I have persuaded BMJ Publishing to make my article “Ethics of Vaccine Refusal” available temporarily for FREE under their coronavirus research scheme.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026
I am still collecting funds to buy back the copyright. You can donate here: https://ko-fi.com/L4L76DED
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026
I am still collecting funds to buy back the copyright. You can donate here: https://ko-fi.com/L4L76DED
Holocaust survivors are comparing Covid Vaccination to the Holocaust and ask the International Criminal Court to intervene before this ongoing crime against humanity is complete. https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/We-For-Humanity-letter-to-ICC-20.9.2021.pdf
I have designed a good chunk of A380 (I have a Masters Degree in Aerospace Engineering and have worked for 2 years at Airbus on this project). I would not be able to do so under the current restrictions, only because I refuse to submit to medical coercion to irreversibly augment my healthy immune system. The same prohibition applies to pilots and cabin crews who choose to preserve their innate, biological characteristics and not to give up their right to uncoerced medical consent, but does not apply to members of parliament who tacitly support this crime.
The latest U.K. Covid-19 Surveillance Report shows that Vaccinated adults are twice as likely to be infected with Covid, and therefore more likely to spread it and more likely to serve as petri-dishes for new Covid mutations than the Unvaccinated. Protect the vulnerable; do not take the vaccine! https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf
This is a good one to use if some bigoted shop, school, library or cafe would refuse you entry on the basis of negative vaccination status.
In case some bigot would question the “validity” of the biological characteristics you were born with.
Anthropogenic Global Warming. From the Deception about Consensus to Total Refutation.
The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming derives from the work of John Cook 2013, linked below. Cook calculated this number by excluding 66% of climate scientists who did not state their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). For the remaining 34%, he considered 3 criteria: a) explicit endorsement that humans are the primary cause of climate change in recent times, b) unqualified endorsement of AGW, meaning that humans contribute something/anything to warming but are not necessarily the primary cause of climate change c) implicit endorsement of some human contribution to climate change. He then lumps all these criteria together and claims that 97% of the 34% agree on AGW theory. He fails to clarify in the conclusions that AGW in that context means even very slight contribution to warming; not that 97% agree that humans are the Primary driver of the recent warming. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
The real problem with Cooks work is revealed only in his second study, in which Cook performs a sleight of hand and substitutes his earlier, weak definition of AGW consensus, that humans contribute anything to global warming but are not necessarily the dominant cause, with the strongest IPCC definition: “Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century'”. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
From this point onwards IPCC has adopted Cooks “evidence” in support of their different definition, and so the fallacy of 97% consensus on IPCC position was born. All this is apart from the fact that consensus about beliefs is not evidence of facts about the objective reality.
Since Humlum 2013 we know beyond any doubt that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary driver of global temperature. Humlum et al. have shown, by analysing the official climate data-sets, that the rate of change of global temperature shows zero sensitivity to the rate of change of CO2 concentration, which precludes the possibility of CO2 driving the global temperature.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
Humlum’s study has attracted aggressive criticism for his largely speculative, alternative explanation of climate change, but nobody has even attempted to refute his primary conclusion, that the rate of global warming does not increase in response to an increased rate of CO2 emissions, which is a necessary feature of (strong) anthropogenic climate change as defined by IPCC.
The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming derives from the work of John Cook 2013, linked below. Cook calculated this number by excluding 66% of climate scientists who did not state their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). For the remaining 34%, he considered 3 criteria: a) explicit endorsement that humans are the primary cause of climate change in recent times, b) unqualified endorsement of AGW, meaning that humans contribute something/anything to warming but are not necessarily the primary cause of climate change c) implicit endorsement of some human contribution to climate change. He then lumps all these criteria together and claims that 97% of the 34% agree on AGW theory. He fails to clarify in the conclusions that AGW in that context means even very slight contribution to warming; not that 97% agree that humans are the Primary driver of the recent warming. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
The real problem with Cooks work is revealed only in his second study, in which Cook performs a sleight of hand and substitutes his earlier, weak definition of AGW consensus, that humans contribute anything to global warming but are not necessarily the dominant cause, with the strongest IPCC definition: “Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century'”. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
From this point onwards IPCC has adopted Cooks “evidence” in support of their different definition, and so the fallacy of 97% consensus on IPCC position was born. All this is apart from the fact that consensus about beliefs is not evidence of facts about the objective reality.
