vaccine” rollout. Webb comments:

“There definitely needs to be more attention given to the manufacturers of the vaccine because the developers ostensibly just develop the formula, which is then given to the manufacturers who actually produce and create the vaccine that is injected into people.

In the case of the U.S., the main manufacturer, not just for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, [but also] a few others, is that same company, Emergent BioSolutions, which has an awful track record. The Pentagon lost a lawsuit in 2004 where they were accused of using U.S. military personnel as lab rats in an experimental off-label use of that particular anthrax vaccine they were producing …

BioPort, now Emergent BioSolutions, have a lot of interlocking ties with the U.S. military, and also with the department of health and human services. In terms of the mRNA technology, I definitely agree that they seized on this opportunity to use it more widely. So, the hidden hand, I would argue, with the mRNA vaccine, is the U.S. military.

If you look at both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology, those both really started with a significant investment in 2013, to both companies, from DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], which is the advanced research branch of the U.S. military …”

Google’s ‘DARPA’ Program

DARPA, Webb says, is also heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called “Wellcome Leap,” a rather unsettling movement to usher in transhumanism.

As mentioned, the Wellcome Trust has deep roots in the eugenics movement, making the collaboration doubly disturbing. For more on this, read Webb’s investigative report “A ‘Leap’ Toward Humanity’s Destruction.”10

Now, the CEO of Wellcome Leap, Regina Dugan,11 worked at DARPA. She began working there in 1996 and between 2009 and 2012 served as its first female director. She was the one who greenlighted the 2013 DARPA funding to Pfizer and Moderna. In 2012, she left DARPA to create a DARPA equivalent for Google called Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP).

She later took on a similar project at Facebook, called Building 8. Wellcome Leap is basically slated to be a “global health DARPA,” Webb says, with all the transhumanist connotations that brings.

Getting back to the issue of undercover experiments taking place in an unsuspecting public, Wodarg is very concerned that COVID-19 “vaccine” makers may be experimenting with various amounts of lipid nanoparticles, which could help explain some of the acutely lethal effects, and perhaps even the transfer phenomenon that appears to be occurring between vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated ones.

Of course, we don’t know if secret comparison trials are being done without our knowledge. What we do know is that Moderna has been working on mRNA vaccine technology for many years, and had been unable to solve the nanolipid toxicity problem. When the dosage was too low, the mRNA didn’t stick around long enough for the drug to work, and when too high, it became toxic.

Despite years of work, they were never able to determine an effective nontoxic dose of mRNA in nanolipid. At least they never announced success. Now we’re supposed to take their word that they got it all figured out in less than a year? No, most likely, they never did figure it out and are using the cover of the pandemic to release an untested vaccine on the public under the guise of emergency use authorization.

Effective nontoxic dosing is probably what the public COVID vaccination campaign is going to help them determine, so that knowledge can then be applied to other gene modification drugs and vaccines. It’s convenient in the extreme, seeing how they are not accountable for any of the damage and death their products are causing, and their unremunerated human test subjects now number in the billions.

What Is the Vaccination Campaign Really About?

According to Fuellmich, all the evidence currently suggests we’re not actually dealing with a medical emergency that would warrant the use of these gene modification tools, so the question is, why are they being pushed in such an unprecedented manner? There must be a reason for it, and if it’s not to address a medical emergency then what is it? Webb weighs in, saying:

“The Silicon Valley push to remake health care, a key part of that is what they call precision medicine … They describe it as medications and vaccines and gene therapies targeted to the individual, i.e., targeted to an individual’s own genome. This is why we’re seeing this increase, under the guise of COVID-19 testing, of this huge effort to amass genetic data of people across the world.

Of course, a lot of this is actually being held by the same Silicon Valley companies. In the case of the Western [part of] the U.S., a lot of COVID-19 testing has been done by Verily, which is a Google subsidiary, which at the same time is trying to make their AI health care based on this genetic data.

A lot of those same technologies for precision medicine also come from the U.S., military [and] involve predictive diagnoses where they say, based on an AI algorithm, you are likely to have this disease, whether it’s COVID or cancer or anything else, before you actually show symptoms of it.

That’s being co-developed right now by Google in a part of the military called the Defense Innovation Unit. There are lots of other examples of this going on. And so, I would argue that the wide-ranging use of these RNA vaccines, and treating them as regular vaccines instead of … gene therapy, is a way to normalize the same type of Silicon Valley-based precision medicine that they want to be the new normal in healthcare around the world.”

As you begin to unravel the interconnected web of players involved in this global vaccination campaign, you keep coming back to two key movements: the transhumanist movement and the eugenics movement, which in the mid-1950s actually began to merge. As noted by Fuellmich, it appears we’re observing “the coming out of a very long-running strategy” to reduce the population and alter those who are left.

