Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022Liked by Andreas Oehler
The real calculus is quite straightforward, Andreas. If the sum of all uptake-related injuries is greater than zero, mandating uptake is a deliberate injury, full stop.
I have discussed this with many who advocate coercion, their argument consisting of "it's a public duty and safe and effective." The response I have given is that the only comparison we have, is that of being drafted to fight and die in a war. We honor fallen soldiers, those who died that others might live. To deny the cause of so many deaths caused by the experimental injections, is to heap dishonor on those who chose death to save the lives of others.
I realize that most of those who died from the injections were not informed of the deadly risks involved with volunteering for mass human trials of a substance that killed most of the animals that it was tested on during early stages of development. The dishonest withholding of informed consent, makes those deaths a form of murder, rather than acts of noble self-sacrifice.
holding Nuremburg 2.0 trials is what must be done.
WOW! This is a commentary I will be reading MANY times! This is “outta the ballpark”!
Now when people inquire why my bf and I aren’t working, or why we aren’t at our previous jobs, I’ll have some excellent replies and reasons (not that I need any).
I lost (forced early retirement) my career of 23 years, and he lost his career of 17 years-NO JAB!
I’m a logical person, usually, and this is a fantastic commentary on the “vaccine”, which is NOT a vaccine.
Thank you very much for this excellent important discussion. The hypothetical scenario you include is useful and I predict will stop a few in their track of virtue signaling. It is now more than 18 months, since this brilliant Kowalik treatise was published in The Journal of Medical Ethics’. It has since been a long time in this journey of violation of basic human rights. Clearly these journals are read by nobodies. It would behove any educated moral reader of this journal of ‘medical ethics’ (currently an oxymoronic term) to act courageously and quickly to stop the global mandate regime in its tracks. A readership of ‘nobodies’ it seems.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Mandates continued.
I sent a concise summary of the Kowalik treatise to a psychiatrist relation in late 2021. Crickets. Xmas was coming. It was very clear to me then, that these key concepts of ‘preserving the constitutive conditions of (human)) agency’ and the importance of the preservation of ‘the innate human constitution’ are nothing more than entertainment for so called ‘intellectuals’. Nothing to do with medicine.
My advice to fight vaccine mandates would be to fight the ethics of it and not the science that motivated it. Fighting mandates by denying that vaccines didn't prevent infections implies that one day if we find some such thing it would be permissible to mandate it then.
1. If your vaccine is effective , why do I need it to protect you?
2. If your vaccine is INEFFECTIVE, why I do I need it?
3. Do you insist that other couples use protection in order to protect you?
4. Do you insist horny couples don't get laid because you are not getting any?
5. Do you tell others to wash before they go outside?
6. Do gym junkies insist that other people do the same?
7. Do you insist that people don't drive in order to reduce pollution for you?
8. Do you understand the key principle of public health? (Govts need to focus on the totality of the public health, not focusing on one disease to the exclusion of the rest.)
One simplification is that vaccine maximalism harms people who already have cross-immunity. That's always and everywhere a large group. It also severely harms people who have undiscovered or unacknowledged vulnerabilities to vaccine injury—another significant group.
Good work Andreas, and I would humbly offer, and I'm sure our Founding Fathers would agree, that the core issue here is the unalienable right of the individual vs. the artificially manufactured right of the collective. ~ Thanks, "I'll be here all da week."
There is a simplistic way to wake people up on this, by turning the tables! All of the following are high risk groups for catching and spreading Covid, and more besides! So based on the science (but also partially in jest), I'd say we can argue, it's these groups that should be quarantined on a regular and/or permanent basis!
E.G.
1. Should all vaccinated people be quarantined for 2 to 3 weeks after every jab, whilst their immune system recovers and resets.
2. Should all un-healthy people be quarantined for the greater good of healthier people until they can pass a medical showing good health? Included in this group could be people with high BMI's, people with immune deficiencies, people with the flu, etc!
I believe it's more or less proven that vaccinated people are now at higher risk of regular bouts of Covid variants, hospital visits and are therefore putting pure blood humans at risk for a variety of reasons, not least of which is helping spread infinite variants, which may eventually raise the risk for unvaccinated people!
