I don't think most people realise there were no cost/benefit analysis or RCTs done. I don't think most people even know these are things! Most people would say "well, they wouldn't do it it if didn't work or wasn't safe". Most people would assume "they" (govts, health care providers, pharma) would have done whatever was needed and would have no idea how long it would take to find out whether any of it was worth doing or safe to do. That's one of the reasons we keep having dangerous medicines doing great harm and then suddenly being withdrawn - the general public are the trials!

I have been asking people if they ever read ingredients lists or the information sheet that comes with medicines. Nobody does - the response has consistently been "why would I do that?". Most people don't even know about "informed consent" - they sign a bit of paper before a medical procedure but generally haven't read it. World of Fools!

Expand full comment
Jun 6·edited Jun 6Liked by Mark Changizi

While we're making legalistic arguments about what has been done to free people in an ostensibly free system of governance, there's the legal concepts of duress and coercion. There's both criminal and civil applications of duress. Funny how government can rule contracts between private parties null and void because they were signed under duress/coercion, but the concept doesn't apply to them, like for jabs and masks and business, church closures, etc. Even can rule against contracts between private parties agreed to due to "undue influence," by ones in a position of trust or superiority over others. Kind of like government authorities and contractors. But not applicable. Or is it?


"Duress is a compulsion, coercion, or pressure to do something. In a legal sense, this refers to forcing someone to do something, or to sign a contract, by threatening his personal safety, his reputation, or other personal issue. When someone agrees to do something only because he is being threatened – or under duress – the law is likely to void the agreement, or determine he is not liable for his forced actions. To explore this concept, consider the following duress definition.

Definition of Duress:

Compulsion or coercion, by threat or force.

The illegal use of coercion.

What is Duress:

Duress amounts to the use of coercion, force, false imprisonment, threats, or psychological pressure to get someone to act in a way he does not wish, or which is not in his best interest. Compelling someone to act in such a manner is against the law, and whatever they agree to under duress is invalid in the eyes of the law.

While a believable threat of physical harm is very likely to be considered duress, threats of other types of harm may also render an agreement invalid. No contract is valid unless all parties have signed it willingly. The problem with this loose definition of duress is that many people change their minds, or decide later that they aren’t happy with the agreement, and try to get out of it. Proving that a contract was entered into under duress can be difficult.

Difference Between Duress and Undue Influence:

A contract must be entered into freely, with both parties understanding the terms of the agreement, and signing because it is what they want to do. This is referred to as signing by “mutual assent.” There are some circumstances under which, even if a party picks up a pen and signs his name to the contract, he may not have done so by his own will. Both duress and undue influence are things that may affect mutual assent, as one of the parties has been pressured or coerced to sign. The following explores the difference between duress and undue influence.


Duress comes in several forms, but it involves a purposeful use of threat or force to convince someone to sign the contract, or to engage in some activity. This type of coercion may be either physical or psychological, which ultimately makes the individual feel he has no option left, but to sign the contract. Although some forms of duress may be challenging to prove in a court of law, the use of physical force, or believable threat of physical harm, if proven, quickly results in nullification of the contract. It may also result in criminal charges against the perpetrator.

Other types of duress, if proven, give the party who was coerced into the contract the option to cancel the contract. This is different from the case of physical force, in which the contract is void, with no choice to be made. Examples of duress include:

Threat to physically harm the other party, his family, or his property

Threat to humiliate, disgrace, or cause a scandal about, the other party, or his family

Threat to have someone else criminally prosecuted, or sued in civil court

Threat to cause significant economic loss to the other party

The key to each type of duress is whether or not the threats made seemed credible, and that the threatened party had an actual fear it would happen.

Undue Influence:

Undue influence is another action that may influence mutual assent. While duress involves threats and coercion to force someone to enter into a contract, undue influence involves the taking advantage of someone through a position of trust. Undue influence can only be exerted by someone in a superior position, or who has a duty to advise the other. When the superior party applies excessive pressure on the other to agree to something he otherwise would not do, it is considered undue influence.

This is not to say that strong recommendation or persuasion amounts to undue influence, which is a defense to a contract. A person in a position of trust or superiority can be expected to offer his opinion, and even to attempt to persuade the other person to a certain action. In order to cross the line to undue influence, the persuasive actions must be excessive, affecting the other person’s sense of free choice.

If undue influence is proven, the influenced party may void the contract if he chooses. The primary difference between duress and undue influence is whether the party doing the convincing is in a position of trust or superiority to the other."

Expand full comment