Author Topic: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers” (Read 273 times)

donkath · « **on:** August 11, 2020, 11:56:17 PM »

Tuesday, 11 August 2020

Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Written by C. Mitchell Shaw

Almost as soon as COVID-19 entered the public conversation, talk of a vaccine began to dominate the conversation. Of course, a vaccine was considered to be a thing of the future — years in the making, perhaps. Fast forward a mere few months — which were spent with the American people being worn down by lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, and an economy severely damaged by government overreach — and the promise of a vaccine has become the threat of what will happen to those who refuse it. This despite the fact that no fully tested vaccine even exists, and no one knows either how effective it might be or what side effects may come along with it.

The newest push for forced COVID-19 vaccination comes in the form of a USA Today op-ed piecepublished Thursday. Co-written by Dr. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman, and Dr. Stuart Youngner, the op-ed headline says that forcing vaccines is “not un-American, it’s patriotic.”

The authors are at the tip of the extremest spear where medical thinking is concerned.

Dr. Michael Lederman is a Professor of Medicine and an Infectious Disease Specialist who has publicly blamed President Trump for the pandemic. In a July 30 tweet, he wrote, “Ashamed and angry that the most robust scientific environment in the world was betrayed by an inept and fraudulent leadership and a fractured national health care infrastructure. I blame Trump for this pandemic Covid catastrophe.”

In January 2019, more than a year before the COVID-19 outbreak served as a pretext for massive government intrusion into both private lives and businesses, Lederman tweeted about how he thinks people who do not get vaccines should be dealt with. That tweet read:

Docs may chose to protect their patients by keeping antivaxers from their practices. immunization could be a prerequisite for health insurance. Unvaccinated transmitters of preventable infections could be sued by individuals and communities who acquire them.

Maxwell J. Mehlman is director of the Case Western Law Medicine Center and has deep ties to the liberal medical establishment and Big Pharma. Last year, he received a whopping $160,000 grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to perform analysis on genetic testing “to explore whether alternate governance approaches are needed to ensure non-traditional genetic experiments are conducted safely and ethically.” He is also the author of several books on genetic engineering, with such titles as “Transhumanist Dreams and Dystopian Nightmares: The Promise and Peril of Genetic Engineering,” “Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society,” “The Price of Perfection: Individualism and Society in the Era of Biomedical Enhancement,” and “Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality.” Let those titles sink in. Mehlman writes books about altering genes to enhance human beings and create both equality and a better society. In a saner era, the phrase “mad scientist” would likely have been used to describe someone who advocated such ideas.

But Mehlman is not alone there, either. The final contributor to the “Force People to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine” piece, Dr. Stuart J. Youngner, works with Mehlman at Case Western Reserve University and shares his colleague’s dark thinking where the concept of “bio-ethics” is concerned. The author of such books as The Definition of Death: Contemporary Controversies and End-Of-Life Decisions: A Psychological Perspective, he is a defender of the barbaric practice of “Regulated Euthanasia” as it is practiced in the Netherlands. And as for mad science: Youngner conducted experiments reanimating brain tissue in dead pigs.

These are the minds that seek to instruct Americans on the ethical issues of forcing people to be injected with a vaccine that is still being developed and may have God only knows what side effects. It’s almost as if everything that has come about as part of the pandemic was designed to force a vaccine advocated by men who specialize in altering human genes.

And while they may be experts in some fields (political hatred toward President Trump; altering human genes to create a newer, better humans; killing the elderly and sick; and creating FrankenPigs), they appear way out of their depth addressing the U.S. Constitution and the proper concept of liberty.

Their pro-mystery-vaccine screed begins:

To win the war against the novel coronavirus that has killed nearly 163,000 people in this country, the only answer is compulsory vaccination — for all of us.

And while the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty.

They then go into a logical tailspin from which they never really emerge, writing:

The reason [it will be “our patriotic duty” to get the vaccine]: When an effective vaccine is available for COVID-19, it will only defeat the pandemic if it is widely used, creating “herd immunity.” It is important to note that during an epidemic, there is no threshold above which the protection conferred by herd immunity cannot be improved. Thus, the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all of us, including those who are not vaccinated.

Wait. “Herd immunity” has been discussed quite a bit lately. And the pro-vax, pro-mask, pro-stay-home side has dismissed it as a myth. Now, the three Wise Men of the Apocalypse want to trot it out to make their point that immunity only comes by forcing people to get some yet-unknown injection? But they seem to realize that freedom-loving Americans are not likely to buy their spin, so they double down. That doubling down also departs from both logic and reason. Claiming that “the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all of us, including those who are not vaccinated” simply misses the point: If the vaccine works, those who take it are protected, while those who choose not to get vaccinated take their own risks.

Appearing to anticipate that way of thinking, the three Mad Scientists level a threat, writing a list of things “America must do when a vaccine is ready.” That list would make vaccines “free and easily accessible” and would make them compulsory with no exemptions. As for those who would refuse the vaccine on religious grounds, the answer is simple: “Do not honor religious objections.” What about those who refuse based on the principles of liberty? Nope: “Do not allow objections for personal preference, which violate the social contract.”

The unethical expounders of biomedical ethics then ask the million-dollar question: “How can government and society ensure compliance with protective vaccines?” Their answer is exactly the way they describe it in that second paragraph of their manifesto — “draconian.” They write:

Vaccine refusers could lose tax credits or be denied nonessential government benefits. Health insurers could levy higher premiums for those who by refusing immunization place themselves and others at risk, as is the case for smokers. Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry.

This would, of course, require a “registry of immunization” complete with “names entered after immunization is completed” and “expiration date-stamped certification cards.” What could be more un-American than forcing a novel drug on people, threatening them with losing the ability to be employed, to buy, to sell, to live unless they comply? This writer is not making a one-to-one comparison, but this smacks of the Mark of the Beast. Of course, the true one-to-one comparison is that both seem to have been born in the same mind. And this one is delivered to us by men who think government force is good, life is cheap, and playing God in the laboratory is the right thing to do.

The New American

See also :

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/36682-censoring-anti-mask-billboards-backfires-birch-society-freedom-message-sails-on?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_12_2_2019_15_37_COPY_01)&mc_cid=4d25bd337d&mc_eid=b43cabfe19

Mr G · « **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2020, 07:26:53 AM »

A mad medical ethics professor agrees:

'Morality pills' may be the US's best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

https://theconversation.com/amp/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601?__twitter_impression=true

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2020, 07:37:02 AM »

"It’s almost as if everything that has come about as part of the pandemic was designed to force a vaccine advocated by men who specialize in altering human genes."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2020, 07:45:55 AM »

“Claiming that “the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all of us, including those who are not vaccinated” simply misses the point: If the vaccine works, those who take it are protected, while those who choose not to get vaccinated take their own risks.”

Venantius0518 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2020, 08:36:04 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 12, 2020, 07:45:55 AM

“Claiming that “the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all of us, including those who are not vaccinated” simply misses the point: If the vaccine works, those who take it are protected, while those who choose not to get vaccinated take their own risks.”

This is one thing I never understood about provax people. If people are inoculated and can't get the disease, why do they care if someone doesn't get inoculated? They only risk themselves...

Cera · « **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2020, 01:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on August 12, 2020, 07:26:53 AM

A mad medical ethics professor agrees:

'Morality pills' may be the US's best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

https://theconversation.com/amp/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601?__twitter_impression=true

Thank you for posting this shocking information. In the big picture, it looks like predictive programming. Also looks like Soviet-style psychiatric lockups for those who refuse the vaccine. It's similar to the news last week of a teen boy being given estrogen due to a dx made by a non-psychiatrist and without the knowledge or consent of the parents.
Key points in the linked article:
how to induce those who are non-cooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good.

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

. . . substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that . . . the best thing to do is cooperate.

defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.

Mr G · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2020, 02:06:00 PM »

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative?utm_source=editor_picks&utm_campaign=standard

ugust 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A coronavirus vaccine should be mandatory, and tax penalties, higher insurance premiums, and denial of many government and private services ought to be considered for those refusing the shot, three doctors argued in USA Today on Thursday.
“[W]hile the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty,” wrote Drs. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman, and Stuart Youngner.

