Resisting Vaccine Mandates - with words, at least

SCANALYZER Tracking with Closeups
1

I work as an independent contractor physician at a drug/alcohol rehab, which has just notified all its employees and contractors that, on pain of withdrawal of Medicare and Medicaid funding (80% of this institution’s) ALL workers must be vaccinated. Here is the letter I wrote in response.

Dear Mr. CEO:
For personal reasons and not without ambivalence, I decided to be vaccinated, so I will not present [name of institution omitted] any problems insofar as the latest ill-advised mandate imposed by our betters in Washington. As well, by my own choice, I wear a mask indoors and a PAPR when taking care of patients. None of this means, however, that I think this mandate is moral or right. Were the death rate from Covid in the range of 50% like Ebola for example, it would be a different calculus. The fatality rate of Covid, though, is in the same range as a bad flu season, so I believe vaccination ought to be an individual choice. No one should be forced when it comes to vaccination for this pathogen with its low death rate. Once “the public good” is invoked by the state to eliminate individual choice when it comes to health, virtually any command can and will be justified by the state; there is then no limiting principle to restrict its power to eliminate an individual’s rights and prerogatives. Enlarging the state’s power is not an unmitigated good, by any means. This is not new knowledge - “the camel’s nose under the tent” aphorism applies here.

Further, note the indirect and underhanded means by which the state is attempting to enforce its mandate. Rather using its putative police power over individuals (which it probably lacks under the Constitution) to force vaccination, it is underhandedly acting indirectly by making employers act in the stead of state police by threatening citizens’ employment. This is more reminiscent of Gestapo or Mafia tactics than those of a state forever advertising its benevolence. A business or an individual using such extortionate means would face prosecution under the RICO statutes. The federal government was never intended to be able to extort the states or businesses financially as it is now doing. It is blatantly immoral and not really Constitutional. But most people no longer judge our government’s morality or lawfulness; rather, most simply ask “What’s in it for me”"

Regarding consent, ancient wisdom (all of which hard won knowledge our intellectuals - in their impressive and unearned arrogance - are busy tearing down) said: " Qui tacet consentit " or “silence gives consent”. Since I strongly believe this present coercive approach is totalitarian in ethos and therefore wrong as a moral matter, I cannot be silent; I feel obliged to at least make my disagreement clear and explicit. In the America in which I grew up, I could voice such disagreement without fear of retribution. In today’s America on the other hand, the ‘new normal’ puts one at risk for even voicing disagreement with the near religious rubrics of the day, imposed by zealous big government, big tech and the so-called media. If I am to be penalized for disagreement, for what used to be Constitutionally-protected speech, then so be it. Since [name of institution] is the agent being used by the government to coerce citizens (or are we really subjects?), it is to [name of institution] that I must object - for what it is worth.

What is cynically called “he public good” is in far more danger from the “new-and-improved” fascism in which we live and of which this mandate’s implementation is an example. It is indeed the definition of fascism when big business - especially with the unprecedented power of the tech giants - media and government speak with one single voice and censor or silence all differing views on any issue. Have these institutions in which all societal power resides, ever been in greater alliance than they are right now? History teaches such alliances in the past have universally ended badly.

As to my belief that such government mandates by fiat (actual scientific evidence is not very impressive for any of these novel mandates) are a great danger to “the public good”, one need only be passing familiar with the history of the 20th century to find overwhelming evidence that concentrated state combined with corporate power, extinguished the lives of scores of millions of civilians - not to mention a similar number of military deaths. All this was justified under the same precept - "the public good. These facts are amply documented in this book: Death by Government by RJ Rummel. The point is that massive coercion of populations under the pretext of “the public good” is an infinitely elastic proposition and, once begun, will only expand to permit the state to command ever more of formerly individual prerogatives. The more important point is that the outcome of such coercion - despite its putative benevolence - it morally wrong and results, inevitably, in much suffering and death.

In closing, I want to cite C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

I apologize for being long. I know you are busy and I do not want to waste your time. I want to add that recovery has taught me a great deal about life. Among those lessons is the realization that good and spiritual interactions with others are only possible to the extent that they are voluntarily entered into. This led me to coin a saying (probably others have thought of it, too): “You can’t coerce a community into existence”. It is attraction, rather than promotion (or coercion) which allows AA and all 12-step programs to work. The same principle, I believe, scales up to society (and the public good) at large. It cannot be coerced into existence.

Please do not feel the need to reply. I don’t think [name of institution] has gotten to the point (at least as yet) where it feels the need to fire me for speaking out in disagreement. I know neither you or [name of institution] has any control over the matter. So, you need not take up any more of your valuable time to reply. Writing this has served my need to not remain silent so as to not allow anyone to ascribe my consent to remaining silent. This seems to be the only way I can offer resistance to what I deeply believe is immoral, wrong and unjust. I also believe it will ultimately do far more harm than good, so I must speak out. I hope you can understand my motives in doing so.

Sincerely,

10 Likes
2

This is particularly nasty! Many reasonable people look at the data and decide that the mandated injectable treatment is not something they want in their bodies. But if a person stood on the facts and refused to be injected, the business entity would lose its FedGov funding, and that person’s co-workers would lose their jobs, throwing their families into trouble. Who would want to have that on his conscience?

This is truly evil. Even the old line Mafia baulked at threatening to rape the daughter unless the father did as he was told.

3 Likes
3

There must be, eventually, a reckoning for this. May I suggest calling to account of those responsible at a trial in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania?

4 Likes
4

For the same reason you wrote your letter, I wrote a similar letter to the H.R. department of the small business I work for one week ago, that stated:

Name Witheld,

I am sorry you and Name Witheld have to deal with an out of control federal government.

Here is my vaccination info.

–Ron Montesano
(ATTACHED was photo of CDC record of vaccine not included in this post)

After reading your letter, I am compelled to cc the owners and clearly explain why the vaccine mandates are unconstitutional and immoral so they have proper response to oligarchs when pushed too far.

Also, Swiss referendum went against Freedom. Sad. It is our duty as citizens, to speak up and counteract lies propagated by Big Gov/Media/Tech .

3 Likes
5

Justice after World War II was swift and certain, relative to crimes against humanity since then.

Certainly a trial is justified for those responsible for Covid, and those that overreacted ought to pay some price for the economic destruction they ushered in.

Godspeed.

4 Likes
6

Political Class over-reaction has certainly caused massive economic harm – but don’t forget about the medical harm they have also caused. There are spikes in “non-Covid” mortality due to delayed treatments for cancer, heart, and stroke conditions. And those deaths probably represent a lot more lost months of life compared to the mostly rather elderly & sick who were susceptible to Covid.

It seems the “No Free Lunch” hypothesis applies equally to decisions on health matters and on economic matters.

5 Likes
7

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Monday issued a preliminary injunction on the mandate, which requires health-workers to be vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022.

Maybe this applies.

4 Likes
8

To the best of my knowledge, the ruling itself only applies in certain states - but not all. It appears it has given the white house (sic) pause. The fact they “quietly delay” means they are hoping the Gestapo - a.k.a. health care employers beholden to the government - will go ahead anyway and compel their employees regardless.

2 Likes
9

I refused to reveal my vaccine status at the NASA contractor for which I work. They told me I could get fired. I told them go ahead. I did not wish to work for a superstitious technology organization

So far I am still there. I am not going to blink.

7 Likes
10

There was a report of a hospital closing its ER for lack of nurses. I wonder if such events will be accurately reported or if they will be downplayed.

1 Like
11

I was one of those old folks who got vaccinated as soon as possible. But then I read Microbe Hunters when I was in the fourth grade and fully understand the value of tuning up your immune system.

I am well known for my libertarian orientation. Unfortunately, I can see the reason to be coercive. If the virus only affected the purposely unvaccinated and killed them without clogging up the hospitals, I would say this improves the gene pool. However, the virus that circulates among the unvaccinated not only spills over into other groups, but it mutates as we have seen lately. That makes the vaccine less effective for those of us who willingly got it.

When the vaccines were first coming out, someone said that to end a pandemic you need a smart population or a compliant one. Big parts of the western population are neither. The pandemic would be mostly over if the vaccine uptake was in the high 90s, but there does not seem to be much prospect for that, so it will drag on possibly till we run out of Greek letters.

2 Likes
12

Nonsense. This disease is behaving like most diseases with a big initial deadly wave followed by waves that are more contagious and less deadly. And for the unvaccinated who got the disease before the vaccines there is almost zero reason to get vaccinated - and most of the reasons deal with superstition not science. The science shows those with natural immunity don’t spread the disease. The science also shows those that are vaccinated do spread it.

This virus is not particularly deadly. What is deadly is the moral panic that has accompanied it. Over the next year or so there will be more dead due to cancers not caught early enough or other chronic conditions not treated in a timely manner due to the lockdowns and suspension of “elective” procedures. Only somehow, those will not be counted.

I woulld also bet that covid accounts for half or less of the deaths attributed to it. There was a front page article in my local paper two months ago about a four-year-old who died of covid. Last week the autopsy report was released - she did not die from covid, but apparently was subject to seizures. Died from those. No damage was found consistent with death by covid.

7 Likes
13

The UK has over 90 percent of the population that has antibodies either from the vaccine or natural immunity.

image
image783×876 72.9 KB

That alone blows your whole theory to hell.

Even if you were technically correct that 90 percent vaccination would kill the virus off, the fact that the virus is global and the vaccine efficacy drops rapidly means that the entire world would need to be vaccinated within a few months. That is completely impractical. The latest variant most likely comes from Southern Africa and has spread to Europe and likely the US before being identified. So that idea is just completely impractical.

6 Likes
14

Vaccine? What vaccine?

The experimental gene therapies being forced on us all are not what was previously known as a vaccine. The long-term effects of those therapies are unknown.

What is known is that the Covid virus is not a significant threat to the vast majority of us. The people at risk are clearly identified – the elderly and those with pre-existing health issues; not dissimilar to the now-vanished flu, as so many have pointed out. And societies have learned how to deal with the flu and help the susceptible sub-group of the population without locking down economies and doing immense long-term societal damage.

3 Likes
15

“more contagious and less deadly.”

That’s the most common, but not always, the second go-around of the 1918 flu was more deadly than the first.

“And for the unvaccinated who got the disease before the vaccines there is almost zero reason to get vaccinated - and most of the reasons deal with superstition not science. The science shows those with natural immunity don’t spread the disease. The science also shows those that are vaccinated do spread it.”

I have followed the science reports over the last two years closely. Immunity wanes from the vaccine, but so does immunity from infection. I don’t think you can cite real science that supports your view.

“This virus is not particularly deadly.”

As such things go, I agree with you. It’s not a patch on the first SARs. Still, it knocked a couple of years off the average lifespan in the US.

" What is deadly is the moral panic that has accompanied it. Over the next year or so there will be more dead due to cancers not caught early enough or other chronic conditions not treated in a timely manner due to the lockdowns and suspension of “elective” procedures. Only somehow, those will not be counted."

Seriously, how would you cope with a hospital full of people on ventilators? They chew up resources that would otherwise go to treating cancer and such. However, I can’t see them being told to go home and die or left in the parking lot. The main reason for the lockdowns was to prevent the hospitals from being swamped. Vaccination, even with waning immunity, is known to prevent severe disease19 times out of 20.

“I would also bet that covid accounts for half or less of the deaths attributed to it.”

I don’t think you can make a case for this. The excess deaths over the pandemic are close to that attributed to covid.

You might note that I am not recommending that you get vaccinated. One person isn’t going to make any difference except when you decide close to death that vaccination was something you should have done. That often influences your friends and family.

Turning a pandemic disease into a religious/political movement is rather amazing to someone who was there at the end of polio. Though having worked in memetics and evolutionary psychology, I do understand how memes have such an influence.

Memeoid – a Neologism for people who have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential. Examples include kamikazes, suicide bombers and cult members who commit mass suicide. The term was apparently coined by H. Keith Henson in “Memes, L5 and the Religion of the Space Colonies,” L5 News , September 1985 pp. 5–8,[44] and referenced in the expanded second edition of Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene (p. 330). (From wikipedia.)

2 Likes
16

You @keith_henson have earned my respect with your posts on this site. Many of the contentious issues of our modern society - like this one which are close calls and on which reasonable people of good will can disagree - come down to an allocation of error. That is, coming down on which side is more likely to cause long term harm. Coming as it does during a tremendous increase of state power versus the individual, the Covid vaccination debate has become the cutting, bleeding edge of this issue.

The moment the state says, “it if for the health or the nation” or “it if for the general good” a responsible citizen (although I submit we are now subjects, not citizens, in light of the aforementioned leap in state power -and the heightened willingness to use it promiscuously in all walks of life) must ask: “What is the limiting principle as to the exercise of this power”? How far can it be taken"? I submit that, when it comes to “protecting our health”, “saving a single life”, or “the public good”, there no longer exist any limiting principles as to the power of the state, as far as about half the population is concerned.

Today’s mostly leftist statists are prepared to use all power of the state (and big tech) when it comes to compliance with their quasi-religious views of the utopia they plan to impose. Covid is but a demonstration project. Many of them have already unabashedly said things about denying care to or outright killing the unvaccinated. As I said in the OP, this bodes ill for the future of a decent society which includes any personal liberty beyond hedonic license as described by Bork. As I see it, that is an even worse harm than forcing vaccination on those who do not wish it.

5 Likes
17

Perhaps because the human beings compiling the attributions want to get the financial benefits of classifying the death of an elderly person with multiple health problems as being caused by Covid.

Sadly, “Science” has traded its heritage & credibility for a few bucks. You can thank Fauci for that – but he has had a lot of help.

3 Likes
18

I don’t know how many of you here actually work in a hospital. I was an ED physician for 44 years, retiring Jan 2020, just ahead of the initial sweep of the virus (which should by naming custom be called the Wuhan Flu).

To the comment about hospital overcrowding, I can’t remember a time we weren’t overcrowded. While working in an urban ED in Chicago for 7 years and another 10 years in urban suburban hospitals around Chicago, we routinely held 5 or more admissions for which there were no beds, for periods up to 48 hours, waiting for a bed to open up. In Johnstown, PA, during the H1N1 epidemic, being the locums doctor, I got to see most of the patients who were either suspected of having or DID have H1N1. The ED was overflowing with patients, most of whom we sent home to take zinc and Vit C, that being at least as effective as Tamiflu, which was in short supply.

So to all the hand-wringing about overcrowding because of WufFlu, I raise the BS flag. WuFlu is way overdiagnosed at the government’s encouragement - because of reimbursement. Hospitals get a premium that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% if caring for a WuFlu patient. So the person hit by a car but happening to test positive for WuFlu is coded as a WuFlu patient, even though their case had nothing to do with WuFlu!

?Did anyone notice that while influenza killed 40-100,000/per year. suddenly there isn’t any influenza. ?How did that happen. I am incredulous, close to speechless.

There are those who believe some potential mitigation of effects (and that appears to be ONLY for the initial strain) is worth taking a medication whose long term track record is non-existent. Their choice. Others are rightfully skeptical of a “vaccine” that neither protects you from getting the disease nor keeps you from spreading it, and now seemingly doesn’t even give you improved results when you DO catch the bug. We don’t know much about mRNA drugs but we do know that they tried to make a SARS vaccine with it - with abysmal failure. Take that however you will.

8 Likes
19

“the Covid vaccination debate has become the cutting, bleeding edge of this issue.”

It’s an old issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/04/01/vaccine-supreme-court-smallpox-covid/

I don’t think the “leftist statists” are even close in consequence to the scientists and engineers who are pushing the state of the art. Eventually, that’s going to lead to the technological singularity. Something might emerge beyond that point. Will we consider it human? I don’t know.

But to give you an idea, it’s not hard to predict something that spreads like covid, affects your brain, and completely changes your beliefs. I am not going to go into details, but something close has already been demonstrated.

As for the rest of your concerns, people have long been denied treatments such as liver transplants when they continue drinking alcohol.

20

" (which should by naming custom be called the Wuhan Flu)."

I don’t think so. Covid and flu are not even remotely related.

" ?Did anyone notice that while influenza killed 40-100,000/ per year . suddenly there isn’t any influenza. ?How did that happen. I am incredulous, close to speechless."

It shows that behavior changes to keep down one respiratory virus suppresses another. It was impressive, there I agree with you.

Your last paragraph is in conflict with what I have read in Science, Nature and the NEJM.