Opinion
Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.
This article submitted by Levi Kump
It is news to exactly no one, that Sunday night, Will Smith responded to a contentious, and arguably tasteless joke, by walking on stage at the Acadamy Awards and slapping the the offending party, one Chris Rock, across the face. Much has been made already about whether or not the incident was staged, though the ensuing furor has rendered that debate largely moot. Many people have chimed in on the issue, some saying the Smith was unequivocally wrong, and some, including no less than The National Post’s Barbara Kay, coming down on the the side of a face slap being fair play.
Let it be known, I believe Smith and Kay, are both wrong. First and foremost, because one of the tenets of civilization in general, is the old adage that, “ones right to get angry, stops at the next fellow’s nose”. Nothing new here. Setting aside for a moment that the slap was to the cheek/jaw area, I believe that notion still holds water. Genuine or not, this incident implies that there are some statements for which the only possible rebuttal, is the fist. The challenges with this way of thinking are legion, and until only a few years ago, seemed to have already been worked out in western society. Not the least of said problems is this: if words are violence itself, and answerable as such, then we no longer have any reason to use words. When one equates the verbal with the somatic, it is a very quick descent indeed, to using violence in any given situation. Why struggle for the ‘mot juste’, when one can move stright to a head kick?
Following this line of reasoning, we end up back, hundreds of years, to the time of, “might makes right”; which again, our civilization had once worked out, but now seems to be forgetting. One of the more common lines of reasoning for the “speech as violence” crowd, is that disparities in power give far more weight to some people’s words, than others. In the Smith/Rock debacle, this is hardly worth a mention, as both men are of the same demographic, read: multi-millionaires of the same skin tone. Though there are those who will point out, as did Barbera Kay, that the target of Rock’s joke, was not Will Smith himself, but rather his wife, Jada, who does in fact suffer from an auto immune disease, and whose hair loss is by no means her own fault. A powerful comedian making jokes about a/an (equally powerful?) woman’s physical condition should be off limits, or so goes the argument. The easy reply here is that there are
those, myself among them, who do not believe that anything should be off limits in speech.
Noting here that, not unlike our separation of words and action, society did away with the idea of ‘lese majest’ some time back. There are yet some who do not believe in this, and who think that the relative power of two parties (and exactly how do we quantify this?) matter to a verbal exchange. That the words of the more powerful party are in fact so weighty, that again, the only fair response, is a physical one. This begs the question, that if the words of the powerful are
unfairly weighted, how much more so are thier blows? It is to me, an untenable position. Slapping a man for speech only ends badly for everyone. Until very recently, we all seem to have understood this.
There was once a common convention, that words, for all their power, are clearly not violence. The fact that this is now somehow considered up for debate, does not bode well for society writ large. Any reasonable person will admit that words can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and cruel. To deny this is foolish. Physical violence however, has all those dangers, along with a side order of split lips, contusions, and concussions. Indeed, whatever “damage” one suffers from words, one is still left with the ability to speak in rebuttal. A solid blow of any kind can not only dissuade retort, but neuter it completely. Perhaps this is what the proponents of violent response are after in the first place? If so, its disappointing. As I said, i thought we had worked this out.
Levi Kump is a former competitive international Muay Thai champion.
The single largest vaccine–dementia study ever conducted (n=13.3 million) finds risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after flu and pneumococcal shots.
The single largest and most rigorous study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia — spanning 13.3 million UK adults — has uncovered a deeply troubling pattern: those who received common adult vaccines faced a significantly higher risk of both dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. With each layer of statistical adjustment, the signal doesn’t fade — it becomes sharper, more consistent, and increasingly difficult to explain away.
And critically, these associations persisted even after adjusting for an unusually wide range of potential confounders, including age, sex, socioeconomic status, BMI, smoking, alcohol-related disorders, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke/TIA, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney and liver disease, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, traumatic brain injury, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, and dozens of medications ranging from NSAIDs and opioids to statins, antiplatelets, immunosuppressants, and antidepressants.
