The global supply chain crisis is entering a new stage. Note how nobody is talking about the simplest, most obvious solution: changing the regulations to allow diesel vehicles to operate without Urea additive, for as long as the Emergency persists. Vehicles can be easily retuned to run without it, and the only reason urea is used is because it is required by law to control emissions. Also, the world is not using any more urea this year than it did in 2019 (probably much less, due to Covid restrictions), so the supply shortage is also manufactured; the production is intentionally limited and supplies are withheld to achieve precisely this outcome. The lack of discussion about these facts is the strongest evidence to date that our Government and Mass Media are colluding with China, and are intentionally working to destroy the supply chain, or at least to create more panic. Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by malice.

These are not ‘slips of the tongue’. This is a consciousness filter.

“I appreciate greatly the work done by all the premiers and chief ministers and seeing those national vaccination rates get to where they are. We've got one more state to get through that gate as it's a bit like, you know, getting the sheep through the gate and into the run and we’ve got one more state to get through and we're looking forward to that happening in the next few days.” Scott Morrison, PM.

What happens at the end of the “run”?

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-dummoyne-nsw

The greatest resource on Earth is human will, human action. Whoever moves the will of the masses, rules the Earth. Everything that strongly motivates the masses to move, to re-act, is likely intentional. Nevertheless, ‘doing nothing’ can also be a movement of the will, a provocation of passivity.

Gaslighting is the primary strategy of political psychopaths and fascists. They don’t argue with evidence but presume that their target group is unquestionably morally wrong, defective, and accuse that group of precisely the psychological traits that the psychopath himself manifests. This is a spontaneous form of diversion from their own psychopathology, which is also a manifestation of the same psychopathology; unrestrained Freudian projection. We should never blindly trust experts, because some of them (perhaps most of them) are psychopaths.

How to become more Human:

- accept that you do not belong anywhere,
- assume that there are no likeminded people,
(you just have not realised your disagreements yet),
- acknowledge that you have no tribe,
- accept that you are probably wrong about most things,
- but you need others to make sense of it all.

That is a good place to start.

By acquiescing to vaccine coercion you take away the right to free medical consent from future generations, and without that right they will have no rights at all, because every other right can be medically subverted.

My email to Vice Chancellor of Griffith University (QLD) 12.12.2021

Dear Prof. Evans,

I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that Griffith University will impose mandatory vaccination policy for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination. The option to undergo testing, which is then also a mandated medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical issues arise:

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.

2. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being 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. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.

3. 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 a valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.

I also object to the assertion made by several state premiers and other politicians that the people who are discriminated against are “unvaccinated by choice”. Apart from the fact that social and economic opportunity coercion removes our free choice in this matter, being unvaccinated is fundamentally not a choice; we were born this way. The premise of being “unvaccinated by choice” is as absurd as “having two hands by choice”. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik


Vice Chancellor’s response 13.12.2021:

Dear Michael

Thank you for your feedback.

This is not an easy decision to make and we realise it is one where people have strong views. Throughout the pandemic, Griffith University has been guided by the principle of taking all reasonable measures to reduce the risk of members of our community becoming ill.

While vaccines do not completely eliminate the risk of contracting COVID-19, the scientific evidence is clear that people who are vaccinated are much less likely to both contract COVID themselves and pass it on to others. This policy therefore is one of a range of measures to keep Griffith as safe a place as possible to study and work.

Allowing a testing regime as an alternative to vaccination creates an option for staff and students who are not able or willing to be vaccinated. Under this policy, no-one will be required to be vaccinated but everyone will be required to take steps to help protect the health and safety of others.

I am sorry that you do not agree with the stance that we have taken.

Kind regards

Office of the Vice Chancellor and President


See comments for my response.

My email to the President of National Tertirary Education Union (14.12.2021)

Dear Alison Barnes,

I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that several Universities intend to impose mandatory vaccination for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination (this option will only be available in some courses). The requirement to undergo testing, which is also a medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical and, by implication, legal issue arises:

Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. 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’. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospectve benefit of the majority.

In summary, 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 students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of tertiary institutions in this country. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.

Regards,
Michael Kowalik

My Email to Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University (14.12.2021)

Dear Prof. Dewar,

I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. I understand that La Trobe University has imposed mandatory vaccination for employees and students.

I want to bring to your attention the following ethical and, by implication, legal issues associated with vaccine mandates:

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.

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, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.

3. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 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 students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of La Trobe University. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.

Regards,
Michael Kowalik

My Letter to Vice-Chancellor of the Universty of Queensland (14.12.2021)

Dear Prof. Terry,

I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. I understand that The University of Queensland is considering imposing mandatory vaccination for employees and students.

I want to bring to your attention the following ethical and, by implication, legal issues associated with vaccine mandates:

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.

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, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.

3. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. 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 the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 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 students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the proposed mandate is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of The University of Queensland. I anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.

Regards,
Michael Kowalik

They desperately need the unvaccinated to mingle in the general population to blame us for the exploding cases among the fully vaccinated.

This is a sufficient evidence of crimes against humanity, an irreversible medical procedure being forced on people under the threat of death.

Vaccine mandates violate the right to life, killing some healthy people for the benefit of the many.

I think the above post, in the form of a sticker, or a million stickers affixed in public places, but only where it would be legal to do so, could serve as a simple but effective vaccine-ethics information campaign (a moral “red pill”) for the general public. How could a project like this be realised on a large scale? Is it a good idea?

Normalising child abuse. Do see the glowing reviews of this book on Amazon, disturbing.