Bad “Unvaccinated” Driver!

If they can’t get you “vaccinated” via a mandate, maybe they’ll be able to get you using the mafia. The insurance mafia.

How?

By citing a “study” – you know, The Science – published by the American Journal of Medicine, that associates not taking whatever drugs the government/corporations order you to take with  . . . a higher likelihood that you’ll wreck your car.

Fortune cites the study, which claims that the un-drugged (the proper term to use, as these drugs are not vaccines since vaccines prevent infection and stop transmissions – and these drugs do neither) are “72 percent more likely to be involved in a severe traffic crash in which at least one person was transported to the hospital” than those who have been drugged.

The premise of this claim is not, however, evidence that being un-drugged has a negative effect on driving competence. It is an oily assertion of correlation with not-following-the-rules (as regards traffic rules) and not following orders, as regards the taking of drugs.

“The authors (of the study) theorize that people who resist public health recommendations might also ‘neglect basic road safety guidelines.’ “

Italics aded.

They theorize.

Meaning, they assert a causal link between “resist(ing) public health recommendations” and “neglec(ting) basic road safety guidelines.” It is as “scientific” a theory as the one that insisted others must wear a “mask” to “protect” those who are already wearing one.

Or two.

It presumes that both “public health recommendations” – which are no such thing, since the “recommendations” carried the de facto force of law – and “road safety guidelines” are correct, ipso facto.

In fact, the “public health recommendations” (sic) were entirely wrong – and it was therefore sensible to “resist” them.

“Masks” – and maintaining a space bubble around you six feet feet in radius – did nothing to “stop the spread” of anything. In fact, they spread alienation and fear. They helped to instill millions of cases of pathological hypochondria. The drugs all-but-forced on the population were not vaccines, though people were deliberately misled to believe they were. Those who just took them, just trusting them, are discovering their trust was abused. Those who didn’t just trust – who “resisted” the “recommendations” – have been proved right to have resisted them.

They are not at elevated risk of heart problems – and other problems related to the taking of these drugs.

But what of the supposed/asserted correlation of  “neglecting basic road safety guidelines” and “72 percent more likely to be involved in a severe traffic crash in which at least one person was transported to the hospital”?

It is a piece of misinformation that predates the weaponization of hypochondria. For decades, accident and fatality stats have been skewed via listing practically every motor vehicle accident as having been caused by “speeding.”

But “speeding” is by definition exceeding by even 1 MPH whatever the posted speed limit happened to be when the accident happened. And – as everyone knows – practically everyone “speeds” practically every time they drive. This includes those who enforce speed limits, who usually don’t enforce them so long as the driver isn’t “speeding” more than 5 or so MPH over the speed limit. But if there’s a wreck and the driver was doing 41 and the speed limit was 35, it will be recorded that “speeding” was the cause of the accident.

In fact, it was loss of control – a very different thing – that caused it.

Driving faster than whatever the speed limit is does not mean you are more likely to lose control of your vehicle. That is an ancient lie of the same species as the newer lie that not wearing a “mask” will increase your chances of getting sick. Loss of control can happen at any speed and is more likely to happen at any speed, if the person driving is a poor driver.

This “road safety guidelines business” is oilily nebulous. Like “climate change.” It has no specific meaning, beyond mindless obedience of “guidelines” – whatever they happen to be. It only matters that they are. Just like the “recommendations” of “public health” authorities. Those trustworthy people, like Drs. Fauci and Walensky.

But the study isn’t done false tautologizing.

Those who have “resisted” the government-corporate pushing of drugs on them are dangerous drivers because they “distrust the government,” have “misconceptions of daily risks,” antipathy toward regulation” and – here it comes! – “faith in natural protection.”

Yes, you read that right. If you have “faith” in “natural protection” then you are “72 percent more likely” to crash your car. In fact, natural immunity is protection – but these scientists make having “faith” in it a kind of religious idiocy, which they sneer at. This is astoundingly ironic given the faith these scientists have in “masks” – and the efficacy of drugs that aren’t vaccines.

But where does the mafia enter into this?

It is plain to see. The mafia already uses “speeding” as the basis for “adjusting” what it extracts from your wallet for the “coverage” the government forces you to buy. Just as the government tries to force you to wear a “mask” and take the drugs that aren’t vaccines, on behalf of the health insurance mafia.

The car insurance mafia “adjusts” your “premium” – as this extortion is styled – even if you have never had an accident. Even if you have an accident-free record of decades of actually safe driving, as established by the fact that you have not had any accidents.

It is enough that you “neglect(ed) basic road safety guidelines.”

Now – armed with the “evidence” put forward by this “study” – how unlikely do you suppose it is that the mafia will “adjust” what it extorts based upon the victim’s having “resist(ed) public health recommendations”?

As evidenced by the victim’s not having taken the drugs the government-corporate nexus continues to insists are “vaccines”?

Bear in mind how easy it would be to enforce this. The mafia already has the government as its enforcer. You are required to buy “coverage” – assuming you want to be able to legally drive your car. It is not unlike being obliged to wear a “mask” – or take drugs – as the condition of being allowed to work.

All it would take is for the mafia to “mandate” proof – your QR code, please – that you took the drugs as the condition of being “covered” at a lower “adjustment.” Fail to provide proof and your “premium” is adjusted upward. Possibly, your “coverage” is cancelled – rendering you unable to legally drive.

It’s for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety, you see.

Source