There is no “alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic,” they argued. “Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic.”
The USA Today article, published August 6, is titled “Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It's not un-American, it's patriotic.” Its original subhead (see screenshot below) read, “Make vaccines free, don't allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won't be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others.” It has since been changed to “Make vaccines free, don't allow religious or personal objections, and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.”

Screenshot of how the USA Today article's subhead originally appeared, via Internet archive
“When a vaccine is ready,” the doctors wrote, it must be free and exemptions must only be made for people with “medical contraindications to immunization.”
But “medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare,” they claimed. No religious or personal objections to receiving the shot or shots should be honored, they wrote, and harsh penalties should be adopted by important sectors of society to pressure the populace to comply.
The physicians proposed, “Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry.”
They then outlined how a “registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed.” People who receive the vaccine should be issued “certification cards” with expiration dates (“the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may require periodic booster immunizations”).
The concept of “immunization cards” or digital vaccine records was floated shortly before the coronavirus outbreak and since the virus has spread.

SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite's daily headlines

SUBSCRIBE
U.S. Canada World Catholic

A December 2019 article in Scientific American described the vision of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers for embedding vaccine records “directly into the skin” of children.

“Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.”
The development of this idea, which the article proudly noted avoids using “iris scans” that might violate privacy, was “funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” It “came about because of a direct request from Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates himself, who has been supporting efforts to wipe out diseases such as polio and measles across the world.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of Trump’s top pandemic advisers, said in April that he thought it was “possible” that one day Americans may have to carry certificates showing they are immune to the coronavirus.

“I think it might actually have some merit under certain circuмstances,” he said.
Also in April, Gates speculated, “Eventually, we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Lederman, Mehlman, and Youngner concluded by comparing Americans’ fight against the coronavirus to World War I and World War II. Around 37 million casualties can be attributed to World War I, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. World War II was even deadlier, with 70 million to 85 million deaths – including those due to famine, the h0Ɩ0cαųst, disease, and other war-related factors – being attributable to it.

As of press time, worldwide, there have been 20,383,417 million reported coronavirus cases but only 741,707 reported deaths. 13,281,928 people have contracted the virus and recovered. These numbers may not be accurate due to the unreliability of COVID-19 tests and reporting systems in the United States – which has seen people who were never even tested for the virus receive positive results, the governor of Ohio receiving both positive and negative test results on the same day, and at least one person who died in a motorcycle crash coded as a COVID-19 death – and the likelihood of communist China, where the virus originated, downplaying its infection and death rates.

During World War I and World War II, “Everyone contributed, no one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with a sense of autonomy, and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties,” the doctors wrote. “True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons, but they were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in noncombatant roles. There are no such alternatives for vaccination.”
In a recent online debate on mandatory vaccinations, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out that a significant percentage of participants in a recent trial for a leading coronavirus vaccine have been hospitalized.

Kennedy, a liberal environmental attorney and member of the Kennedy political dynasty, also noted that several of the coronavirus vaccine developers, a number of which have received funding from Bill Gates, have been forced to pay billions of dollars in criminal penalties related to their medical products.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines,” Kennedy said.

In an April 9 article, Kennedy wrote: “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.”

Kennedy has been raising awareness about those injured by vaccines since before the coronavirus outbreak and has now emerged as one of the strongest voices against a forced COVID-19 vaccine.

Many immunizations are made from cell lines of aborted babies, and a number of the coronavirus vaccines being developed are also using immorally obtained fetal cell lines.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today that his country has approved the world’s first coronavirus vaccine and that one of his daughters received both doses of it. “Questions over its [the vaccine’s] safety remain,” noted one CNN headline, with another asking, “ … would you take a vaccine from Vladimir Putin?”

Cera · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2020, 05:11:52 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on August 12, 2020, 02:06:00 PM

… would you take a vaccine from Vladimir Putin?”

If I had to choose between a Fauchi shot and a Putin shot, I'd have to go with the one who did NOT fund the Wuhan virus research, and who is NOT heavily invested in vaccines.

Author Topic: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers” (Read 273 times)

donkath

Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Mr G

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

SeanJohnson

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

SeanJohnson

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Venantius0518

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Cera

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Mr G

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”

Cera

Re: Mad Scientists Propose Forcing COVID-19 Vaccine, Punishing “Refusers”