Vaccinated people more susceptible to sneezing fits when re-infected with SARS-CoV-2

“People who had been vaccinated and then tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to report sneezing as a symptom compared with those without a jab." The vaccinated are thus more likely to spread the virus by sneezing.

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vaccine#part_3

Dirty Vaccines:

293 chicken and bovine proteins identified in the influenza vaccine.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889159114005194

Bovine proteins contaminate Tdap and DTaP vaccines. Cause milk allergy.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext

Astra Zeneca Covid Vaccine causes subclinical auto-immunity in 67% of vaccinated individuals.

“We detected non-platelet activating anti-PF4 antibodies in 67% of the vaccinated individuals... Our results offer an important insight into the ongoing investigations regarding the underlying multifactorial pathophysiology of thrombotic events induced by the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine.”

Subclinical IgE mediated auto-immunity is a life-long consequence. It can lead to negative clinical outcomes later in life, including cancer (due to an increased rate of forced regeneration of cells attacked by the immune system).

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/712/htm

Gender Theory as Philosophical Superstition.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00406-7

As I argued before, Gender Theory is false because it gives rise to Contradictions in Law.

Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.

Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).

Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).

Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.

Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s gender identity.

Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.

This problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. If a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but if females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females on account of advantageous physiological characteristics of males in relation to certain sports. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.

Contemporary political power depends primarily on maintaining Face; the guise of the good. Challenge the Face, allow the opportunity for the Face to be Saved by a pre-determined official re-action, and Power can be (to a degree) mitigated, directed, controlled. Power consists in permanent tension, reciprocity, and collusion between the controllers and the controlled, and this dynamic equation can be augmented by the third pillar of humanity.

Who Owns You?

Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?

This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447

Those who agreed to wearing a face mask, despite everyone being able to claim a health-exemption, will now agree to anything. And that was the purpose of the mask mandate, to unmask and quantify the weakness of character in our population. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787

Sign and Share. This is a powerful message, not just a petition. Tell them that you understand the law of this State: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

The following is a description of my digital currency concept, based on the principle of fair money; the only non-parasitic currency ever designed. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/introduction-to-robust-secured-crypto-currency/

Federal Petition drafted by an expert in medical ethics to prohibit vaccine passports or any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status. SIGN and SHARE: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2939

My Second Email to SPC regarding mandatory Covid vaccination of employees.

Good Morning,

Requiring your employees to participate in a vaccine death-lottery is not compatible with human rights and safety of those who would die because of this injection.

Even if more lives would be saved on account of universal Covid vaccination, mandating human sacrifice of the unlucky few for the benefit of the many is a direct violation of the fundamental human right: the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. Any law that would purport to legitimise such an action is void, because it undermines the conditions of its own authority.

Ignorance of this fundamental ethic was never considered a valid excuse, and extreme punitive measures were historically applied in response, irrespective of what the perpetrators believed to be ‘legal’.

As I said before, as a subject-matter expert, you are on the verge of becoming complicit in a crime against humanity.

Please choose wisely,

Michael Kowalik



On 8 Aug 2021, at 10:38 am, SPC Customer Care <customercare@spc.com.au> wrote:

Hi,

Thank you for sharing your concerns.

We remain committed to aligning our practices with the Human Rights Act and Federal and State Discrimination Laws and will review any employee requests for exemptions regarding vaccination on a case-by-case basis.

We are encouraging all our SPC staff to have a discussion with their GP about the best choice for them. If any staff member has a pre-existing condition that may affect their vaccine eligibility, they are encouraged to discuss this with our people and culture team.

At SPC we ensure our people’s health and safety, job security, as well as business continuity for the essential service we provide to the broader community and the country.

We hope you and your family stay safe.

Best wishes,

SPC Customer Care

The relative risk of death for the vaccinated is 12.5% higher than for the unvaccinated, according to Pfizer’s own 6 month safety and efficacy review. 18 deaths among the vaccinated; vs 16 among the unvaccinated. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

Proposed legislation in NSW aims to make anyone imposing the vaccine requirement on their workers to be fully liable for any injury or loss caused by the vaccine. Employers should be cautious, because a law like this passed in the future may apply retrospectively: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3835/First%20Print.pdf