Vaccine hesitancy is used to describe anyone who currently is opposed to getting jabbed. This conveys a sense that the person just isn’t sure about taking a needle into their arms that contains poison for their bodies. Is this an accurate sense of these people?
Hesitancy suggests a willingness to submit someday to being pricked. There is no doubt that some people are hesitant, that they are waiting for some sign that it is okay to do this. However, at this point, that does not accurately portray the situation with the vast majority of people who are refusing the mRNA gene therapy that has injured so many people. These people have determined via their own paths that they will not give in to any demand that they do so.
To characterize these people as vaccine hesitant is as far from the truth as night is from day. We need a better phrase to label such people. On one site that I visit frequently, a number of different labels were trotted out.
One suggestion was pro natural immunity. While I am wholeheartedly in favor of supporting people who resist getting the needle because they have recovered from COVID (over 99% have), this leaves out too many people. Also, it isn’t short and catchy.
Another suggestion was anti-experimental drug. Again, I am all in favor of the idea. The Nuremberg Conventions are on our side. But it is not catchy enough.
Another was vaccine refusenik or never jabber. I don’t think that most of the people opposing this injection are people who refuse the idea of vaccines. Many have been vaccinated for serious illnesses in the past. They just see the lunacy of the current experiment being perpetrated on the human race.
Anti-clot shot was another suggestion. This conveys an important message about the problems with the gene therapy. It is short and catchy. However, it limits the ideas of what the problems are with this therapy.
Anti-mandate conveys a strong idea about some of the anti-liberty ideas this propaganda. It signifies opposition to coercing someone to make a medical decision. It helps to frame the conversation. However, it just isn’t very catchy.
Perhaps the best idea is pro-life. Yes, I know it is used as part of the opposition to murdering unborn children. But it does represent the wide range of ideas of people who are against the jab.
Pro-life conveys the idea that there are significant mortality issues with the therapy. It also conveys that everyone deserves the protections afforded to all human beings with regards to living their own lives. It allows for the idea that such people can be opposed to this shot while supporting shots that actually do help combat serious illnesses. And it is short and catchy.
Think about this conversation. Someone comes up and asks why you haven’t gotten vaccinated for COVID. Your reply is that you are pro-life. You have framed the narrative. Where does that conversation go from there? Your answer covers many of the directions where the ensuing conversation might head.
This answer allows you to smoothly bring in the excess death data from countries that were early adopters of mass vaccination. Discussions about heart inflammation in younger people is a natural follow on. Other serious issues from the mRNA therapy can easily be brought into the conversation. Even the recovery rate from COVID by healthy people flows from this answer. The idea of kids getting the jab can be refuted by showing that the therapy is all risk and no benefit for them. Again this is a pro-life position.
Stand up! Don’t be bashful in your opposition. Do not cave into them! You are not alone! You can make a profound difference!
Godspeed!