I grew up in a communist country, with the spectre of Nazism still in the living memory of the adults around me. Based on this experience I will never assume that the government has the best interest of the people at heart. Rather, the government is a necessary risk that we must continuously manage, and those who are attracted to it are inherently corrupt. At the same time, the quality of the government is in part a reflection of the quality of the moral character of a nation.

Highlights of the Vaccine Surveillance Report, Week 50 UK

“recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” N antibodies signify the natural immune response to infection, as opposed to S antibodies that Covid vaccines aim to generate. The take away here is that Covid vaccination permanently weakens the natural immune response to the coronavirus, therefore regular boosters will be needed for life to maintain sufficient S antibodies to fight related infections. It is uncertain how this will affect the natural immune response to common cold and flu.

Table 11 indicates that Covid vaccination increases all cause mortality in the 0-18 age group following Covid-positive test.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf

Reminder: About one year ago my peer reviewed paper, published in a top medical journal, https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/20/medethics-2020-107026 was censored and deleted by ResearchGate, the most popular academic research repository. The reason, my paper was deemed in violation of RG community safety policies or terms and conditions. This is how peer-reviewed research is censored. RG is a morally corrupt, ideologically partisan platform, and I have removed all my papers from there in protest.

The main problem with Equality of Outcome (Equity): If all genders, races and cultures are equally competent then they do not need any special assistance, and all differences of outcome are then reducible to identity-based preferences. And if they do need special assistance then they are not equally competent. In short, the politics of Equity invalidates itself by implicitly affirming the differences it overtly denies.

Opinions do not matter; these are just expressions of our subjective states, which may be objectively right or wrong. Ideology does not mater, because it is a commitment to the truth-value of beliefs, which may be objectively right or wrong. The only thing that matters is our capacity and willingness to adhere to universal, objective rules of reason, the immutable laws of logical ‘sense’, without which no meaning or thought could exist, no individuality, no reality, and which are the only common basis that humans possess to resolve our disagreements. Apart from personal preferences, insofar as these do not infringe on the preferences of others, we must not ‘agree to disagree’; we must agree to deliberate on the basis of common laws, with the aim of coming to agreement. Every other good follows from this one commitment.

Most people believe that the function of Democracy is to make morally right decisions that, in the long run, benefit all people. I suggest that the primary function of Democracy, perhaps the only function, is to allow the weaker ideological factions to submit with some dignity to the rulling faction, under the guise of “representation”, in exchange for guaranteed minimum rights, and thus save themselves from being slaughtered or outright enslaved in case of disagreement. Democracy simultaneously formalises and reveals the ACTUAL state of power, it does not add to power, it does not endow power, it does not delegate power. Nevertheless, revelations of power accomplished via the democratic process augment our awareness of the loci of power and can hypothetically shift its distribution.

https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/a-pragmatic-case-for-democracy/

Anyone who endorsed vaccine coercion or put a mask on a child is morally depraved. Anyone who submitted to vaccine mandates out of financial desperation, anyone who wore a mask to avoid confrontation, is still liable for taking away the right to free medical consent from their own children and future generations, and this moral debt will have to be repaid.

This is one of the first clear proofs of vaccine deaths among the young in Europe. This is on top of lockdown deaths.

https://twitter.com/ScoopsMegan/status/1474012450663985153

Once again, a reminder. If you've not yet shared this as widely as you can, please do so: https://bit.ly/3GRqkFv

Macrophage-Activating Factor (GcMAF) is apparently an extremely effective treatment for cancer.

“After more than 25 weekly administrations of 100 ng GcMAF to cancer patients, the majority of prostate and breast cancer patients, excluding extremely advanced, exhibited healthy control levels of the tumor markers (e.g., α-N-acetylgalactosaminidase), indicating eradication of tumors confirmed by CAT-scan and MRI.”

https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/64/7_Supplement/287/512647/Cancer-cell-killing-by-macrophages-treated-with-Gc

“After 14 to 25 weekly administrations of GcMAF (100 ng/week), all 16 patients had very low serum Nagalase levels equivalent to those of healthy control values, indicating that these patients are tumor-free. No recurrence occurred for 7 years.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18633461/

Anyone who enforces vaccine mandates, from a checkout assistant to a CEO, is a collaborator in crimes against humanity and must be held accountable.

Ancient legal maxim: Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere.
“Nothing is more unjust than to extend equity too far.”

I am seeing the following phrase coming up on TM chats, intended as a self-evident moral ideal: “respect for all living things”. What does this kind of ‘respect’ entail? And more importantly, WHY should we accept it as a moral standard? Are all instances of life equally respectable? What exactly is the common respectable feature of all instances of life? Is consciousness not more valuable than life, in which case any conflict between preservation of an instance of consciousness and preservation of an instance of life must be resolved by privileging consciousness, and discriminating against preservation of the instance of life? Is this still respect for all life?

Those who gave up their right to free medical consent by acquiescing to vaccine coercion gave up all their rights, because every other right can be medically subverted in the interest of the majority. A being without rights is a being without moral status, therefore not human, not a member of society, and its views no longer matter. If you made a mistake, if you did not understand the consequences of your submission, then you must fight to reclaim your rights, your humanity, because you are now morally in an extremely vulnerable state.