“Yes, absolutely,” Webb says. “If you look back to someone like Julian Huxley, the [founding] director general of UNESCO and former president of the British Eugenics Society, which still exists today. It’s called the Galton Institute. They didn’t rename until 1989.

Adrian Hill of the AstraZeneca vaccine spoke at their 100-year anniversary, celebrating 100 years of … eugenics. The Wellcome Trust houses their archive, which they think is a great use to medicine in general.

Going back to Julian Huxley, in 1946 he said we should make the unthinkable thinkable again. Roughly 10 years later, he coined the term transhumanism and said that gene editing as a eugenics science needed to be applied along with … efforts to merge humans with machines as a way to create a new human being or human being 2.0 …

Recently, one of their board members … [published] a book that was actually positively reviewed and the UK press about eugenics in the 21st century. Front and center are these gene editing ‘medicines’ … I think it’s about control, and, ultimately … about eugenics.”

Webb goes on to discuss the January 2020 meeting of technocratic elites in Davos, Switzerland, at which an Israeli keynote speaker, Yuval Harari, warned we are entering an age of digital dictatorship where humans “are no longer mysterious souls — we are now hackable animals,”12 through the use of genetic engineering and advances in brain machine interface and technology. Needless to say, he urged the World Economic Forum members to make wise use of this technology.

Fruitful Dissent

It’s a very interesting discussion so, if you have the time, please do listen to the whole interview. In closing, Webb suggests that probably the best, most effective form or resistance is counter-economics. To joint together with others to produce what you need to survive, independent of the centralized systems and corporations that seek to control us.

“The most powerful protest at this point is going to be an economic protest,” Webb says. “Governments around the world are just waiting for more violent protest or riots. They have lots of tools and plans to deal with those. For example, in the U.S., they’re launching a war on domestic terror that is obviously going to target dissidence, from the way it is written …

That is the type of response that they’re expecting, whereas a passive nonviolent protest of economic resistance and counter-economics, just becoming independent of these people trying to build these systems [of control], I think is the most effective way to really counter it at this point.

And I think a broader counter-economics movement, in addition to a larger movement of people not consenting and just not engaging with the system, is something they fear a lot more, [which] I think could be really powerful.”


The Time for Silence is Over

A unified pushback against the globalist agenda

It’s finally here, the Global Walkout begins September 4th at 8pm London time and continue every weeks. Next step november 27th.

One step at a time, hand in hand, we are walking out from the globalist society they are trying to enslave us into

ANYONE can participate
ANYWHERE in the world

JOIN or read about it here –

The third step is to unsubscribe from all mainstream media outlets. Delete the apps from your phone, laptop, and tablet and unfollow all of their social media and YouTube channels. Try to avoid mainstream media for at least one week, even if the headline is intriguing.

In the same time why not removing all the big tech tracking/spying/social credit system around you: (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Whatsapp, Zoom, Linkedln, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, Reddit, Myspace, etc.)

The fourth step of the global walkout is to move as many accounts as you can to a union or local bank.

If you like our work please consider to donate :


If you are looking for solutions (lawyer, form, gathering, action, antidote, treatments, maybe this could help you:

If you want to fight back better:

Find the others:

Spike Protein Protocol 

Glutathione (most important for body detoxification) or better
NAC = N-Acetyl-Cysteine 600-750mg (causes the body to produce glutathione itself)
Astaxantin 5mg (also improves vision)
vitamin D3
Milk thistle (also liver and stomach protection)
Melatonin 1mg to 10mg (against 5G)
Alternatively CDS/CDL and zeolite

Dr. Zelenko’s Protocol contains Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Zinc, Vitamin D3, and Quercetin.

How to find the truth :

Search engine: or
Facebook style:


4 thoughts on “The Latest Google Censorship Due to Their Vaccine Investment

  1. Censorship of scientific, Legal and medical professionals:-

    Professor Knut Wittkowski
    Professor Dolores Cahill
    Professor Martin Kulldorff
    Dr Bryan Ardis
    Dr Bryam Bridle
    Dr Judy Mikovits
    Dr Dan Stock
    Dr Richard Fleming
    Dr. Pierre Kory
    Dr. Joseph Varon
    Dr Rashid Bhuttar
    Dr Sherri Tenpenny
    Dr Francis Christian
    Dr Francis Boyle
    Dr Dan Erickson
    Dr Artin Massihi
    Dr Andrew Kaufman
    Dr Vernon Coleman
    Dr Andrew Wakefield
    Dr Carrie Madej
    Dr Scott Jensen
    Dr Shiva Ayyadurai
    Dr Mike Yeadon
    Dr Sucharit Bhakdi
    Dr Roger Hodkinson
    Dr Vladamir Zelenko
    Dr Peter McCullough
    Dr Robert Malone
    Dr Ryan Cole
    Dr Astrid Stückelberger
    Dr Charles Hoffe
    Dr Stephanie Seneff
    Dr Sunetra Gupta

    Medical Journalist, Del Bigree

    Lawyer: Dr Reiner Fuellmich
    Lawyer: Attorney Thomas Remz
    Researcher: Dr David Martin

    Nobel Prize Laureate Dr Luc Montagnier Warns Covid Vaccine May Lead to ‘Neurodegenerative Illnesses’


  2. One of the problems is with Google is that it’s trying to set policy to prevent people giving others medical advice or unsound medical advise only it’s virtually impossible for them to do that without committing the same offence.

    I’m generally wary of any censorship and prefer as little as possible. However, where there are policies if they aren’t infringing on my rights and are correct, well enforced and well construed then I can’t complain.

    Sadly this isn’t really the case. Many of their rules on the matter if interpreted in good faith and appropriately may not cause issue but a lot do. What many people are unaware of is that a large proportion of their rules are enforced in secret either by AI or very poorly qualified humans.

    I have various concerns, some more subtle than others but there is something I’m particularly concerned about. I’m a scientist, a qualified expert in many fields and a researcher/analyst qualified to evaluate most subjects broadly. There are certain things which not only are censored across Google products but secretly as well.

    Comments that say they were posted but were immediately deleted by AI. Emails sneaking into spam boxes and things like this. Some of Google’s censorship is actually secret even from Google due to things like the automation involved.

    The things I find that Google secretly deletes are not at all controversial, false and certainly not at all capable of causing harm. I’d like to give an example of things that Google doesn’t seem to like:

    You can’t say that the heavy handed reaction in Italy today is part driven by politicians who are still reacting according to mismeasurement, misinterpretation and misreporting at the start of the pandemic where it was believed the overall death rate was well over 10%.

    We knew then this figure was unreliable at the time. We knew it was flawed and it’s an established fact long ago that it was a fair bit lower than this. However, the corrections and reporting hasn’t been as widespread so this is not well corrected for in policy making.

    You can’t say that you’re the primary decider of what you do in respect to your health. That is, whether or not to be vaccinated. Your first port of call for advice is a health professional serving you and only you as a patient that can go through all of the details that are relevant to you.

    It’s not for a corporation such as Alphabet, uninformed politicians or journalists to be making the call on what health options should be available to members or the public nor to dictate their choices and make decisions that’s not theirs to make.

    You’re not allowed to say that many governments are making mistakes in their policies for well known reasons. Many governments don’t know how much is enough or how much they need so they’re aiming for the maximum amount of vaccinations or buying the maximum amount they might need.

    This is seriously compounded by governments signing contracts that are almost extortionate. These force them to commit one amount and if it’s too much no returns. That are also limits on donating surplus or reselling it. Instead those vaccines are most likely trashed. This compels governments to force consumption of the entire stock rather than facing a scandal having wasted money.

    You’re especially not allowed to say that after around half of a population is vaccinated in a targeted fashion on a national basis that most of the benefit is reaped. Roughly speaking, vaccinating 50% of people reasonably reliably solves 95% to 99% of the overall problems associated with SARS-CoV-2. That is the known impact and anything outside of that is speculative, unlikely or unknown/uncertain.

    At that point the impact of the virus relatively becomes insignificant. Many people assume the relationship is linear. That means they think half the population being vaccinated means the problem is divided by two. It’s not. When you vaccinate starting from the most vulnerable then the improvement to the situation is exponential.

    You’re not allowed to know that the only definite function of the vaccines is to provide an option to the vulnerable. Predominantly this generation of elderly who have not acquired any immunity from prior infection and are more severely hit by the virus. Barring a few niche areas, any application beyond that and certainly any pressing need is not supported by any scientific or medical findings.

    We might find that in the next generation natural immunity doesn’t persist as well as we’d like but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. People can choose to take the vaccine then and there if it turns out to be necessary. Given that the vaccine works to provide immunity very much in the same way as the virus then you tend to have that potential problem all round anyway.

    The vaccines were never expected to provide herd immunity which is a less targeted approach that was proposed when natural immunity was the only option. Anyone who thinks we should stick to the original proposal of herd immunity but using vaccines instead of the virus as a drop in replacement has gotten it completely wrong.

    Herd immunity was considered early on more as a desperate measure with few other options available. There are a few ways of applying it but the general hist of it was to have enough of the non-vulnerable population exposed and then immunised to create a barrier or dampening effect so the virus is unable to run rough shot through the population. It would be confined to small outbreaks at best which would be slow moving.

