Attorney Robert Barnes on the Covid-19 “Vaccines”

February 16, 2023 in News by RBN Staff


Source: Lew Rockwell | By 

  • One argument above all predicated my refusal to take the vaccine or encourage anyone else to take it: distorted incentives. While Scott Adams struggled to understand it (to the extent he’s still convinced the skeptics were simply “lucky”), the math was plain to see for all, as I said at the time – I cannot trust a drug whose maker and administer can only profit from its use, but cannot suffer consequence if the drug is dangerous or ineffective, or both. Guaranteed profits by government purchasers with guaranteed immunity from any accountability for any lie or simple negligence involving the drug. How can anyone trust such a drug made under those circumstances?
  • The drug companies’ incentives to lie about the vaccine, including about whether it even was a vaccine, overwhelmed any “ethical” incentive to tell the truth. Medical doctors shared the same distorted incentives: promoting the vaccine bore no risk for the doctor but failing to promote it guaranteed risk. The government, desperate to prove its importance and conflicted by its own professional class biases as well as future financial self-interest, shared many of those same distorted incentives, given the broad immunity from legal liability they shared.
  • The emergency use authorization of the drug gave everyone connected to it complete immunity from civil liability. Even overt and willful fraud did not allow the drug maker to be sued unless the government agreed, and the government’s complicity in the promotion of the drug negated that probability. As long as the drug could be labeled a “covered countermeasure” in a “emergency” pandemic, then the PREP Act guaranteed legal immunity for its drug maker, promoter, and administrator. There’s a reason Pfizer refused the drug’s availability in any nation that didn’t guarantee the same immunity.
  • Next, consider the doctors. If a doctor told a patient not to get the drug, and the patient suffered any adverse outcome purportedly due to not getting the drug, the doctor could be sued into oblivion, charged with unethical practice and defrocked as a licensed doctor, and even criminally prosecuted in some cases, all of which we have now witnessed come to pass. If a doctor told a patient to get the drug, and the patient suffered any adverse outcome purportedly due to getting the drug, the doctor enjoyed complete immunity from suit under the PREP Act, couldn’t even be sued in state court, and no ethical board or prosecutor would challenge his actions made immune under the PREP Act. In short, a doctor had no incentive to refuse the drug and every incentive to promote it. The professional class prejudice shared by the government overlords in the licensing boards, prosecutorial offices, and judicial chambers only enhanced these distorted incentives.
  • Finally, consider the government. Blanket immunity from legal liability, enabled by judicial favoritism and enhanced by doctrines of standing, mootness, laches, ripeness, and abstention, assured little risk if the government promoted the drug. Indeed, the one party the court say can sue for legal remedy or relief is a drug company denied authorization to issue or promote a drug. Furthermore, the incentives of the government bureaucrat align with the powerful drug companies with the institutional knowledge, available expertise, and friendly professional class patrons of Big Pharma. Last, but not least, the bureaucrats themselves, as well as their politician overseers, see Big Pharma as their financial future post-government employment and a key source of revenues to dominate airwaves in elections, alike.
  • This doesn’t even reference awareness of the lack of any vaccine to ever inoculate against Covid, the complete failure of all prior mRna drugs, the lack of risk from Covid apparent in the data to most younger, healthier population, the uncertainties reported from the drug’s own published clinical studies, or the nefarious agenda of the drug promoters like Bill Gates. All of that just required simple research, better sourcing of information, and historical awareness. But none of it was necessary to know beyond the distorted incentives present.
  • The distorted incentives aligned with professional class prejudice and historical context (the long, long history of Big Pharma criminality, collusion with Deep State actors in experimentation on the public, and awareness of the prejudices of the modern professional class) made the choice not to get the drug disguised as a vaccine a simple one. No luck necessary; just common sense. No skin in the game, no reason to trust. Indeed, so simple, even a Dilbert could figure it out.