Wednesday, August 17, 2022.

I reviewed the first ten minutes of the new documentary Uninformed Consent. It hits you hard, emotionally, right away. Which is what we need to be doing. Save the facts and figures until after you've got their attention.

That said, I take a little issue with the title of the film. Are we really fighting against "uninformed consent?" If people were coerced, can we really say they consented?

And at another, more philosophical level: Becoming informed about anything, is that not the responsibility of the individual? Pfizer and the government are not going to properly inform anybody. What are they going to say? This pseudo-vaccine does nothing to make you healthier and will probably hurt, maim or kill you.

Quite frankly, people are usually all to eager to forfeit the responsibility of becoming informed. They forfeit the responsibility to someone else, whether a guru, a newscaster, a doctor or a politician. And, from a freedom standpoint, isn't that their right? For example, if you want to participate in a mRNA experiment, without weighing risks or benefits, who am I to stop you? Just don't ask me to help pay for it (through taxes).

Case in point, way back in 1997, when I turned 19, I don't remember any of my friends doing a risk/benefit analysis regarding alcohol. In fact, most of them had already participated in many "ethanol experiments" long before reaching the legal drinking age.

When someone goes into a pub, the bartender doesn't hand them a consent form before pouring him a pint. He doesn't say, "Hey Bob, just want to make sure you know that a John Hopkins University study of 1,909 men and women found a link between low to moderate alcohol consumption and a decrease in the brain size of middle-aged adults leading to impaired cognition and motor functions."

Or when someone drops by the liquor store for a bottle of red wine, the clerk doesn't say, "Hey, Maria, remember that the Italian Association for Cancer Research (of all places) showed that even moderate consumption of vino tinto will increase your risk of cancer by 30%."

Instead, Big Booze will tell you a French fable about how a little alcohol will actually stave off heart attacks and strokes according to the famous J-curve studies. What they fail to mention is that such studies included recovering alcoholics in the "non-drinker" test group. So, yes, people who only drink one glass of wine once a week fair better than a sobered up member of Alcoholics Anonymous who is on a waiting list for a liver transplant.

So what's the difference between an mRNA clot shot and a shot of whisky? No one's forcing you to drink the whisky. It's your choice. (The whisky, also, will probably kill you slower and you may actually be happy about it.)

For the record: I was a weird kid back in high school and actually spent a lot time reading different opinions and research regarding alcohol. I ended following the advice of science fiction author Ray Bradbury: "You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.”

In conclusion, instead of Uninformed Consent, I think the film would have been better with the oxymoronic title: Coerced Consent.

Either way, pass this article, and the link to the film, around to as many people as you can. Most coercion is social, after all, rather than at gunpoint.

---

---

---