Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
A Simple Argument Against Workplace Vaccination Requirement
I have attempted to simplify my published argument against vaccine mandates (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981) for general use. My preferred persuasion strategy in dealing with any employer who requires employees to be vaccinated against Covid is as follows:
1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?
2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employer requires an employee to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, the employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their participation?
If the employer would answer YES to point 1 (a provable fact), then YES to point 2 necessarily follows, and this implies an acknowledgment that the employer intends to violate the right to life in the course of employment.
The effect of these questions is independent of whether the vaccination requirement arises from a government mandate. If an murderous policy arises from a government mandate, your employer is still liable for willingly implementing it. The purpose of the above questions is to demonstrate that the policy violates the right to life, and to indirectly warn your employer that they are making themselves liable.
Failing to respond directly and honestly to an explicit question about workplace health and safety would in itself be incriminating; possibly already a violation of OH&S legal obligations.
I have attempted to simplify my published argument against vaccine mandates (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981) for general use. My preferred persuasion strategy in dealing with any employer who requires employees to be vaccinated against Covid is as follows:
1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?
2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employer requires an employee to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, the employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their participation?
If the employer would answer YES to point 1 (a provable fact), then YES to point 2 necessarily follows, and this implies an acknowledgment that the employer intends to violate the right to life in the course of employment.
The effect of these questions is independent of whether the vaccination requirement arises from a government mandate. If an murderous policy arises from a government mandate, your employer is still liable for willingly implementing it. The purpose of the above questions is to demonstrate that the policy violates the right to life, and to indirectly warn your employer that they are making themselves liable.
Failing to respond directly and honestly to an explicit question about workplace health and safety would in itself be incriminating; possibly already a violation of OH&S legal obligations.
Ssrn
Ethics of Vaccine Refusal
Proponents of vaccine mandates typically claim that everyone who can be vaccinated has a moral or ethical obligation to do so for the sake of those who cannot b
A Notice to Church Leaders
If a vaccine can sometimes cause the death of healthy people, then vaccine mandates are in effect a form of legal coercion to participate in an activity where some percentage of people are expected to die as a result of their coerced participation. This implies that the mandating authority violates the right to life of some people, arbitrarily killing a few healthy humans for the alleged benefit of the many. The classic name for such a barbaric arrangement is ‘human sacrifice’. How do you feel about it?
If a vaccine can sometimes cause the death of healthy people, then vaccine mandates are in effect a form of legal coercion to participate in an activity where some percentage of people are expected to die as a result of their coerced participation. This implies that the mandating authority violates the right to life of some people, arbitrarily killing a few healthy humans for the alleged benefit of the many. The classic name for such a barbaric arrangement is ‘human sacrifice’. How do you feel about it?
Information is not true unless it is necessarily true; truth is necessitated by the logical integrity of everything that exists. That which stands apart from the systemic integrity is always a lie, an illusion. Apprehension of the world is a study of its integrity, which in turn determines our own integrity. Only an integrated being can act as one.
Doing otherwise would be misrepresenting an ideology as a professional judgement. There is one ethical solutions to this dilemma: openly denounce the regulator on ethical grounds and declare to every patient that you are not allowed to have an independent professional opinion on this question. It follows that any doctor administering or promoting vaccines under these conditions acts unethically.
My Open Letter to the Governor-General of Australia, General David Hurley.
Dear Governor-General,
I am a philosopher and the author of “Ethics of Vaccine Refusal” published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026
Several categories of Australian workers are subject to Covid-19 vaccination requirements, imposed by the state governments. Moreover, universal discrimination against the unvaccinated is on the verge of being implemented as part of the ‘new normal’.
Please consider the following moral question: Since vaccines can sometimes cause death of healthy people, then vaccine mandates are in effect a form of legal coercion to participate in an activity where a percentage of people are expected to die as a result of their coerced participation. This implies that the mandating authority violates the right to life of some people, arbitrarily killing a few healthy humans for the alleged benefit of the many. The classic name for such a barbaric arrangement is ‘human sacrifice’. How does the Governor-General feel about coerced human sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many?