Even after controlling for this extensive list, the elevated risks remained strong and remarkably stable.
Vaccinated Adults Had a 38% Higher Risk of Dementia
The primary adjusted model showed that adults receiving common adult vaccines (influenza, pneumococcal, shingles, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) had a:
38% increased risk of developing dementia (OR 1.38)
This alone dismantles the narrative of “vaccines protect the brain,” but the deeper findings are far worse.
Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Is Even Higher — 50% Increased Risk
Buried in the supplemental tables is a more shocking result: when the authors restricted analyses to Alzheimer’s disease specifically, the association grew even stronger.
50% increased risk of Alzheimer’s (Adjusted OR 1.50)
This indicates the effect is not random. The association intensifies for the most devastating subtype of dementia.
Clear Dose–Response Pattern: More Vaccines = Higher Risk
 |
The authors ran multiple dose–response models, and every one of them shows the same pattern:
Dementia (all types)
From eTable 2:
- 1 vaccine dose → Adjusted OR 1.26 (26% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 4–7 doses → Adjusted OR 1.42 (42% higher risk)
- 8–12 doses → Adjusted OR 1.50 (50% higher risk)
- ≥13 doses → Adjusted OR 1.55 (55% higher risk)
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) Shows the Same—and Even Stronger—Trend
From eTable 7:
- 1 dose → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.41 (41% higher risk)
- ≥4 doses → Adjusted OR 1.61 (61% higher risk)
This is one of the most powerful and unmistakable signals in epidemiology.
Time–Response Curve: Risk Peaks Soon After Vaccination and Remains Elevated for Years
 |
Another signal strongly inconsistent with mere bias: a time-response relationship.
The highest dementia risk occurs 2–4.9 years after vaccination (Adjusted OR 1.56). The risk then slowly attenuates but never returns to baseline, remaining elevated across all time windows.
After 12.5 years, the risk is still meaningfully elevated (Adjusted OR 1.28) — a persistence incompatible with short-term “detection bias” and suggestive of a long-lasting biological impact.
This pattern is what you expect from a biological trigger with long-latency neuroinflammatory or neurodegenerative consequences.
Even After a 10-Year Lag, the Increased Risk Does Not Disappear
When the authors apply a long 10-year lag — meant to eliminate early detection bias — the elevated risk persists:
- Dementia: OR 1.20
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.26
If this were simply “people who see doctors more often get diagnosed earlier,” the association should disappear under long lag correction.
Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccines Drive the Signal
Two vaccines show particularly strong associations:
Influenza vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.39 → 39% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.49 → 49% higher risk
Pneumococcal vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.12 → 12% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.15 → 15% higher risk
And again, both exhibit dose–response escalation — the hallmark pattern of a genuine exposure–outcome relationship.
Taken together, the findings across primary, supplemental, dose–response, time–response, stratified, and sensitivity analyses paint the same picture:
• A consistent association between cumulative vaccination and increased dementia risk
• A stronger association for Alzheimer’s than for general dementia
• A dose–response effect — more vaccines, higher risk
• A time–response effect — risk peaks after exposure and persists long-term
• Influenza and pneumococcal vaccines strongly drive the signal
• The association remains after 10-year lag correction and active comparator controls
This is what a robust epidemiologic signal looks like.
In the largest single study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia, common adult vaccinations were associated with a 38% higher risk of dementia and a 50% higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The risk increases with more doses, persists for a decade, and is strongest for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them.”
— President John F. Kennedy, visiting the Arizona Memorial on June 9, 1963
I was on an Aston Hotels media junket to Hawaii, and I had a morning off.
My wife took our daughter Rica, to spend a day at Waikiki beach, while I headed to Pearl Harbor on a bus.
It was my only chance to see the Arizona Memorial, and I was determined to do so.
A small ferry boat takes you there, and I have to say, it is a silent trip.
Everyone on board, seemed to feel the same weight of the moment.
The memorial is simple, but very impactful, to the say the least.
