Interview With A Murderer

We caught up with notorious murderer and anti-vaxxer Chris Liss who has been advocating for spreading COVID as widely as possible to “own the libs.” What follows is a look inside the mind of a dangerous psychopath who will stop at nothing to harm you and your children.

Q: How long have you been an anti-vaxxer?

A: At the risk of disappointing my following which is mostly Qanon, I consider myself pro-vaccine. It’s the same stance I have toward marijuana, for example — I think it should be legal and available to those of suitable age. And while I would prefer everyone smoke it all the time, I don’t think you should have to be high to get into a restaurant.

Q: It seems you’re dodging the question. Why do you use your meager — actually embarrassingly small — following to convince people not to take vaccines?

A: I have never once advocated for people not to take vaccines, though if a person were incapable of basic logic and reading comprehension, I could see how he might see it that way.

Q: It’s clear you are against the vaccine. How many posts have you written saying the vaccines should not be mandatory?

A: Quite a few. But arguing medical treatments should be voluntary is in keeping with the Nuremberg Code and quite different from opposing those treatments.

Q But you do oppose those treatments?

A: Unless the word “oppose” means should be available to anyone of consenting age who wants them, then no.

Q But be honest for a minute. You’re not taking it, and, contrary to reams of documented studies by scientists, you don’t think the benefits outweigh the risks, correct?

A: I never said I didn’t take it, but what does it matter either way? As so many delight in explaining to me on Twitter, I am neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist. My only degrees are in philosophy, law and concussion theory.

Q: But you’re obviously not taking it, can we just get that on the record?

A: You can believe what you like.

Q: I’ll take that as a no. How do you feel about the fact that your advocacy against mandatory vaccines undermines vital public health policy?

A: I don’t agree it’s a fact.

Q: But you are telling people it’s okay not to take the vaccine, correct?

A: No, I’m suggesting adults might want to stop looking to others to tell them what’s okay.

Q: So you think the average person, in this disinformation environment, should distrust the advice of doctors and scientists?

A: You can trust who you like, but I try to understand their limitations, where they’re coming from, the system of which they’re a part. Evaluate their recommendations, many of which might be helpful, through that lens.

I think our obsession with “follow the experts,” and “you’re not a virologist” fundamentally misunderstands the roles of specialists in society. Their job is to provide people with information, data, hypotheses and evidence. It is not to run ordinary people’s lives for them. A good example is a court of law where experts testify, lawyers cross-examine them and the jury, composed of average people, renders the verdict. The expert is just there to clarify technical things for the layman, not to make decisions for him.

Q: I don’t think we’re making much progress here. Is there some reason “muh freedom” literally trumps hundreds of thousands of lives?

A: It’s hard to answer when you don’t agree with the premise of the question, like asking a non-Christian why they’d rather go to hell than accept Jesus.

Q: What don’t you agree with?

A: That civil liberties and human rights are “muh freedom” or that mandates and coercion are beneficial.

Q: The data is pretty clear that lockdowns and mask mandates prevented the spread.

A: I don’t think it’s clear lockdowns and mandates even helped against COVID (compare Portugal to Sweden, for example), and that’s before considering the damage done to livelihoods, mental health and missed cancer screenings. But even if the mandates did help against COVID, there’s the problem of second-order effects. If we force people to lock down or vaccinate against their will, even if it worked to defeat the virus (again the evidence is far from clear) there would be an enormous transfer of power from the individual to the State.

Imagine one year later if there were a violent crime problem, and the State determined (quite reasonably) that the perpetrators were mostly men. Let’s further imagine the State showed lowering testosterone in men reduced their tendency toward violence (I don’t know if this is really true, but stick with me.) The State might make a law requiring all men to inject a medicine that reduced testosterone for the good of society. If you refused, people could say: “Are you really choosing “muh freedom” over ending domestic violence, murder and rape?” It would be the same principle and, having already conceded your rights, you would be powerless to resist. Laws protecting women’s reproductive rights would also be vulnerable under this standard — so long as those in power deemed something in the public interest, the individual would have no defense.

Q: Not really buying that slippery slope argument. We’ve had mandatory childhood vaccines for decades, and we hardly slipped into totalitarianism. Are you against childhood vaccines too? What about polio and smallpox? Are you hoping those come back?

A: You’re the one making an argument against child vaccines by using them as a justification for mandating any medical treatment decreed by whoever is in power. You are sliding us down the very slope which I warned was slippery! I doubt advocates for childhood vaccines as a condition of attending school, which have largely eradicated a wide swath of deadly diseases, would want that baggage.

That said, I think there’s a legitimate civil liberties conversation to be had with respect to all mandated medical treatments, even ones with strong track records. Debate should never be off limits. But the demonstrated success of childhood vaccination in ridding us of horrific diseases should not be unlimited license to mandate new treatments. I’ll leave it to others to draw the contrasts between childhood vaccines and those targeting endemic, airborne respiratory illnesses like COVID and the flu, but in my opinion it is a different debate.

Q: Do you think this new heel turn is good for your reputation? I mean you’re losing followers, and people are laughing at you!

A: I don’t know what other people think. I can imagine if I want, but I try not to think about it. I’m just compelled to speak out about this because the stakes are so high.

But yes, I am aware of the downside and honestly it would be easier to keep my head down and hope this blows over. I just don’t think it will on its own, which is why I’m speaking up — even if it has a cost. When you think of the costs others have paid for speaking their consciences, losing Twitter followers and getting some ridicule isn’t that bad.

Q: Thanks for speaking with us. I hope you come to your senses.