Therefore using Cov-Idiocy logic it can easily be argued that if anyone should be quarantined then it should be the vaccinated and/or unhealthy people.
However with the exception of No. 2 above, I am joking! I take responsibility for my own health and I realise no one is perfect. However it might be considered reasonable for an unvaccinated person to expect a recently vaccinated person to take 2 weeks off work to help keep me safe? After all it was their choice, not to rely on (and or look after), their own God given immune system, not mine!
At the end of the day I am very healthy, I've never take any vaccines since childhood (as i'd like to think medicine was not corrupted back then), and now in my late 50's I am doing fine. And all that despite my fair share of partying, hangovers, global travel and well over my fair share of being sociable throughout the pandemic!
I find this reasoning entirely satisfactory. Thank you for laying it out so clearly in language an old codger like me can readily comprehend.
Sadly, in an age where ignorance and belligerence are “celebrated” and deep and subtle thought is derided as “racist” (as though “people of color” are incapable of reasoning at a level much above the satisfaction of base biologic urges -- a case of projection if there ever was one) it is a sermon heard only by the choir, I fear.
Lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, are just stepping stones toward our dystopian future. Sure, there has been some pushback but there has also been a certain level of acceptance, of normalization. This is really simple. If we desire to retain our free will, our agency, there cannot be any compromise, any acceptance of this crap. There has to categorical rejection of such future. If we don’t this, the criminals intend to deliver us to their desired destination, inch by inch, if needed. A critical mass of us must vomit these people and their visions out of our systems. Any "compromises" mean inevitable death to us. There can be a great variety of ideas how to do it, but that we need to do it must be an absolute point of unity.
The real calculus is quite straightforward, Andreas. If the sum of all uptake-related injuries is greater than zero, mandating uptake is a deliberate injury, full stop.
I have discussed this with many who advocate coercion, their argument consisting of "it's a public duty and safe and effective." The response I have given is that the only comparison we have, is that of being drafted to fight and die in a war. We honor fallen soldiers, those who died that others might live. To deny the cause of so many deaths caused by the experimental injections, is to heap dishonor on those who chose death to save the lives of others.
I realize that most of those who died from the injections were not informed of the deadly risks involved with volunteering for mass human trials of a substance that killed most of the animals that it was tested on during early stages of development. The dishonest withholding of informed consent, makes those deaths a form of murder, rather than acts of noble self-sacrifice.
holding Nuremburg 2.0 trials is what must be done.
WOW! This is a commentary I will be reading MANY times! This is “outta the ballpark”!
Now when people inquire why my bf and I aren’t working, or why we aren’t at our previous jobs, I’ll have some excellent replies and reasons (not that I need any).
I lost (forced early retirement) my career of 23 years, and he lost his career of 17 years-NO JAB!
I’m a logical person, usually, and this is a fantastic commentary on the “vaccine”, which is NOT a vaccine.
The idea that vaccination wasn't coercion is absurd if you rotate the shape just a little:
----------------
If you want to keep your job, you have to sleep with the boss. You're always free to find a new job, so no coercion!
They have to hold on to the root lie of the properties of the Magical Vaccine.
And so they do.
Without it, they are revealed to be taking part in Evil.
They could say, "I was duped." maybe. That would require humility. And would be painful.
But either way, they have to get real about some darkness in their soul, that they dressed up as "greater good".
Thank you very much for this excellent important discussion. The hypothetical scenario you include is useful and I predict will stop a few in their track of virtue signaling. It is now more than 18 months, since this brilliant Kowalik treatise was published in The Journal of Medical Ethics’. It has since been a long time in this journey of violation of basic human rights. Clearly these journals are read by nobodies. It would behove any educated moral reader of this journal of ‘medical ethics’ (currently an oxymoronic term) to act courageously and quickly to stop the global mandate regime in its tracks. A readership of ‘nobodies’ it seems.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Mandates continued.
I sent a concise summary of the Kowalik treatise to a psychiatrist relation in late 2021. Crickets. Xmas was coming. It was very clear to me then, that these key concepts of ‘preserving the constitutive conditions of (human)) agency’ and the importance of the preservation of ‘the innate human constitution’ are nothing more than entertainment for so called ‘intellectuals’. Nothing to do with medicine.
This gave me a bit of a brain cramp!
My advice to fight vaccine mandates would be to fight the ethics of it and not the science that motivated it. Fighting mandates by denying that vaccines didn't prevent infections implies that one day if we find some such thing it would be permissible to mandate it then.
https://twitter.com/RogerSeheult/status/1580388196545753091
1. If your vaccine is effective , why do I need it to protect you?
2. If your vaccine is INEFFECTIVE, why I do I need it?
3. Do you insist that other couples use protection in order to protect you?
4. Do you insist horny couples don't get laid because you are not getting any?
5. Do you tell others to wash before they go outside?
6. Do gym junkies insist that other people do the same?
7. Do you insist that people don't drive in order to reduce pollution for you?
8. Do you understand the key principle of public health? (Govts need to focus on the totality of the public health, not focusing on one disease to the exclusion of the rest.)
One simplification is that vaccine maximalism harms people who already have cross-immunity. That's always and everywhere a large group. It also severely harms people who have undiscovered or unacknowledged vulnerabilities to vaccine injury—another significant group.
The Supreme Court decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was also used to justify Korematsu v. United States.
The Japanese had no right to endanger others by being Japanese.
Good work Andreas, and I would humbly offer, and I'm sure our Founding Fathers would agree, that the core issue here is the unalienable right of the individual vs. the artificially manufactured right of the collective. ~ Thanks, "I'll be here all da week."
BTW, The smallpox vaccine that was used to justify Jacobson v. Massachusetts did not work.
As stated in this WEF article, the COVID19 vaccine “was a test of social responsibility.” It’s likely they wanted to know what percentage of the population would sign on to the climate change/ESG/carbon credit hoax to “save the planet.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/my-carbon-an-approach-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-cities/
Yeah don’t wanna, fsociety.
There is a simplistic way to wake people up on this, by turning the tables! All of the following are high risk groups for catching and spreading Covid, and more besides! So based on the science (but also partially in jest), I'd say we can argue, it's these groups that should be quarantined on a regular and/or permanent basis!
E.G.
1. Should all vaccinated people be quarantined for 2 to 3 weeks after every jab, whilst their immune system recovers and resets.
2. Should all un-healthy people be quarantined for the greater good of healthier people until they can pass a medical showing good health? Included in this group could be people with high BMI's, people with immune deficiencies, people with the flu, etc!
I believe it's more or less proven that vaccinated people are now at higher risk of regular bouts of Covid variants, hospital visits and are therefore putting pure blood humans at risk for a variety of reasons, not least of which is helping spread infinite variants, which may eventually raise the risk for unvaccinated people!
Therefore using Cov-Idiocy logic it can easily be argued that if anyone should be quarantined then it should be the vaccinated and/or unhealthy people.
However with the exception of No. 2 above, I am joking! I take responsibility for my own health and I realise no one is perfect. However it might be considered reasonable for an unvaccinated person to expect a recently vaccinated person to take 2 weeks off work to help keep me safe? After all it was their choice, not to rely on (and or look after), their own God given immune system, not mine!
At the end of the day I am very healthy, I've never take any vaccines since childhood (as i'd like to think medicine was not corrupted back then), and now in my late 50's I am doing fine. And all that despite my fair share of partying, hangovers, global travel and well over my fair share of being sociable throughout the pandemic!
I find this reasoning entirely satisfactory. Thank you for laying it out so clearly in language an old codger like me can readily comprehend.
Sadly, in an age where ignorance and belligerence are “celebrated” and deep and subtle thought is derided as “racist” (as though “people of color” are incapable of reasoning at a level much above the satisfaction of base biologic urges -- a case of projection if there ever was one) it is a sermon heard only by the choir, I fear.
Lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, are just stepping stones toward our dystopian future. Sure, there has been some pushback but there has also been a certain level of acceptance, of normalization. This is really simple. If we desire to retain our free will, our agency, there cannot be any compromise, any acceptance of this crap. There has to categorical rejection of such future. If we don’t this, the criminals intend to deliver us to their desired destination, inch by inch, if needed. A critical mass of us must vomit these people and their visions out of our systems. Any "compromises" mean inevitable death to us. There can be a great variety of ideas how to do it, but that we need to do it must be an absolute point of unity.