A list of the names, of the 1,177 sailors who died on Dec. 7, 1941, is posted along a wall.
That’s a lot of sailors, to go down with the ship, folks.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor began at 7:55 that morning. The entire attack took only one hour and 15 minutes.
But the devastation, was immense.
Of the eight U.S. battleships present, all were damaged and four were sunk. All but Arizona were later raised, and six were returned to service during the war.
The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and a minelayer. More than 180 U.S. aircraft were destroyed.
Only six sailors were rescued from the burning USS Arizona, by a sailor from the nearby repair ship USS Vestal.
There is no evidence of men being trapped alive within the submerged hull of the Arizona after the ship settled on the harbor bottom, unlike on other ships like the USS Oklahoma and USS West Virginia, where trapped sailors were heard tapping on the hull for days.
SCUBA technology did not exist at that time, but at least one rescue was successful.
Civilian yard worker Julio DeCastro led a team that used pneumatic hammers to cut through the hull of the capsized USS Oklahoma and rescued 32 men who had been trapped for hours.
No U.S. aircraft carriers were present at Pearl Harbor during the attack, as USS Enterprise, USS Lexington, and USS Saratoga were all at sea on missions, while the six Japanese carriers that attacked; Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, Zuikaku — all returned to Japan safely after the raid, though most were sunk later in the war.
 |
I only remember one moment of that day. A young Japanese woman dropped a garland of flowers, into the water above the wreck.
Like magic, it floated directly over the length of the ship, which is still leaking oil.
A moment of time, I can never forget.
Most people don’t know, that the Airzona Memorial almost didn’t happen.
If not for Elvis Presley.
In the early 1960s, fundraising for the memorial had stalled.
Less than half of the roughly $500,000 needed had been raised, and the project was slipping from view.
After his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, read about the struggle, Elvis organized a benefit concert in Hawaii.
Newly discharged from the U.S. Army and on his way to film Blue Hawaii — the King stepped in to help without hesitation.
With one carefully staged benefit at Pearl Harbor’s Bloch Arena on March 25, 1961, he reignited public interest, raising over US $60,000 (equivalent to millions today) for the stalled fundraising effort, which helped push President John F. Kennedy and Congress to finish the job.
The memorial opened the following year.
Bloch Arena on the Navy base became the venue, and Parker handled the details with a fundraiser’s ruthlessness: tickets would range from $3 to $100, and no complimentary tickets would be issued — not even to admirals or VIPs.
Reports from the time underscore Parker’s insistence that everyone pay, a point that generated headlines and maximized proceeds.
A crowd of about 4,000 packed the hall to see Elvis in his gold lamé jacket deliver a rare live set — one of only a handful of concerts he performed between his Army service and the 1968 “Comeback Special.”
He later admitted forgetting lyrics due to being out of practice but was grateful for the crowd’s noise, which covered his mistakes.
He would visit the memorial in 1965 and place a wreath there, showing his deep respect.
The Arizona, launched in June 1915, measured 608 ft, with a beam of 97 ft. She was fully modernized in 1929, after which she was crewed by 92 officers and 1,639 enlisted men.
A Pennsylvania class battleship, she was the flagship of Battleship Division One at the time.
The final living survivor of the Arizona, Lou Conter, died last year, on April 1, 2024.
At Pearl Harbor, the Arizona was hit by four bombs just after 8 a.m., the final one of these is believed to have gone through the armoured deck and blown up the ship’s forward magazines with devastating effects.
Both the captain of the Arizona, Franklin Van Valkenburgh, and rear admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd, the head of the Battleship Division One were killed on the bridge of the Arizona.
More than two million people visit the memorial each year. It is only accessible by boat and straddles the sunken hull of the Arizona, without touching it.
THE MAKICHUK REPORT is free today.
But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell THE MAKICHUK REPORT that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.
You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business2 days ago
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
MAiD20 hours ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD2 days agoHealth Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
Automotive1 day agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Energy2 days agoUnceded is uncertain
-
Business18 hours agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business2 days agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children