The editors of the Boston Herald recently made tremendous waves by publishing a hit piece on vaccine skepticism, and even going so far as to say that promoting awareness of the potential health hazards created by vaccines should be punishable by death. In the so-called land of the free, it seems that the thought police are out in full force — and they’re ready to pounce on anyone who dares to stand against the will of Big Pharma. Since when is it illegal for any citizen in this country to openly question the safety of a product that it is literally being foisted upon them by their own governments? Apparently, the people at the Boston Herald feel that the First Amendment only applies to them and opinions that they find agreeable. Under the First Amendment, these shills were able to publish their own fictitious and inflammatory statements:
“These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense,” the Herald writers state.
There are several key issues with this statement. First of all, the issue of whether or not vaccines cause autism is far from definitive, as research has shown that vaccinated children are substantially more likely to develop autism or other neuro-developmental disorders. And as Mike Adams explains, more children in the US have died from vaccines than measles in recent years.
Secondly, regardless of their absolute intent, the use of the term “hanging offense” explicitly implies that those who do not conform ought to be punished. Even if they don’t actually want to hang free-thinking individuals, the point they are getting across is that people who think differently ought to be punished. Killing or jailing people who believe differently than you — does that sound familiar? It almost echoes the Third Reich, only instead of purging society of people based on religious beliefs, the Herald wishes to rid the country of people who dare to think for themselves, instead of blindly being led by what the media tells them is “true.”
In modern times, the Nazis of the Third Reich would almost certainly be viewed as members of a terrorist organization — and the writers of the Herald and those who support their statement could also be seen as terrorists. The definition of terrorism is “
Clearly, advocating for the hanging (or other forms of punishment) for those who promote information you don’t agree with is a form of terrorism — especially as vaccines have become something of a political issue, with state governments increasingly becoming involved in the issue of vaccination. This in and of itself is worrisome enough; vaccination should be viewed as any other type of medical treatment — a personal choice that should emphatically not be the concern of the government, state or federal. And yet, here we are: State governments are cracking down on vaccine exemptions and removing parental rights and personal medical freedom, and the media is essentially advocating violence against those who “dissent” — and in this world, it seems that having a mind of your own is more than enough to be considered a dissenter.
The witch hunting is far from over. It may not be the type of terrorism we typically see on TV (yet), but it is terrorism in its own right: Scaring people into behaving or believing a certain way, for fear of societal retribution or other types of punishment is terrorism all the same.