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.
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
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
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
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
This is a sufficient evidence of crimes against humanity, an irreversible medical procedure being forced on people under the threat of death.
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?
Forwarded from Sanjeev Sabhlok PUBLIC CHANNEL (Sanjeev Sabhlok)
Official UK statistics in AUGUST 2021 tell us that the IFR for covid is <0.1% - LESS THAN THE FLU.
This is what John Ioannidis said in May 2020 - that covid is comparable with the ordinary flu.
And as I keep showing repeatedly, Sweden's all-cause mortality data show that it is impossible to identify this pandemic if the years are randomised.
Sources:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-07-12/31381/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/20/stanford-researcher-says-coronavirus-isnt-as-fatal-as-we-thought-critics-say-hes-missing-the-point/
This is what John Ioannidis said in May 2020 - that covid is comparable with the ordinary flu.
And as I keep showing repeatedly, Sweden's all-cause mortality data show that it is impossible to identify this pandemic if the years are randomised.
Sources:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-07-12/31381/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/20/stanford-researcher-says-coronavirus-isnt-as-fatal-as-we-thought-critics-say-hes-missing-the-point/
So the sticker project is a GO. The White Rose https://news.1rj.ru/str/JoinTheWhiteRose recommends Brother QL-800 printer, $150 from Officeworks, including 2 rolls of blank labels. Their decentralised campaign instructions are here: https://telegra.ph/THE-WHITE-ROSE-STICKERS-available-designs--translations-05-02#ENGLISH (scroll down). I will prepare some sticker designs tonight to fit White Rose format instead of Normal Party, but you can use whatever format you like. Please remember to use stickers only where it is legal to do so, not to piss people off and undermine the cause.
Telegram
The White Rose
Voluntaryist/Anarchy Free Speech Stickers For The People!
Another way to print waterproof, high-quality stickers, if you already have a laser printer. Buy ‘Printable Vinyl Sticker Paper | A4 – 50 Premium Matte White Vinyl Self Adhesive Sheets – Waterproof Label Stickers – Inkjet & Laser Printer’. Print a batch on a single sheet, then cut with scissors.
Forwarded from Subversive Stickers
White Rose - "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE AFRAID OF A VACCINE!" SAYS THE GUY AFRAID OF AIR
Forwarded from Subversive Stickers
White Rose - WE DO NOT CO-PARENT WITH THE GOV'T!
Forwarded from Subversive Stickers
White Rose - YOUR CHILDREN WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR COMPLIANCE
Forwarded from Subversive Stickers
White Rose -CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO MAKE ADULTS FEEL SAFE
Someone suggested giving stickers to family and friends inside Christmas cards, so that they can affix it wherever they like. I gives them an easy opportunity to cross the line from collusion to courage.