Not taking the COVID vaccine could mean 'mental illness'

Abuse of the psychiatric profession to combat dissent against the authorities is nothing new, so it should be no surprise that it would be used in the establishment’s campaign to vaccinate the world. 

Originating as a tool used by the Soviets to crush its dissenters, the Soviet regime declared opponents to have a mental illness. The thinking was that since there was no other logical explanation why someone would oppose the best sociopolitical system in the world - a dissenter must be mentally ill.

Just like today, during Soviet times, most were willing to comply, some needed persuasion, most needed endless propaganda, and a small few did not budge and refused for as long as they could. It was those people who were declared to be mentally ill - sluggish schizophrenia was the official term used to label political dissidence with a mental illness so they would lose credibility, employment, and even be confined to mental institutions.

Fast forward a few decades to the present time and we have a new “safe and effective” idea for humanity being pushed by the authorities. Sales tactics include fear, censorship of dissent, propaganda, and the belief that only the official authorities know what’s best. Anyone who would disagree is probably mentally ill… That’s the gist of an article entitled ‘How Should Psychiatry Respond to COVID-19 Anti-Vax Attitudes?’ published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.  

“The psychological and mental health underpinnings of vaccine refusal deserve our examination.” The article continued with a characterization of the patient, “they wrongly overestimate their ability to appraise their own medical safety. Known in social psychology as the Dunning-Kruger effect, this phenomenon describes a misperception of higher-than-actual competence by people who are unaware of their own shortfall in knowledge and expertise. As an example, an unpublished MIT study analyzing social media posts found that anti-vax proponents often professed high scientific literacy but drew alternative data interpretations from those of mainstream health authorities about risks for COVID-19 infection.” So not being convinced by the mainstream narrative that COVID is not so dangerous that you would cede your judgment to the same authorities, is considered a mental illness.

The author acknowledges that there may be some reason to refuse the COVID vaccine that may not indicate a mental illness, but goes on to describe the next stage that occurs when the patient has “Vague uncertainties about their safety can intensify and transform into a more florid paranoid stance.” This is referring to the “safe and effective” vaccine and not the deadly virus. 

Once aggression starts, “We then face a more nuanced clinical problem: when anti-vaxxers inflict wanton harm to others by causing viral spread but cloak their actions in language about personal freedom.” and then continues with statements like “‘Do not tell me what I can or cannot do’ [which] is a politically conservative value against societal ‘mandates’ per se, reflecting ideas about government decentralization.”

“The decision to forgo vaccination, like any other medical procedure, presumes intact capacity to understand the nature of the intervention and its consequences.” Here is where the article crosses over from helpful assistance to the mentally ill, to suggesting the removal of the person’s legal right to consent to medical procedures. Meaning, that the decision to refuse the authority’s “safe and effective” shot, means you do not have the mental or legal capacity to make such decisions.    

After starting down that slope, the article continues “when people (regardless of their capacity) willfully refuse medical recommendations that endanger public safety—increasing exposure to children and others; facilitating further viral mutation into newer strains that can worsen the course of the pandemic—society must determine when its response justifies restricting human rights.” 

The article concludes with a call to other psychiatrists to “loudly voice our professional opinions in the national dialogue about restricted freedoms for those who willfully pose public health hazards.”

As with the Soviet psychiatrists of the past, present-day psychiatry seems willing to support the notion that opposing the regime can be a mental illness and could lead to your rights being stripped away.