You ‘d think with all the caution around vaccines, politicians would be leading the charge with their own shots. But it seems they’re not so keen on the products they push. Can we trust their stance on vaccines when they’re not rolling up their own sleeves?
In the realm of COVID-19 vaccine repercussions, it’s easy to target pharmaceutical companies for the fallout, but the spotlight shouldn’t stray from the pivotal role governmental agencies and their overseers play. Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Texan ENT specialist and founder of the Coalition of Health Freedom, has taken a proactive stance. She’s urging candidates to transparently state their positions on these vaccines and commit to refusing campaign contributions from profit-driven pharmaceutical giants– and surprisingly, many have responded.
Dr. Bowden’s mission resonates, with 26 candidates and officials from 11 states agreeing that these vaccines should be removed from circulation. David Lowe, a Republican candidate for TExas State Representative, highlighted the discrepancies in vaccine data, labeling it a monumental misstep in medical history. Lowe stressed the need for change, emphasizing the responsibility of elected representatives in rectifying this dark chapter.
Even amidst pressing concerns like the border crisis and escalating crime rates, Lowe notes that COVID-19 issues remain a worry for Republican voters. The undue influence of pharmaceutical corporations on the political landscape is a growing concern.
John Perez, another Republican candidate vying for the Texas House District 133 seat, echoed the sentiment of individual choice and freedom, denouncing the profit-driven motives of pharmaceutical giants facilitated by excessive government intervention.
The groundswell of support isn’t limited to Texas alone. Candidates in Florida, Kentucky, and New Hampshire have alligned with Dr. Bowden’s cause. And while acknowledging the bias, an overwhelming 94 percent of respondents in Dr. Bowden’s survey expressed a willingness to back candidates who refuse pharmaceutical funding. This insight, while skewed, remains valuable for candidates in competitive races.
Dr. Bowden raises a critical question: if these vaccines aren’t deemed safe for politicians and their families, how can they assert safty for their constituents? It’s a point that underscores a glaring hypocrisy in the approach of these leaders.
About the Author
______________________________________________
Help Keep Independent Journalism Alive & Support a Senior
Even a small contribution to my GoFundMe helps me continue this work and get a used car to stay mobile.
Many candidates have responded, expressing concerns about the vaccines’ safety and the influence of pharmaceutical corporations in politics. The article highlights the growing support for this cause in various states and the significance of individual choice and freedom in the vaccination debate.