    The ultimate intention was to minimise the problem. While this approach isn’t technically speaking impossible, it’s very hard to implement effectively and governments largely botched any attempt at it. Much of the trying to get children back to school was a part of this effort. Governments communicated poorly and coordinated poorly without any real considerations of how to segregate parts of the population or provide appropriate facilities.

    With the vaccine the whole herd immunity plan is obsolete. You can simply directly vaccinate the vulnerable. That achieves very much the same, in fact more than the herd immunity methodologies. That plan should have been dropped. The WHO made a huge blunder in rather than stating this rewriting the dictionary to define herd immunity as only being achieved through vaccination and then advising as a policy to continue on with that plan. Instead what’s being done isn’t logical. We’re talking about trying to solve something that’s already been solved.

    They don’t want you to know that western countries have already reached vaccination levels way above the criteria established to achieve any known reasonable goal. It’s most likely that western nations have used around 100 million excess doses a good proportion of which would have potentially better been donated, sold or resold to developing nations, particularly in Africa where the vaccination coverage is exceptionally poor.

    You’re not allowed to know that many governments have set misguided objectives of using the vaccines for to try to eradicate the virus without the appropriate cooperation, mutual agreement, public consent or scientific enquiry. We’ve no strong basis to say that we can completely eradicate this virus with vaccination campaigns like smallpox.

    The virus falls into the same categories of viruses that make up the common cold and we tend not to entertain eradicating any of those as being a reasonable undertaking. Not a single credible source has proposed any kind of feasible plan for this yet many governments appear under the impression that this is what’s going to happen.

    Google claims that it is a fact that getting the virus is always less safe than getting the vaccine. In various categories however, there’s no meaningful difference. In certain datasets there’s not even a detectable signal at all for the least at risk categories and in some adverse outcomes from the vaccine exceed those of the virus.

    This is where we find one of Google’s biggest conflicts of interests as it’s censoring information that would effectively allow lockdowns to end with less consumption of vaccines, where herd immunity takes hold in the remaining unvaccinated population.

    In the case of the remaining population getting natural immunity, that’s not something we think of much as a major solution. The vaccine already covers that base. Instead that’s simply the inevitable result of the virus burning itself running through the segment of the population that’s largely unaffected by it.

    Nothing here is unsound. This is all factual knowledge, much of it does not require specialist knowledge or unusual intelligence. Much of it is backed by local health authorities and has already happened.

    I’m not trying to sell dandelion soup as a cure for cancer or anything like that. If I were I don’t think I’d get many sales. If I got any then I think we’d be going into Darwin Award territory rather than egregious harm.

    There are three things that stand out as particularly disturbing to me.

    The first is that a lot of this censorship is done completely in secret. People aren’t often aware when they’re being censored and virtually no one is aware of just how much if really being kept from them. There are very few places someone like myself, an experienced scientist, can post scientifically and factually backed essays like this one. This is such a place and it’s hardly accessible or ideal.

    The second is that a lot of people appear to lump in natural immunity into the same category or natural remedies or alternative medicine. It’s treated the same as homeopathy by Google. Perhaps they should censor that natural immunity is one of the qualifying characteristics for Italy’s “green” passport system while they’re at it. There seems to be a war on everything natural and I think this is more sinister than people might realise.

    Natural means potentially free or something not patented and owned. Anything else, it’s artificial, which means someone is making and selling it. There’s a big conflict of interest there. This crosses into another extreme when corporations such as Google start to believe they have the right to dispossess you of your own immune system.

    The third is that while I understand profiteering as well as a number of ulterior motives, I still find it hard to fathom the lengths and desperation they are going to in this case. This level of censorship doesn’t seem at all that necessary or productive. They’re not just battling for profits but against the rights of everyone and against the collective benefit. You’re entering a realm where the things these people are doing for what appears to be profit goes against their self interest elsewhere.

    It’s very hard to imagine that there’s not something seriously untoward going on. The vaccines are expected to see high rates of uptake with very little effort at all. Certainly, no censorship is required. People in a vulnerable category or other relevant category represents near guaranteed demand. That’s a huge portion of the population already. They can easily expect half the population of a typical country to consume it.

    I’m at a loss to explain why they so desperately want so close to 100%. At some point it steps being about gains. Once half are vaccinated you can only double sales. Once 75% are vaccinated you can only raise them by a third. There appears to be a lot of desperation to throw away everyone’s rights including their own to close a tiny gap that doesn’t make any known vital or even meaningful difference. I think anyone is justified in asking what are they really up to.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: