Most abusive relationships have a common pattern. The abusive partner will attract the other person with grand promises, but once they are in the relationship, the abusive partner will go back on those promises and find excuses to be abusive.
The victim may initially resist the shift in the abusive behavior, but the abuser will manipulate them through gaslighting and deny that the abuse is actually happening. As a result, the small amount of abuse will eventually become the norm in the relationship. If the victim tries to resist this new standard of behavior, the abuser will throw a tantrum until compliance is regained. This cycle will continue and escalate until the level of abuse becomes severe, leaving the victim trapped and compelled to comply.
Typically, the cycle is interrupted by one of these options:
- Sometimes, when domestic violence is so obvious, outside parties intervene to stop it. For instance, when a person arrives at the emergency room with injuries caused by domestic violence, law enforcement might step in. However, this is not always certain as the patient may choose to remain with their abuser, and sometimes, the police may be contacted by a neighbor who overhears an incident.
- The abuser chooses to end their exploitation of the abused individual and abandons them.
- The person who has been abused leaves the situation.
In reality, breaking free from cycles can be difficult, especially when someone in a position of authority prohibits it, despite it being a necessary step. In general, humans tend to get used to bad situations over time. Therefore, if an abuser slowly becomes more abusive, the person being abused may not immediately recognize the severity and may not feel the need to leave. On the other hand, if the abuser is very abusive from the beginning of the relationship, the person being abused is more likely to realize it's unacceptable and leave sooner.
I find it frustrating how people, even those who are not intentionally unkind, tend to steadily increase their expectations of me over time. This is often accompanied by a growing impatience when I am unable to meet those expectations. When I was younger, I often found myself getting involved in abusive relationships where I would try to help someone who had requested it, but then the situation would turn ugly when they started to demand too much from me. This would result in conflicts with the other person, and I would have to work hard to get them to stop pushing me around.
As I have grown older, I have learned that people tend to place expectations and obligations on you, and the best way to handle this is by avoiding them altogether. However, this can be difficult at times. This dynamic also occurs on a larger scale, where governments subtly impose control over the population. This is known as the “totalitarian tiptoe”. The demands placed upon us during the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to escalate as time went on. Each time one requirement was met, a new, more extreme stipulation was introduced. Some people are now advocating for climate lockdowns to combat climate change, despite the fact that previous lockdowns were costly and had little benefit. Oxford is currently working on plans to potentially implement them next year.
The pharmaceutical industry is also a frequent offender in society. People often ask me how I was able to predict the pandemic's course accurately, and my response is always the same: “It was simply an escalation of the industry's past actions.” Over time, the pharmaceutical industry has increasingly been accused of pushing unsafe and ineffective medications onto the market while avoiding responsibility by paying off the government and disregarding the needs of affected individuals. Instead of investigating and removing harmful medications from circulation, the industry has become more brazen in its actions.
There are similarities between the early days of the AIDS epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. Some people believe that Fauci prioritized the approval of AZT, an expensive but ineffective drug for HIV treatment, over other effective treatments for AIDS. During COVID-19, Fauci ordered the administration of remdesivir and later the vaccines to everyone in America, unlike the past where he only affected the gay community. Despite being protested by the gay community, he proceeded with his actions then.
The first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant, Prozac, should have never been approved due to safety concerns, questions about its effectiveness, and issues with research fraud. Despite the FDA's reluctance, Prozac was forced through the approval process by Bush senior, who had previously been on the board of the company that manufactured it.
After the approval of SSRIs, many competitors entered the market with similar clinical trial data. However, the FDA received numerous reports of severe side effects from users, including suicide or homicide. The FDA tried to suppress this information by forbidding its own reviewer to release a critical report on giving SSRIs to children and by publishing its own inaccurate meta-analysis claiming that there were no safety concerns with SSRIs.
After two decades of protesting against the FDA, including a congressional hearing, the agency finally gave in and issued a black box warning (which is used for medications that have serious safety risks) on the SSRIs. Despite the warning, people are largely disregarding it. Here is documentatation of what the FDA did in a similar case in the past, which is the closest relevant precedent to the current situation with COVID-19 vaccines.
In 2009, due to concerns over adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine, the FDA and CDC conducted a study to investigate Gardasil's safety, using VAERS case reports that had received significant media attention. During a span of two and a half years from mid-2006 after Gardasil's approval, it examined all the VAERS reports filed until the end of 2008.
