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.
Here is an idea. Affix a post stamp-size “subversive” sticker next to official post stamps on every letter and parcel you send to government departments, businesses, people etc.
Response from Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University to my email (https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/658)
“Thank you for your email and interest in La Trobe University.
The University has advised students and staff about a roadmap to support reopening of our campuses, which sets an aspiration that everyone attending La Trobe campuses who is eligible and able to be vaccinated is fully vaccinated. The University is not mandating vaccination and it is ultimately up to individuals whether they elect to get vaccinated.
Our approach aims to support a return to campus-based activity as safely as possible for students, staff and visitors. It is consistent with our response to COVID-19 over the past two years: all of the advice we have given to students and staff during the pandemic, and the arrangements we have put in place for work, study and research, has been in accordance with our policy to always follow public health advice and observe measures such as lockdown restrictions and limits on the number of people attending campus that have been set by Government health officials.
We are an institution that is committed to the pursuit of knowledge and to evidence-based research and practice. We believe the University has an important leadership role to play in using evidence and in demonstrating our commitment to the health of our staff and students and the communities that surround our campuses, which is why we have released the roadmap to support reopening of our campuses.”
My Response (17.12.2021)
Dear Prof. Dewar,
Thank you for your prompt response.
You write that “The University is not mandating vaccination and it is ultimately up to individuals whether they elect to get vaccinated.”
The University website nevertheless shows the following statement:
“As we announced in September, from 1 December 2021, everyone attending campus is required to be fully vaccinated (or hold a valid medical exemption).” (Source page: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/about/novel-coronavirus/vaccination)
The above statements appear to contradict one another. How should I understand this?
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
“Thank you for your email and interest in La Trobe University.
The University has advised students and staff about a roadmap to support reopening of our campuses, which sets an aspiration that everyone attending La Trobe campuses who is eligible and able to be vaccinated is fully vaccinated. The University is not mandating vaccination and it is ultimately up to individuals whether they elect to get vaccinated.
Our approach aims to support a return to campus-based activity as safely as possible for students, staff and visitors. It is consistent with our response to COVID-19 over the past two years: all of the advice we have given to students and staff during the pandemic, and the arrangements we have put in place for work, study and research, has been in accordance with our policy to always follow public health advice and observe measures such as lockdown restrictions and limits on the number of people attending campus that have been set by Government health officials.
We are an institution that is committed to the pursuit of knowledge and to evidence-based research and practice. We believe the University has an important leadership role to play in using evidence and in demonstrating our commitment to the health of our staff and students and the communities that surround our campuses, which is why we have released the roadmap to support reopening of our campuses.”
My Response (17.12.2021)
Dear Prof. Dewar,
Thank you for your prompt response.
You write that “The University is not mandating vaccination and it is ultimately up to individuals whether they elect to get vaccinated.”
The University website nevertheless shows the following statement:
“As we announced in September, from 1 December 2021, everyone attending campus is required to be fully vaccinated (or hold a valid medical exemption).” (Source page: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/about/novel-coronavirus/vaccination)
The above statements appear to contradict one another. How should I understand this?
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
The following incident is symptomatic of the psychological abuse and demoralisation being implemented across the entire education system. This kind of demoralisation is especially obvious in “cross curriculum priorities” of the Australian curriculum: idolisation of animistic tribal cultures and devaluation of Western culture, cultural relativism, social justice and identity politics (universal guilt and alienation), environmental justice (universal guilt and the hatred of humanity, including self-hate), prioritising feelings/emotions above reason (normalisation of psychosis). All under the guise of the good.
I was visiting a friend a few weeks back and she began telling me a story about her daughter’s experience at school. She said that the school was incorporating a new program to help children with mental health since the Covid-19 mandates and restrictions had created so much depression in children. Her daughter’s teacher, who is neither a counselor or psychologist, was explaining to the children that no one will love them unless they love themselves, and that no one will believe in them unless they believe in themselves. Most people would hear that and say, “that’s so true, we must love ourselves,” but they missed the other part of the message. Her daughter didn’t miss it though. She raised her hand and told the teacher that she disagrees on both counts. She stated that even if she doesn’t love herself she knows that her mom always loves her and that makes her feel better. The teacher said, “and that makes you love yourself.” Her daughter replied, “no it doesn’t. It just makes me feel better. It’s the same thing with believing in myself. I don’t always believe in myself and I get nervous when I have to go on stage, but I look to mom and she tells me she believes in me, and it makes me feel better. It doesn’t make me believe in myself.” Smart girl.
Between the time she had left the classroom and got home, she realized that this was a really awful thing for a teacher to be teaching children, that no one will love them if they don’t love themselves. In a time of children being depressed and suicidal rates on the rise, and these teachings are supposedly being done to help children, she thought… what about those who may be suicidal? Imagine receiving this message and being told no one loves you or no one believes in you? It’s all mind trickery.
Source: https://www.coreysdigs.com/education-system/alert-2030-psychological-agenda-obedience-training-for-prek-adults-already-global-with-billions-in-funding-for-full-control-part-1-introduction/
I was visiting a friend a few weeks back and she began telling me a story about her daughter’s experience at school. She said that the school was incorporating a new program to help children with mental health since the Covid-19 mandates and restrictions had created so much depression in children. Her daughter’s teacher, who is neither a counselor or psychologist, was explaining to the children that no one will love them unless they love themselves, and that no one will believe in them unless they believe in themselves. Most people would hear that and say, “that’s so true, we must love ourselves,” but they missed the other part of the message. Her daughter didn’t miss it though. She raised her hand and told the teacher that she disagrees on both counts. She stated that even if she doesn’t love herself she knows that her mom always loves her and that makes her feel better. The teacher said, “and that makes you love yourself.” Her daughter replied, “no it doesn’t. It just makes me feel better. It’s the same thing with believing in myself. I don’t always believe in myself and I get nervous when I have to go on stage, but I look to mom and she tells me she believes in me, and it makes me feel better. It doesn’t make me believe in myself.” Smart girl.
Between the time she had left the classroom and got home, she realized that this was a really awful thing for a teacher to be teaching children, that no one will love them if they don’t love themselves. In a time of children being depressed and suicidal rates on the rise, and these teachings are supposedly being done to help children, she thought… what about those who may be suicidal? Imagine receiving this message and being told no one loves you or no one believes in you? It’s all mind trickery.
Source: https://www.coreysdigs.com/education-system/alert-2030-psychological-agenda-obedience-training-for-prek-adults-already-global-with-billions-in-funding-for-full-control-part-1-introduction/