Opinion

Taking your medicine

To the editor:

Here in Vermont our bi-weekly briefings given by Governor Phil Scott are currently promoting vaccinations. Like it or not they are experimental at best and with no extensive track record or long-term data to support them. 


Dr. Simone Gold and the American Frontline Doctors are by no means the only medical professionals raising concerns in the United States (or globally for that matter). But one thing they all have in common: they are being censored and purged from this discussion, when they should be brought into it in a much more inclusive and constructive way. This purging of concerned professionals places our leaders in a much smaller box, restricting their parameters of operation to a limited number of options controlled by those with a vested interest and an already granted immunity from prosecution if and when their products harm those encouraged to take the medicine.

Is it wrong to suggest we look for solutions throughout the medical profession before forfeiting the right of informed consent by exclusively turning it over to a limited number of experts our leaders must rely on for policy decisions?

Lynn Edmunds, Wallingford

Categories: Opinion

Tagged as:

5 replies »

  1. Guy that is very well stated,the whole facemask,staying separated,and putting our faith in so called experts is only taking away our God given right to free speech,and Life,Liberty,and the pursuit of Happiness!! Freedom is much more desirable than tyranny;When our government no longer represents its people,we have the right rebuke and replace them!!

  2. If the government, Federal or State, requires vaccinations for any purpose, to fly in a plane, to go to the grocery store, they must be held accountable for any and all unintended consequences. But this logic is flawed for at least two reasons.

    First, good luck receiving any accountability. If someone has an allergy or pre-existing condition rendering the vaccine dangerous to them, deadly in fact, what level of compensation can be justified – and who determines it? It would be like forcing someone with a peanut allergy to eat the peanut snacks on the plane. And that’s just one example.

    But secondly, I am the government. Or at least part of it. We the people are responsible. So, I say, let we the people decide for ourselves how we mitigate the threat of any disease. I don’t want to be responsible for the behavior of others and fully understand that they shouldn’t be responsible for my behavior either.

    If the vaccine works, for example, and I choose not to take, who’s at risk? I am.

    The problem is, of course, with those who refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions. They hide behind the cloak of government, stealing the labor and resources of others under the pretense that they know better than anyone else how to manage them. But when their one-size-fits-all carelessness falls flat on its face, they are the first ones to point the finger at others.

    Caveat emptor!

  3. I rarely disagree with Lynn, and I am not sure I really do now. Just questions I guess. First, this covid19 vaccine was produced in record time, that is a given. So what are the alternatives that may produce better outcomes, or even equally as good outcomes? I have had my first vaccination, because I felt there had not been a better alternative offered. That was my choice, not someone else’s or the government’s. Will there be improved vaccines later on, and will they be compatible with the current ones? I do not know and I would guess not many on the streeters could answer either. So, we are left to deal with things at face value looking at us straight in the eyeball.
    I will be getting my booster in early March.

Leave a Reply