Vaccines are biotechnological enhancements intended for healthy people and therefore not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Any discrimination on the basis of healthy, species-typical characteristics would amount to discrimination against the human race in favour of a transhuman, biomedically augmented sub-species (the vaccinated). This would be a crime against humanity. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/

QUORA Question: If someone is fully vaccinated for Covid 19, why should they worry about someone who is not vaccinated?

Answered by Michael Kowalik
Because unvaccinated people will in time become the living proof that the vaccine causes more harm than good. Also, it is rather the unvaccinated who should be concerned because the vaccinated will be assymptomatic carriers with weak immunity (leaky vaccines), which drives mutations, whereas those who went through the infection naturally always develop more lasting, hrelathy immunity. https://qr.ae/pG5dKT

QUORA Question: Should people be forced to get the Covid vaccine even if they don't have jobs like nursing that bring them into contact with others?

Answered by Michael Kowalik:
That would be a crime against humanity. Since death is a possible side effect of vaccines, vaccine mandates violate the right to life by arbitrarily killing the few for the benefit of the many.
In any case, I would trust my healthy immune system, optimised over 300 million years of evolution, over any corporation acting under absolute immunity, or the professional liars in public office. Zero trust. https://qr.ae/pGw8BU

The following study published in NATURE shows that severe COVID-19 illness has signatures of an anti-parasitic, IgE mediated (Allergic) immune response:

A) “Some cytokines not associated with antiviral responses, such as IL-5, which aids defence against parasitic worms and is released during allergic reactions, were, surprisingly, upregulated as people developed severe disease.”

B) “More remarkably, cytokines associated with immune responses to fungi (cytokines released by a type of CD4 T cell called a TH17 cell) were elevated and remained so in people with severe disease. The same was true for cytokines associated with immune responses to parasites, including worms, or with allergic reactions (cytokines such as IL-5, released by a type of CD4 T cell called a TH2 cell). The discovery that parts of the immune system unrelated to viral control would be triggered by a viral infection was unexpected.”

See the next post for another study showing a possible explanation of this unusual immune response.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02379-1

And that is why some anti-parasitic drugs and anti-histamines are effective treatments for severe Covid-19. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.633680/full

Another piece of evidence that vaccines are NOT safe and effective, but more akin to playing Russian roulette with your immune system. This will not change until the industry is legally liable for the harm caused by their products. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/dengue-vaccine-fiasco-leads-criminal-charges-researcher-philippines

This is why the face-mask mandates for adults hurt children the most: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0

Protections for Gender Identity lead to Reverse Discrimination and 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.

The 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. When a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms there is discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but when females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms there is 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 vis-a-vis the physiological characteristics of males. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.

To clarify, I think it is right to protect transgender people from discrimination in the public domain on the basis of their transgederism. My objection is only to how the problem is currently formulated, due to the logical inconsistency associated with gender-identity being posited as something distinct from the biological norms of sex.

The first ever autopsy on an mRNA vaccinated person found Covid spike proteins in nearly every organ of the body, despite the manufacturer assuring us that these proteins never leave the injection site. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8051011/

Why some people refuse Covid vaccines.

There are about 2000 human proteins in the AZ vaccine. We never had vaccines that dirty in the past, no more than a couple of non-target proteins in a typical vaccine, but now there are 2000 and all of human origin.

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-440461/v1/dadfb0d76a7a31650e518d70.pdf

Foreign proteins injected through the skin, even in trace amounts, cause IgE sentisation (allergic priming). This is basic immunology. If these proteins are within 1–2 amino acid difference from your self-proteins, the IgE response will target your own cells, for the rest of your life. ie auto-immunity. In most cases the disease will be subclinical; you wont know it except that you feel less energetic, or perhaps do not notice any difference, but cells in some part of your body will be replicating at an increased rate due to the persistent attack by the immune system. After several years of this increased cell replication, a mutation is likely to appear, which we call cancer.

On the persistence of IgE due to injected proteins: Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/

And this paper covers fingerprinting of the specific proteins associated with auto-immune diseases:

https://zenodo.org/record/3603481