“I will not apologise for killing a few innocent people to keep the rest of you safe.” Said the man in a blue suit.
Forwarded from Normal Chat
Giving the mob a fuse, something to burn, smash up and then get bored, is a counter revolutionary strategy. Fake revolution frustrates real revolution.
If, as the man said, “the revolution will not be televised”, then whatever is televised is not the revolution.
Employers and universities are still conducting surveys on the support for vaccine mandates. They want to know what you think because they are concerned about liability.
A recent survey at La Trobe University (Melbourne, July 2022) showed that 32% of the staff and students oppose vaccine mandates. The previous survey, completed in October 2021, showed only 18% opposition to the mandates. The opinion is shifting and I suspect the relevant institutions will drop the mandates when parity between support and opposition to the mandates is reached. They are letting us decide, in a kind of democratic way, whether their unethical policy (killing a few people for the benefit of the many and removing the right to free medical consent) should continue. Until the majority becomes ethical, we all suffer.
A recent survey at La Trobe University (Melbourne, July 2022) showed that 32% of the staff and students oppose vaccine mandates. The previous survey, completed in October 2021, showed only 18% opposition to the mandates. The opinion is shifting and I suspect the relevant institutions will drop the mandates when parity between support and opposition to the mandates is reached. They are letting us decide, in a kind of democratic way, whether their unethical policy (killing a few people for the benefit of the many and removing the right to free medical consent) should continue. Until the majority becomes ethical, we all suffer.
My letter to La Trobe University Student Union (10 July 2022)
I am a Melbourne-based philosopher/ethicist and apparently the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates.
My close friend is a student at La Trobe and has informed me about two surveys conducted by the university, gauging the level of support for mandatory vaccination of staff and students attending the university.
The most recent survey (July 2022) showed 32% of the staff and students opposing the mandate. The previous survey, completed in October 2021, showed 18% opposing the mandate. The opinion is shifting and I suspect that La Trobe will drop the mandates when parity between support and opposition is reached.
I share with you the following statement of my position on this issue, which I hope will be of assistance. An earlier version of this statement was formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT, subsequently published at https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus
Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. (This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240).
2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not just from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment.
If the Union would support the removal of mandatory vaccination, for reasons explained above, and communicate these reasons to your members, I believe you could defeat this unethical policy by gaining the necessary shift in the level of support.
I am a Melbourne-based philosopher/ethicist and apparently the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates.
My close friend is a student at La Trobe and has informed me about two surveys conducted by the university, gauging the level of support for mandatory vaccination of staff and students attending the university.
The most recent survey (July 2022) showed 32% of the staff and students opposing the mandate. The previous survey, completed in October 2021, showed 18% opposing the mandate. The opinion is shifting and I suspect that La Trobe will drop the mandates when parity between support and opposition is reached.
I share with you the following statement of my position on this issue, which I hope will be of assistance. An earlier version of this statement was formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT, subsequently published at https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus
Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. (This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240).
2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not just from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment.
If the Union would support the removal of mandatory vaccination, for reasons explained above, and communicate these reasons to your members, I believe you could defeat this unethical policy by gaining the necessary shift in the level of support.
I wrote before that the Government can never fully control the individual mind, but I failed to note that they can test your moral conscience and find out how human you are.
“The good patient-citizen takes their politico-medical sacrament by donating their body to science, shot by shot, booster by booster in infinitude for purification and atonement. Practicing the rite of receiving a piercing puncture and risking a life-altering injury atones for the original sin of an unclean, diseased, infectious bodily state. The infusion with state-of-the-art nanoparticle gene-based agents cleanses, at the molecular level, all biochemical traces of selfish human indulgence from the sins of social intercourse: travel, work, friendship, love, conversation, affection, sex, reproduction. Thus, man as a carbon-based life form can practice in self-righteous faith the new state rituals of self-loathing and self-denial by despising, as he is instructed to do, his own carbon footprint. Furthermore, the pain of the injection site, the fatigue, the headaches, the nausea, the blood clots, the heart attacks, the strokes, all hallowed suffering — marks of martyrdom — punish the flesh to chase out the demons of infectiousness.” https://propagandainfocus.com/the-serpent-and-the-staff-symbols-of-safety-and-security-in-the-propaganda-of-a-global-medical-tyranny/
The NEW definition of “vaccine” by the CDC: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
According to this definition, sneezing on other people while sick, or otherwise infecting them with a pathogen in order to “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases”, are also “vaccines”, so the definition is too broad. A better definition would be that the preparation must not itself cause the disease, but in this case many vaccines that cause the disease would automatically be disqualified as vaccines. Moreover, if Covid-19 “vaccines” cause negative immunity (stimulate the body’s immune response to promote the diseases), then they are not vaccines even under the current definition.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
According to this definition, sneezing on other people while sick, or otherwise infecting them with a pathogen in order to “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases”, are also “vaccines”, so the definition is too broad. A better definition would be that the preparation must not itself cause the disease, but in this case many vaccines that cause the disease would automatically be disqualified as vaccines. Moreover, if Covid-19 “vaccines” cause negative immunity (stimulate the body’s immune response to promote the diseases), then they are not vaccines even under the current definition.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
George Christiansen: “As a student of theology and with a significant interest in the spiritual battle that’s playing out all around us, I attended a course on exorcism at the Vatican. (…) It was at this Vatican course that I was told that not only could an individual be possessed but so too could a society, a culture, a nation, in fact an entire civilisation.”