Vaccine mandates also imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be technologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. Will the Governor-General have the courage and moral integrity to use the Sovereign Prerogative to avert this crime against humanity?
Dear Governor-General,
I am a philosopher and the author of “Ethics of Vaccine Refusal” published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026
Several categories of Australian workers are subject to Covid-19 vaccination requirements, imposed by the state governments. Moreover, universal discrimination against the unvaccinated is on the verge of being implemented as part of the ‘new normal’.
Please consider the following moral question: Since vaccines can sometimes cause death of healthy people, then vaccine mandates are in effect a form of legal coercion to participate in an activity where a percentage of people are expected to die as a result of their coerced participation. This implies that the mandating authority violates the right to life of some people, arbitrarily killing a few healthy humans for the alleged benefit of the many. The classic name for such a barbaric arrangement is ‘human sacrifice’. How does the Governor-General feel about coerced human sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many?
Vaccine mandates also imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be technologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. Will the Governor-General have the courage and moral integrity to use the Sovereign Prerogative to avert this crime against humanity?
Journal of Medical Ethics
Ethics of vaccine refusal
Proponents of vaccine mandates typically claim that everyone who can be vaccinated has a moral or ethical obligation to do so for the sake of those who cannot be vaccinated, or in the interest of public health. I evaluate several previously undertheorised…
The anticoagulant drug warfarin (also used as a popular Rat Poison) is widely used to prevent and treat deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and to prevent stroke in patients who have atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, or a prosthetic heart valve. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrcardio.2017.172
Nature
Warfarin: from rat poison to clinical use
Nature Reviews Cardiology - Warfarin: from rat poison to clinical use
Information is Real only when contextualised as an objective Media Event, not just the Content of the Media (the Container). Nevertheless, the Moral reality persists irrespective of the distinction between Reality and Illusion, because it is a principle of Order (the structure of meaning) that applies to both illusion and reality. For the same reason, your moral integrity in your dreams has the same normative force as your moral integrity in the real, and THIS is the metaphysical reality that ultimately matters, makes you One or breaks you Apart, into contradictory fragments - metaphysical dust.
The vaccine mandates for teachers, construction and healthcare workers are just CHO directives, ie. directives made under Emergency Powers. The parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, and even the parliament can’t infringe on citizen freedoms without passing a law to that effect by a majority vote of the parliament. The mandate, and all other CHO directives, are unlawful and void. I have condensed this argument into a formal petition to the Victorian Parliament: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
Is the vaccine safe for YOU?
1. The specific batch and vile of the vaccine given to you has not been tested (if it were used in a trial then it would not be available to you); a different batch and vile was tested, and no two instances of a manufactured product can ever be identical.
2. Moreover, the safety of the vaccine was never tested in YOU and for YOU; it was tested in other people and for THOSE people. We are not biochemically identical, and individual genetic mutations can make a difference between life and death when exposed to the same antigens.
No medication can be deemed safe for YOU until it is tested in YOU, therefore every medical product is, in essence, experimental - when given for the first time to a person.
1. The specific batch and vile of the vaccine given to you has not been tested (if it were used in a trial then it would not be available to you); a different batch and vile was tested, and no two instances of a manufactured product can ever be identical.
2. Moreover, the safety of the vaccine was never tested in YOU and for YOU; it was tested in other people and for THOSE people. We are not biochemically identical, and individual genetic mutations can make a difference between life and death when exposed to the same antigens.
No medication can be deemed safe for YOU until it is tested in YOU, therefore every medical product is, in essence, experimental - when given for the first time to a person.
