AMA has tacitly refused to answer my two simple questions:

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 employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

If they are morally and legally right, then why are they afraid to explicitly answer these basic questions?

My Letter to the City of Melbourne CEO

ATTN: Justin Hanney, CEO

REF: your statement (dated 6 Oct 2021) on the Covid-19 vaccination requirement for City of Melbourne employees and for customer access to certain facilities. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/news-and-media/Pages/Statement-from-City-of-Melbourne-CEO-Justin-Hanney.aspx

I am an expert in medical ethics and I want to share with you my paper, recently published in the BMJ, in which I address the issue of vaccine mandates. In summary, vaccine mandates amount to discrimination on the basis of healthy, species-typical, innate biological characteristics of the human race. This is contrary to the established norms that underwrite our moral intuitions about many other forms of prohibited discrimination. Paper link: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981 Media Release: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

Regarding the vaccine requirement for your employees and customers, I want to ask you two ethically relevant questions:

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 employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

My letter to Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Melbourne University, named the world's “third most influential contemporary thinker" by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute.

Dear Peter,

I have read your article in which you argue in favour of mandatory vaccination on the basis of the seat-belt analogy. I have recently argued that mandatory vaccination is not ethically analogous to mandatory seatbelts because wearing seatbelts when driving does not alter our biological constitution, but vaccines do. Vaccination is an irreversible medical procedure, not just a behavioural preference. Paper link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026. Media Release with some additional details: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

The argument goes deeper than the seat-belt analogy. Vaccine mandates amount to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate biological characteristics of the human race, implying that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state, and can be discriminated against unless they submit to biotechnological augmentation. This is contrary to the established norms that underwrite our moral intuitions about many other forms of prohibited discrimination. It is also at odds with the medical standard of human health: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/

Moreover, since Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause death of healthy people, mandatory vaccination violates the right to life by arbitrarily killing a minority for the benefit of the majority. Specifically, when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a direct result of their mandatory participation. The same argument can be constructed for vaccination being required as a condition of access to venues or services.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik
https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik

Because you will have to say NO, sooner or later. With every act of submission it will become harder to do so, so you might just as well say NO now.

Pfizer Covid Vaccine may increase the risk of Cancer

New study shows that Pfizer Covid vaccine resulted in decreased production of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-a). Dysregulation of TNF-a production is known to be a causative factor in cancer. The study also demonstrated increased inflammatory responses to fungi following vaccination. This is just one of the possible mechanisms in which cancer can be caused; I have argued earlier that the vaccines contaminated with human or animal proteins can induce widespread subclinical autoimmunity (this was previously shown to occur in 67% of those injected with Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine) which increases the rate of cell repair and therefore the risk of cancer.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1

Those who bent the knee to the vaccine mandate cannot be trusted. The weak and the cowardly will betray you; it is just a matter of time.

Integrity always wins. Dragons always perish.

For the same reason that food proteins contaminating vaccines cause IgE mediated food allergies, any cream or ointment used on inflamed or broken skin (especially on inflamed AND broken skin) can give rise to allergies and auto-immunity. Skin is a major part of the innate immune system, and any foreign protein that penetrates the skin in the presence of inflammation is identified as an insect bite, a parasitic attack. The innate response is to cause allergies to these attacks, therefore itching, which in turn motivates us to scratch the parasite away as soon as it tries to attack us again, and thus prevent infestation. Allergies were also plausibly evolved to kill off any parasite infested host via anaphylaxis and thus remove them from the gene pool. For this reason I avoid using any foreign proteins, creams, oils on the skin, and opt for own saliva; we have self-tolerance (self-proteins are ignored/tolerated by the immune system, unless we are already suffering from auto-immunity). 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

My submission to the Public consultation on Australia’s Digital Identity legislation

Fair Work Tribunal Decision on the case of employee dismissed for failing to agree to use biometric identification for work.

“Any “consent” that [an employee] might have given once told that he faced discipline or dismissal would likely have been vitiated by the threat. It would not have been genuine consent. Given this finding, it is not necessary to consider whether the direction was reasonable. Nonetheless had it been necessary to do so we conclude the direction was unreasonable. A necessary counterpart to a right to consent to a thing is a right to refuse it. A direction to a person to give consent does not vest in that person a meaningful right at all. Such a direction is in the circumstances of this case, unreasonable.“

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwcfb2946.htm

My second letter to Tanya Davis MP:

Dear Tanya,

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at SafeWork NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with two, very basic, ethically and legally relevant questions about a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated 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 employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

I find it extremely concerning that all the agencies responsible for workplace safety and health of Australian people are tacitly refusing to answer such fundamental and legally critical questions about workplace safety. Would you be willing to apply some pressure to get these questions explicitly addressed to by the Commonwealth government?

Can you assist?

Today I received another generic (NON)response from Safe Work Australia to my two above questions. I sent the following reply:

Thank you for the response.

You did not answer my two basic questions regarding the impact of a known vaccination side effect (death) on workplace safety. Are you not allowed to do so? Could you please clarify why these questions are not being answered?

Privacy, anonymity and secrecy protect us from the wrongdoings of others, but these also limits the scope of social participation, so it is up to us to determine the right balance of these variables.

An article that may be useful for people wishing to write a submission relevant to the proposed Digital ID legislation: https://privacy.org.au/policies/biometrics/

Aspirin shown to reduce Covid related hospital admissions and deaths by half, according to study: https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2021/04000/Aspirin_Use_Is_Associated_With_Decreased.2.aspx

COVID19 Deaths and Survival. Innate Health vs Pharmaceutical Intervention

Having lost all material support does not mean you have nothing to fight for. Rather, you have nothing to lose and everything to win. You are now fearless.