My question: How does one objectively differentiate between someone who is possessed/controlled by a malevolent, supernatural agency and someone who is simply insane, or controlled by other humans?
My question: How does one objectively differentiate between someone who is possessed/controlled by a malevolent, supernatural agency and someone who is simply insane, or controlled by other humans?
Zelensky argues that giving weapons to Ukraine is morally no different from giving vaccines to countries in need. Ironically he is right, but the comparison cuts deeper: ordering civilians to go to war against their will, where crippling injuries or death are almost certain, is morally no different from vaccine mandates.
Medical doctors are not scientists, intellectuals, or pioneers of meaning, but practitioners of a trade with a clearly defined, strictly regulated conceptual framework. They are given a skill-set and technology to practice on human bodies instead of house plumbing or electrical wiring. Critically, they are not an authority on knowledge but adherents of a monopolistic guild.
The medical trade is different in one important respect from all other trades: medical doctors do not guarantee their work, they prevent unaffiliated tradespeople from trying to fix human bodies, they do not accept responsibility for making the problem worse or for causing additional problems including death of their client, they demand full payment irrespective of whether they have fixed the problem. The best approach to dealing with doctors is to treat them as untrustworthy tradespeople: ‘I have this problem, how can you fix this? What is the evidence you rely on to choose this solution ahead of other solutions? Why do you think it will fix the problem? No, I am not concerned about the pain but the cause of the pain; I want you to identify the cause and fix it. Do you guarantee your work? Can I have a quote?’
The medical trade is different in one important respect from all other trades: medical doctors do not guarantee their work, they prevent unaffiliated tradespeople from trying to fix human bodies, they do not accept responsibility for making the problem worse or for causing additional problems including death of their client, they demand full payment irrespective of whether they have fixed the problem. The best approach to dealing with doctors is to treat them as untrustworthy tradespeople: ‘I have this problem, how can you fix this? What is the evidence you rely on to choose this solution ahead of other solutions? Why do you think it will fix the problem? No, I am not concerned about the pain but the cause of the pain; I want you to identify the cause and fix it. Do you guarantee your work? Can I have a quote?’
Professor Hannah Fry is producing a BBC documentary noscriptd “Unvaccinated”, in which she “seeks to understand why a portion of the population remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.” I though this is a great opportunity for me to reach out to professor Fry. Here is my letter to her, dated 11 July 2022.
Dear Prof Fry,
I am a Melbourne-based philosopher/ethicist and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. The following ethical reasons may explain why some people refused Covid-19 vaccination despite the severe social and economic consequences of remaining unvaccinated.
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. By refusing to acquiesce to vaccine mandates we take an ethical stance against discrimination on the basis of innate characteristics of the human race. (This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240).
2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any mandated medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not just from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
Dear Prof Fry,
I am a Melbourne-based philosopher/ethicist and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. The following ethical reasons may explain why some people refused Covid-19 vaccination despite the severe social and economic consequences of remaining unvaccinated.
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. By refusing to acquiesce to vaccine mandates we take an ethical stance against discrimination on the basis of innate characteristics of the human race. (This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240).
2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any mandated medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not just from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
Forwarded from janedoe
hi all. I just want to share the headline that annoys me so much I feel angry about it whenever I remember it throughout the course of my day . I almost feel angrier about this headline than about the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs and the 890+ post-vaccine deaths reported to TGA. It was published on ABC in January 2022 for some reason it keeps coming up as a top story. The headline : SO YOU'VE RECOVERED FROM COVID : NOW WHAT? even just typing this drives me absolutely nuts. Its like they imagine us all just sitting here in our apartments sheltering in place and awaiting further instructions from the government . anyone else find this to be astonishingly annoying? or just me? the headlines from the ABC are just advertising copy. I know I shouldn't read it , keep my eyes averted from evil, but I log on for a laugh every now and then...
Forwarded from janedoe
they are the types of headlines that belong in so-called "womens magazines", or magazines targeted at adolescent girls. friendly, authoritative and assuming an intimacy with the reader. like the headline "We fact checked XYZ. Here's what we found". And ""Tom, Mary and Susan have Long Covid. Here's what they want you to know" . the way these sentences are structured drives me insane. and all the more so knowing that most people in my ''cohort'' will only scan the headlines before or after work, while sitting on the toilet, or scoffing down their lunch. its just this impenetrable haze of shite.
Forwarded from janedoe
the entire premise is that the reader is such a busy and in-demand executive, they dont have the luxury of being across the detail. they just want their most trusted news source to give them the executive summary with a few key facts, but more importantly the correct emotional tone to assume. it almost invites the reader to assume they won't get any detailed or factual reporting, only a high-level ''analysis''. almost invites the reader to not even want any details.