Since Humlum 2013 we know beyond any doubt that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary driver of global temperature. Humlum et al. have shown, by analysing the official climate data-sets, that the rate of change of global temperature shows zero sensitivity to the rate of change of CO2 concentration, which precludes the possibility of CO2 driving the global temperature.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
Humlum’s study has attracted aggressive criticism for his largely speculative, alternative explanation of climate change, but nobody has even attempted to refute his primary conclusion, that the rate of global warming does not increase in response to an increased rate of CO2 emissions, which is a necessary feature of (strong) anthropogenic climate change as defined by IPCC.
“Ethics of Vaccine Refusal” is now temporarily available FREE on the BMJ website. Save and Share while the concession lasts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026
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…
Here is my first article on Covid. The numbers cited are obviously no longer current, but the underlying principles still hold: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2020/03/22/covid-19-pandemonic/
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
Covid-19 Pandemonic
The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) has become a go-to reason for Governments to shut down national economies and to institute de facto martial law. We are told not to panic but are simulta…
The following petition, which was communicated directly to most members of the Victorian parliament, is intended to prevent the culprits using the excuse of incompetence or ignorance of the law. They now know that what they are doing is illegal, even a child can understand that something that does not exist cannot be given to someone else, so they are tacitly revealing their criminal intent. The petition solidifies their criminal liability. On a side note, I have contacted some 20+ parliamentarians to sponsor this petition, starting with those who are ostensibly opposed to the tyrannical overreach of the government. So far, nobody has accepted my request. Something else is going on behind the scenes that is not clear to me. Nevertheless, the more signatures this will get the more terrifying this liability is to those who are complicit in this crime. And no, they are not omnipotent, they are cowardly, internally fragmented and intellectually weak, that is why they have to resort to deception to manipulate the masses. They are terrified. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
If it is morally permissible to prevent deaths during pandemics at the expense of free medical consent, then the right to medical consent does not exist at all, because there is no morally relevant difference between preventing millions of deaths and one death. Every illness can cause death, and even medical experimentation in a death camp may lead to future prevention of deaths. So if a doctor believes in the patient’s right to free medical consent at all, there can be no exceptions.
Face-masks are a medical intervention, not just an item of clothing, because they have a medical objective and clinically affect a vital function of the respiratory system.
My Letter to Matthew Guy, Leader of the Opposition, Victoria (25.10.2021)
Dear Matthew,
1. EMERGENCY POWERS
I have introduced the following E-Petition to the Legislative Council, contesting the constitutional validity of Emergency Powers in Victoria. In essence, the delegation of emergency powers by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself. Would you be willing to sponsor my petition?
Grievance:
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion should not be allowed.
Action:
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove all current COVID-19 emergency directives and restrictions and repeal all legislation that grants the Government emergency powers.
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
2. VACCINE MANDATES
I happen to be an expert in medical ethics and I want to share with you some critical information regarding Covid-19 vaccine mandates. I will refer to my paper recently published in the BMJ.
Discrimination on the basis of negative vaccination status is inherently unethical:
Vaccine mandates amount to discrimination on the basis of healthy, 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. The argument is fully developed in my BMJ paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026. I suggest beginning with the associated media release: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/
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 economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die in the course of employment as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Matthew,
1. EMERGENCY POWERS
I have introduced the following E-Petition to the Legislative Council, contesting the constitutional validity of Emergency Powers in Victoria. In essence, the delegation of emergency powers by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself. Would you be willing to sponsor my petition?
Grievance:
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion should not be allowed.
Action:
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove all current COVID-19 emergency directives and restrictions and repeal all legislation that grants the Government emergency powers.
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374
2. VACCINE MANDATES
I happen to be an expert in medical ethics and I want to share with you some critical information regarding Covid-19 vaccine mandates. I will refer to my paper recently published in the BMJ.
Discrimination on the basis of negative vaccination status is inherently unethical:
Vaccine mandates amount to discrimination on the basis of healthy, 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. The argument is fully developed in my BMJ paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026. I suggest beginning with the associated media release: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/
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 economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die in the course of employment as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik