You know times are changing – and narratives shifting – when the BBC runs a report on a man “left to rot” after his Pfizer Covid booster “destroyed his life” and left him in permanent pain. Here’s an excerpt from the unusual report.
On December 15th 2021 Larry Lowe’s life changed.
He was 54, rarely ill, fit, healthy and running 10km most days – until he got the Pfizer Covid booster.
Within days he developed numbness in the right side of his face and started experiencing pain.
“I had lost all the feeling in my face, teeth, nose, tongue, eye, that whole side of my head,” he said.
These symptoms have spread through his body and intensified over the years, with doctors across the U.K. saying the vaccine is to blame. …
In April 2024, Mr. Lowe was diagnosed by a consultant neurologist at the Southern Health Trust with a “painful trigeminal neuropathy” which had “the Covid vaccine as its main causative factor”.
He also developed a small fibre sensory neuropathy which the consultant said “is also one of the post-vaccine related neurological presentations”.
“I struggle when I think about what another 10 years is going to do to me, because in the three years roughly that I’ve had this, it’s destroyed me and it’s getting worse,” Mr. Lowe said. …
He said he took the vaccine in good faith and feels he has been “left to rot”.
“I’m in so much pain, my life is barely worth living, except for my family,” he said. …
He said chronic pain was hard to explain because people think of a “toothache or breaking their leg”.
“Once you break your leg, it starts to get better.
“My pain is getting worse every day.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This could turn out to be a huge scandal.
Of course the MSM/Cabal will likely keep a lid on it with the usual tactics:
Don’t report on it.
Report it but, only as cause Celebre of racist white uneducated red necks.
Blast it as dangerous misinformation
Censor it.
Start a new crisis
A few of these federal employees must have eventually let slip to the Republicans that this jawboning was taking place, which appears to have been how this suit began …
Wasn’t this always going to happen?
Social media is still relatively new, in that the temptation for governments in Western societies to try to manipulate what appears online has only just had time to be succumbed to, and now we’re witnessing what is unfolding.
But – in countries like the US and UK – with a change of governing political party was always surely going to lead to the revelation of these sorts of practices. After all, such is our party system, an in-coming government has every incentive to paint the previous administration in as black a light as possible.
Hence when the Republican’s get back in the US (presumably from early 2023 on) many of them will be aching to uncover and make public what the Dems have been up to.
Which points to a different question. Tempting though it must have been for governments to manipulate social media, to the point of breaking the First Ammendment (e.g. forthcoming Berenson v. Biden), surely they should not have been so dumb as to do so so blatantly, and so far beyond what would be publicly acceptable if more widely known?
Again (like the Cain article yesterday), what does this tell us about the quality of people at the heart of our governments? Pretty damned stupid I would say. And by my reckoning about to be found out, in a very big way.
It might be relatively new, but many users will soon realise that it tends to behave in a similar fashion to older printed newspapers – just at a higher speed.
This case could be hugely consequential, not because the eventual outcome is in any real doubt, but because of the sheer rampant lawlessness of it all – which could result in big changes.
While they’re not the defendants here, social media companies must have known damn well that what the government was doing was unlawful – they have tons of smart lawyers, and the First Amendment implications must have been screamingly obvious. They could and should have resisted, but didn’t. I suspect the implict threat was the removal of their Section 230 privileges, which just shows what bad law that is, and how it can be used to undermine the First Amendment.
I’m with Clarence Thomas – these companies need to be treated as “common carriers” (like railways or telephone companies) in order to prevent them discriminating in this way, and to prevent the government being able to influence them like this. That could have a major effect on how these companies behave outside the US, and at the least it would potentially enable citizens of other countries from evading censorship simply by logging in via a VPN with a US IP address. I just hope other Supreme Court Justices get behind Clarence Thomas on this. We’re now beyond the point at which this became necessary.
Clarence Thomas is a legend
Such a shame that Scalia did not manage to hang around another decade or two to keep him company
For a long time they were the only two on the court who had a real interest in applying the Constitution as intended
“enable citizens of other countries from evading censorship simply by logging in via a VPN with a US IP addreas”
Indeed. Much like we do to access RT to try and get a balance of propaganda regarding the conflict in Ukraine.
not because the eventual outcome is in any real doubt
At the risk of spoiling it for me, which way is this going to go?
In the UK Justice system about the only thing that isn’t in any real doubt is that judges will side with the government.
First Amendment case law is clear, that the US Government cannot in any way induce, cajole or otherwise influence a company or individual to restrict lawful speech. That would be considered “prior restraint”, and I’d be very surprised if this doesn’t come out as a 9-0 decision by the court against the government. Even “living Constitution” make-it-up-as-you-going-along Justices like Sotomayor will be unable to articulate any credible reason why this is not an open-and-shut case. It’s all just so blatantly unconstitutional that the judicial branch will have to slap down the executive branch with a big stick. There is simply no version of reality in which the government wins this one.
By God I love the First Amendment.
Many thanks. Let’s hope so.
I guess Berenson v Biden should be pretty straightforward as well then.
Looks like Fauci loves the Fifth Amendment, which presumably he’ll be hiding behind from January.
“that judges will side with the government”
Government against the indigenous population, yes.
Government against foreigners, especially illegal immigrants, no.