The Case for Outlawing Vaccine Research

The Fallacy of the 2nd Best

Ever heard of the fallacy of the second best? It’s the idea that compromises can actually be worse than either extreme. A classic example is how America’s hybrid healthcare system manages to combine the worst elements of the free market and socialized medicine to create a system that’s worse than either alternative. Let’s leave that aside for another day, and just focus on vaccine research.

The problem is that bioweapons are illegal, but vaccine research is a loophole that every nation has driven a truck through. Long and short, the only difference between illegal bioweapons research and legal vaccine research is the researcher’s stated intentions because what you do to create a bioweapon is exactly what you do to create a vaccine - the only difference is whether you intend to save lives or take them, but how can anyone see into another person’s intentions?

Well, generally speaking, you’d need a whistleblower who knew enough about the perpetrator’s “vaccine research” to raise an alarm, but how are you going to find a whistleblower? After all, anyone who knew enough about the program to be helpful would be implicated in the wrongdoing, so they’d have to turn on themselves. And, even if they were sufficiently honest and/or suicidal to do so, they’d have to implicate their superiors or, at least, frustrate their superiors’ ambitions. After all, superiors either WANT an illegal bioweapons research program or they WANT to avoid a scandal that can only reduce their funding, prestige, etc.

Long and short, any whistleblower has to destroy their careers and reputations at the very least. And since you’re effectively accusing powerful people of war crimes, you’d be lucky if your career was the only thing you lost. These are powerful people who, by definition, are willing to commit war crimes, so they’re not exactly the sort you want to accuse.

And will you succeed? I mean what’s the chance that anyone will believe you when the entire establishment lines up against you (if only to protect themselves and/or their budgets)?

Quite simply, we cannot effectively regulate vaccine research. We should ban it for the same reason and in the same way we banned weather modification. (Turns out the tech you need to do weather modification is pretty much the tech you’d use for violating various nuclear arms control treaties, so we’ve largely banned weather modification in order to prevent nuclear arms tech that we find threatening.) Was that a wise choice? Well, we didn’t blow up the world, did we?

Perhaps vaccine research, like weather modification, is simply too dangerous to permit. I can’t say that for certain, but I think it’s a conversation we need to have. There are sound reasons to believe COVID is the result of “vaccine research” run amuck; it’s clear that the need to protect our “vaccine research” programs complicated our response. There are serious questions about the link between AIDS and vaccine manufacturing problems. In short, there are serious questions about the merits of vaccine research: on net, has it done more harm than good? And, more importantly, does it threaten to do more harm than good?

Let’s close with a thought experiment. Suppose Dr. X invented a vaccine that was ethnicity specific; that is, it was designed to ensure that each ethnicity received a form of the vaccine that was more effective given that ethnicity’s unique genetics. What’s the difference between that technology and a technology that made bioweapons ethnicity specific? Are the potential benefits of the former worth creating the possibility of a perfectly-effective Holocaust weapon (a weapon that targets everyone in an ethnicity but ONLY those people)? Isn’t it, at the very least, possible that we may have to forego some medical benefits because of such risks?

We have researchers doing very dangerous things and no effective means to monitor or regulate that activity; perhaps we should just ban it all instead.