According to the study, the reporting rate for Gardasil in VAERS is three times higher than the rate for all other vaccines combined. The study also revealed that 68% of the reports were made by Merck representatives, the manufacturer of Gardasil. These reports were mostly incomplete or inaccurate, and 90% of them did not provide essential information for medical assessments. The authors also pointed out that there was underreporting in VAERS.
The authors disregarded a concerning red flag and downplayed the severity of the issue. They claimed that the increase in reported adverse events was due to heightened public awareness from media coverage of HPV. They also said that the safety profile of Gardasil, based on data from VAERS, matched the safety data from clinical trials, but provided no evidence to support their statements. After the study was published, news organizations and health authorities like the CDC and WHO used it as evidence that Gardasil is safe. However, because of the mishandling of the HPV vaccine, I doubted that the CDC or FDA would be able to identify red flags within VAERS for a potentially hazardous vaccine that is being introduced. The fact that red alerts were ignored despite being reported to VAERS demonstrates that VAERS is indeed fulfilling its intended purpose. The system was created in response to demands from activists, such as parents of children who suffered vaccine injuries, who wanted a way for citizens to report vaccine injuries directly and access this information.
The creation of VAERS was a response to medical providers and the government making it difficult to report vaccine injuries. The implementation of VAERS was a trade-off for vaccine manufacturers being relieved of liability for vaccine injuries by the 1986 law. Although the CDC is legally unable to censor VAERS, recent events have demonstrated that they still do at times. The government and media often discredit the validity of VAERS, except for when it can be used to demonstrate safety. As a result, it is up to the public to utilize VAERS as a means of bringing vaccine safety concerns to light that those in power may want to keep hidden.
The COVID-19 vaccines have raised concerns due to several red flags, and VAERS data indicates that they are the riskiest vaccines ever. Some people have used VAERS to bring attention to this matter. The previous vaccine for Gardasil was also considered dangerous, and the same thing is happening with the current vaccine, with signals being reported to VAERS. However, these signals have been dismissed by the media and health authorities. Recently, a FOIA revealed that the CDC has intentionally ignored a lot of VAERS safety signals.
To overcome the challenges involved in evaluating vaccine safety through post-marketing surveillance, we need to explore the possibility of obtaining valuable safety data from clinical trials.
The Clinical Trial Experience
I understand that discussing domestic abuse can be a sensitive topic, but I find it relevant to the experiences of clinical trial participants and therefore important to address.
In numerous clinical trials I’ve looked at, the same pattern is followed:
The pharmaceutical company uses various tactics to encourage the trial participant to participate, such as highlighting their uniqueness and assuring them of their safety. In some cases, doctors may also receive compensation for each participant they enroll, which aids in the recruitment process. The company also promises to provide necessary care if any adverse events occur during the trial.
If a trial participant experiences negative effects from the drug being tested, the coordinators may try to convince them that the event was not caused by the drug or did not happen at all. This can be successful because the participant may not want to accept that it happened, especially if they had trust in the researcher's promises that convinced them to join the trial.
Even if the participant who has suffered from gaslighting manages to gather evidence and report it, their adverse event may not be accurately reflected in the final clinical trial report. It may be downplayed or completely left out.
It is crucial to note that the pharmaceutical company will not provide assistance to individuals who suffer from any adverse effects of the drug, despite any promises made in the past. The company will abandon them once they are of no use to their interests.
After some of my friends were badly hurt by the HPV vaccine, I learned about the issue and discovered that Merck had encountered similar problems during their clinical trial. This made me concerned about the safety of the vaccine and I wanted to hear firsthand accounts from people who were involved in any future trials, as I expect the vaccine to be required soon.
In 2020, I discovered a method to become a member of an online group for individuals involved in the COVID-19 vaccine trials. I read several alarming side effects reported by the participants. However, when the trial reports from Pfizer and Moderna were released, the majority of the symptoms were not mentioned. Over time, additional individuals from the clinical trials have shared similar experiences to what I observed during the HPV trials.
It's important to mention that abusive behavior isn't limited to just vaccines. There have been other instances where people suffered serious harm during trials for drugs like SSRIs. In some cases, malicious “placebos” might have been administered with the intention of portraying the tested drug as more potent, even if it caused harm to the patient. Despite this, the pharmaceutical industry has managed to conceal the incidents in SSRI trials, similar to what happened with the HPV vaccine.