Some legal maxims to remember:
Lex non patitur absurdum (The law does not allow an absurdity)
Lex Angliae nunquam sine parliamento mutari potest (The law of England can never be changed without an act of parliament)
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
Lex non patitur absurdum (The law does not allow an absurdity)
Lex Angliae nunquam sine parliamento mutari potest (The law of England can never be changed without an act of parliament)
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
Evidence that Food Proteins in Vaccines Cause the Development of Food Allergies and Its Implications for Vaccine Policy
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-12461.html
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-12461.html
Longdom
Longdom Publishing SL | Open Access Journals
Longdom Publishing SL is one of the leading international open access journals publishers, covering clinical, medical, and technology-oriented subjects.
Vaccine Induced Antibody Dependent Enhancement
When you administer a COVID-19 vaccine, you create IgE (anti-parasitic) mediated allergy to the COVID-19 virus, and IgG (protective) antibodies to the same virus. Initially IgG has the upper hand, but it is relatively short lived, whereas IgE lasts for decades. Sneezing when re-infected with Covid is a symptom of vaccine-induced IgE antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), and this is already being reported, a new symptom. As the vaccine induced IgG immunity wanes, the IgE ADE will get worse. It is there, every vaccine will cause a degree of ADE, this is just how the immune system reacts to insect bites (vaccines are like insect bites, with the adjuvant ensuring that the immune system will react) but for now IgG dominates.
Here are some studies showing this effect in influenza vaccinated individuals:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21448311/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26188254/
And this one demonstrates the effect of booster-vaccines for IgE production:
https://www.jimmunol.org/content/188/1_Supplement/113.9
When you administer a COVID-19 vaccine, you create IgE (anti-parasitic) mediated allergy to the COVID-19 virus, and IgG (protective) antibodies to the same virus. Initially IgG has the upper hand, but it is relatively short lived, whereas IgE lasts for decades. Sneezing when re-infected with Covid is a symptom of vaccine-induced IgE antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), and this is already being reported, a new symptom. As the vaccine induced IgG immunity wanes, the IgE ADE will get worse. It is there, every vaccine will cause a degree of ADE, this is just how the immune system reacts to insect bites (vaccines are like insect bites, with the adjuvant ensuring that the immune system will react) but for now IgG dominates.
Here are some studies showing this effect in influenza vaccinated individuals:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21448311/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26188254/
And this one demonstrates the effect of booster-vaccines for IgE production:
https://www.jimmunol.org/content/188/1_Supplement/113.9
PubMed
Long term persistence of IgE anti-influenza virus antibodies in pediatric and adult serum post vaccination with influenza virus…
The production of IgE specific to different viruses (HIV-1, Parvovirus B19, Parainfluenza virus, Varicella Zoster Virus), and the ability of IgE anti-HIV-1 to suppress HIV-1 production in vitro, strongly suggest an important role for IgE and/or anti viral…
A note on the history of knowledge
Over the last several days I was revisiting some of my old textbooks in mathematics and engineering, just to refresh my memory about some evaluation principles, and I became aware of something that has eluded me when I was first learning those principles. Every modern product conceals a relatively recent, structural transformation of human understanding, a staggering feat of mutually dependent insights, discoveries, mathematical theorems, leading to more analytically complex evaluations and higher order theorems. For example, every machine-made product would involve the application of Calculus, which in itself is a phenomally expansive domain of theorems and proofs, but Calculus itself would not be possible without the principles of inequalities and the generalised Binomial theorem. All structural engineering (for example, your humble jetliner) involves not just calculus but an equally expansive domain of structural theorems (buckling, crippling, fatigue, flutter, elasticity, plasticity, theory of wing sections), complex algebra, aerodynamics theorems, systems theorems, gas dynamics, electronics, metallurgy. Each of the theorems in these fields was discovered and formulated by someone, in some cases involving a lifetime effort to discover just one fact, one useful theorem, on which another human could build and discover something else. For every originator that we know of, there would be countless others who dedicated their whole life to study but failed to discover anything of substance, and history will not remember them.
The origin of this metaphysical transformation can be traced to Ancient Greece, to Euclid, Pythagoras, and above all, to Aristotle, who has formalised the ultimate rule, the One Law of this world on which every other law, indeed reality itself, depends. Aristotle articulated this One Law in three intuitive forms: non-contradiction (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/how-be-rational-about-being-right/), identity (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/the-law-of-identity/), excluded middle (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/the-law-of-excluded-middle/). Nevertheless, it took nearly 2 millenia for these original insights to bear fruit. Some 400-500 years ago, the European continent was uniquely possessed by insatiable curiosity, a metaphysical drive towards understanding that could rely on the early Greek theorems and proofs for further exploration of being. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were the next wave of pioneers, followed by Newton and Leibniz, and then by innumerable others, in an explosion of creativity that we are now consuming with animal ignorance, and sometimes with resentment, of the centuries of work and ingenuity inside it. Until you study what you use and consume, you do not even know yourself.
Over the last several days I was revisiting some of my old textbooks in mathematics and engineering, just to refresh my memory about some evaluation principles, and I became aware of something that has eluded me when I was first learning those principles. Every modern product conceals a relatively recent, structural transformation of human understanding, a staggering feat of mutually dependent insights, discoveries, mathematical theorems, leading to more analytically complex evaluations and higher order theorems. For example, every machine-made product would involve the application of Calculus, which in itself is a phenomally expansive domain of theorems and proofs, but Calculus itself would not be possible without the principles of inequalities and the generalised Binomial theorem. All structural engineering (for example, your humble jetliner) involves not just calculus but an equally expansive domain of structural theorems (buckling, crippling, fatigue, flutter, elasticity, plasticity, theory of wing sections), complex algebra, aerodynamics theorems, systems theorems, gas dynamics, electronics, metallurgy. Each of the theorems in these fields was discovered and formulated by someone, in some cases involving a lifetime effort to discover just one fact, one useful theorem, on which another human could build and discover something else. For every originator that we know of, there would be countless others who dedicated their whole life to study but failed to discover anything of substance, and history will not remember them.
The origin of this metaphysical transformation can be traced to Ancient Greece, to Euclid, Pythagoras, and above all, to Aristotle, who has formalised the ultimate rule, the One Law of this world on which every other law, indeed reality itself, depends. Aristotle articulated this One Law in three intuitive forms: non-contradiction (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/how-be-rational-about-being-right/), identity (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/the-law-of-identity/), excluded middle (https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/the-law-of-excluded-middle/). Nevertheless, it took nearly 2 millenia for these original insights to bear fruit. Some 400-500 years ago, the European continent was uniquely possessed by insatiable curiosity, a metaphysical drive towards understanding that could rely on the early Greek theorems and proofs for further exploration of being. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were the next wave of pioneers, followed by Newton and Leibniz, and then by innumerable others, in an explosion of creativity that we are now consuming with animal ignorance, and sometimes with resentment, of the centuries of work and ingenuity inside it. Until you study what you use and consume, you do not even know yourself.
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
How to be Rational about being Right
Lord (2017) has rigorously demonstrated that what we are rationally required to do is just what we Ought to do. This conclusion nonetheless begs the question as to what exactly counts as Rationalit…
Forwarded from Sanjeev Sabhlok PUBLIC CHANNEL (Sanjeev Sabhlok)
The WHO is a TRULY CRIMINAL organisation. They have removed from their website the following link to their own bulletin: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/
It is now found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20201118164707/https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/
Why did they remove this 2011 bulletin? Because it talks EXPLICITLY about "pandemics of fear".
"The repeated pandemic health scares caused by an avian H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus are part of the culture of fear. Worst-case thinking replaced balanced risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately. Rather than wait for information, we need a pre-emptive strike. But if resources buy lives, wasting resources wastes lives".
"In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon."
It is now found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20201118164707/https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/
Why did they remove this 2011 bulletin? Because it talks EXPLICITLY about "pandemics of fear".
"The repeated pandemic health scares caused by an avian H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus are part of the culture of fear. Worst-case thinking replaced balanced risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately. Rather than wait for information, we need a pre-emptive strike. But if resources buy lives, wasting resources wastes lives".
"In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon."