Why Vaccine Mandates / Communist Medicine Are Unjustifiable Crimes Against Humanity
Vaccine mandates, eugenics, and racism share the same deplorable logic
The intellectual foundation of mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passes is built on the same dehumanizing paradigm underlying racism and pre-crime (punishing people for their “potential to commit a crime,” not actually committing crimes) . It is thus not surprising the same types of people violating the Nuremberg convention today share much in common with the Germans who murdered Jews and gypsies because of their race over 75 years ago.
Stating the Obvious
If you have a vaccine that is not effective at all, literally 0% effective, then it is obvious that no one should take it, let alone that anyone should be forced to take it. Although, I am sure Bill Gates and his fellow technocrats could come up with some fake reason to still try to justify it to usher people into their Orwellian ID2020 dystopia where everything you do is tracked in the name of “keeping everyone safe.”
But if you have a vaccine that is 100% effective, there is likewise no reason to mandate vaccines. If the vaccine actually works and you have taken it, you should have no concern that the unvaccinated will give you a disease. Again, this should be obvious, and people should be left to make their own decisions.
But what people do not get is that when the powers that be try to mandate vaccines, they are actually arguing the vaccines do not work, at least not 100%. Most people who are anti vaccine do not seem to recognize this fact: vaccination efficacy is not binary.
The Philosophy Behind Communist Medicine
Vaccine efficacy, as with the efficacy of most all medicines, is usually well below 100%. Let’s say it is 50% effective, right between the 100% and 0%. In that case giving the vaccine will reduce the risk to an individual, but it will not eliminate it. The vaccine Nazis will then argue we need vaccines to reduce the aggregate risk to society as there is a cumulative effect of “herd immunity” the more people who are partially protected. By protecting everyone 50%, the cumulative probability is reduced individually for each extra person that takes the vaccine because the assumption is 50% less disease is spread per person.
There are some obvious flaws to this argument. The first of which is the blind assumption that just because a vaccine prevents infections means it prevents the spread of those infections. You could have asymptomatic transmission by those who were vaccinated and did not come down with the disease. Indeed at the FDA panel meeting to review the EUA for the vaccines this point was highlighted by the panel, that we had no evidence that transmission was prevented by the vaccinated. Several public officials have echoed this same sentiment.
Surely there are some mechanistic reasons why you might be able transmit on a successful vaccination. It has been mentioned that the antibodies produced by the mucus membranes are different than those produced in the blood. Vaccinated people only have had blood exposure, since it was an unnatural transmission. This is in fact one of the many reasons natural immunity is always better than vaccine induced immunity.
However, I do not believe this is such a far fetched assumption that vaccination prevents transmission. This is because I believe most of the evidence so far indicates that what we were told about asymptomatic transmission was a bold faced lie. There have been several studies since that have failed to identify any significant contribution of asymptomatic transmission in the spread of the disease (see a discussion of one study study that found zero asymptomatic transmissions in 10 million subjects here).
The people on the panel had to keep an intellectual position consistent with their narrative that asymptomatic transmission is a big problem. I, on the other hand, believe in intellectual consistency. I think we have a lack of compelling evidence of asymptomatic transmission so it is very likely the vaccinated are less likely to transmit the disease. Whether they contribute to expanding numbers of variants due to a “leaky vaccine” of just one component of the virus, that is a different question. That being said, I do think it is reasonable that the vaccine Nazis prove their assumption on transmissibility, even though I believe they are likely correct, prior to mandating anything.
But to me, the more troublesome aspect of this is the ideology that we maximize what is good for the group at the expense of the individual. The technocrats treat society as a mathematical equation looking to minimize transmission, not giving a damned about the individual or their natural rights. This utilitarian folly has been the intellectual basis of some of the most horrific movements throughout history. Indeed it is the public justification of many tyrannies and full on communism. After all, the truth is the first thing to fall when liberty wanes, and regimes will always claim the best intentions even when their hearts are blacker than coal.
Eugenicists argued over 100 years ago for sterilizing “inferior” human beings while promoting the selective breeding of the highest IQ individuals. This would undoubtedly increase the capability of society, if just looking at the cold hard math. By the vaccine passport math of dry utilitarianism, this would be justifiable.
On this basis compulsory sterilization laws were instituted even within the United States itself to get rid of the unwanted lesser people. A very flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1927 in Buck v. Bell upheld the right of the state of Virginia to forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck because she was labeled “feebleminded” by the state. It is not a surprise that the same court ruling that advocates of a Constitutional right to “forced vaccinations” Jacobson v. Massachusetts (actually it was for a $5 fine for not vaccinating, not forced vaccinations) was cited in precedent in the Buck ruling, showing you the same authoritarian tendencies used to justify vaccination laws were used to justify forced sterilizations. By the way this is the same horrible ruling that Alan Dershowitz cited when he confidently stated, “The United States Supreme Court, more than 100 years ago, ruled that the public health power of government extends to mandating vaccines against highly communicable and often lethal diseases.” This decision and the logic behind it to 70,000 forced sterilizations just in the US. Corrupt Supreme Courts do get things wrong, and people citing those decisions as a good model should be held accountable for the consequences of those viewpoints. Therefore I assume based on his support of this decision and the rationale behind it, Dershowitz must also be okay with the forced sterilizations that ultimately resulted from it.
[Note, I will quote Dershowitz mostly in this article, because he probably has made the best defense of vaccine mandates out there. He literally wrote the book on it. One thing I admire about him is normally he is good at taking intellectually consistent opinions, even if they are unpopular. I just think he has seriously gone off the deep end on this one, perhaps because he has this deep religious like view of establishment scientists like most people seem to have. As someone trained as a scientist and who used to analyze trials for a living, I know how truly corrupt the system is.]
We all know that Hitler used the same rationale “for the good of society” to send Jews and other “undesirables” such as the infirm and the Romanish (gypsies) to concentration camps where they were exterminated. The holocaust was justified by the Nazis in terms of “making society better” by ignoring the individual and individual rights and treating “the good of the state” in creating a society that was better because it was more racially pure. Again, just because the state claims a greater good, that does not make it true, just like the FDA rubber stamping a vaccine approval without long term follow up data does not make it “safe.” Whether true or not, the individual right should be upheld.
The Nazis also experimented on these prisoners without their consent, using them as human lab rats. After World War II, the Nuremberg Code was published in 1947 and later widely adopted enshrining the concept of “informed consent” of the INDIVIDUAL even if the society had their (often unjustified) reasons for doing it.
Now many nations are deliberately violating the Nuremberg code in the name of vaccine mandates as history repeats itself. As I covered in another article, the Code is very broad and does not just outlaw forced injections, but also outlaws any form of direct or indirect coercion (inability to work or vote, for example) and even putting out misinformation to get people to take a treatment. And as to people saying this is not “experimental,” just because a trial has been rubber-stamped by some government agency in the pockets of big pharmaceuticals or Dr. Josef Mengele himself does not mean it is not experimental. It is the facts of the situation that are relevant, including the fact Pfizer never finished the original planned 2 year registration study as planned and severe adverse outcomes and deaths were 50% and 24% higher in absolute terms, respectively in the vaccine arm compared to placebo. Without long term follow up any treatment is by definition experimental.
Now Dershowitz has made the argument “The medical experimentation done by Dr. Josef Mengele and others in Auschwitz was designed to kill the patients, not to help them. Vaccines are designed to save lives. To make any analogy to the Holocaust is to suggest that the Holocaust was no worse than vaccination. That is a form of Holocaust denial, deserving only of condemnation.” Why would anyone believe anyone blindly believe coercive government bought and paid for by the large multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry that vaccines are meant to “save lives”? Do you think the Nazis ever admitted they were trying to kill the Jews with these experiments? Can you say a vaccine is trying to save lives when the last randomized data we have shows a 24% increase in mortality rate before the trials are stopped?
Dershowitz completely misses the point. It was about preserving individual rights and informed consent and had nothing to do with government intent. There is no statement of intent in the Nuremberg code because everyone knows governments can and do lie about intent. It was a statement that whatever reason the government gives is not enough to infringe upon an individual’s right to self determination. Indeed I would say the “experimental” is irrelevant. “My body, my choice,” should be the standard. Otherwise sterilization could be justified by some sort of perverted “good of society” decision calculus.
And it is completely bogus to for Mr. Dershowitz to claim “making an analogy” is to say “the Holocaust was no worse than vaccination.” Can anyone be this intellectually lazy? Who has ever made such as statement? Putting words in people’s mouths is a deflection from the heart of the matter. Analogies do not by default assign equal weight. If I make a comparison of the Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust, I am comparing them not saying the former was the same as the latter. People make analogies so we learn from the mistakes of the past. You see how poor legislative decisions were made and stop them before there is the potential to result in mass loss of lives. And make no mistake, if there is some large after effect after this untested vaccine given to billions of people it could very well result in more deaths than the Holocaust. I believe that is highly unlikely, but without long term follow up data, you just do not know. No one knows. That is why people are sounding the alarm now; so that potentiality does not arise. Moreover, the authoritarian society that the elite are using this COVID crisis (vaccine passports, shutdowns, mandatory testing and contact tracing, etc.) to usher in also could very well end up in a world wide tyranny that makes Hitler, Stalin, Mao look like choir boys. You stand for human rights now, so that never happens again. If society learns nothing from the Holocaust and the creeping authoritarianism that led to it then those people died in vain. That is why the Nuremberg code does not have “okay if you are trying to save lives” or “okay if the number of deaths is less than 6 million” exceptions.
And it is more than just eugenics that Nazis used to justify their mass incarcerations. Tyrannical governments always come up with more reasons, fact or fiction, for why they need to violate the rights of others. Hitler had other reasons he gave for putting Jews in concentration camps. One of the reasons put forth was that the Jews would sabotage the war effort as they were accused of doing so in World War I in return for the British government’s agreement to establish a homeland in Israel. This rationale served as one of many of Hitler’s scapegoats for the loss of World War I.
I mainly bring this up because it was not only Hitler that did this. During that same war, the United States locked up Japanese Americans under the same justification as Hitler! Sacrifice the rights of the individual because the group of individuals might have a greater likelihood of committing sabotage to the war efforts. Instead of treating people as individuals, many of which were probably loyal to the United States, they used pre-crime justification to punish them for their race in the name of the better good for the country at a time of war. The US had concentration camps too! Again I am not saying it was as bad as the Holocaust, but it was still massively horrific from a human rights perspective. And, again, the poor vaccine decision touted by Dershowitz, Jacobsen was used to justify this travesty as “constitutional” in court.
An Intellectually Consistent View Of Vaccine Mandates
Pro vaccine tyranny lawyers like Dershowitz have also said that “You have no right to spread the disease to me” Really? Shall we take that statement to its intellectual conclusion?
If that is the case, every person who spread COVID-19 to someone else in 2020 before the vaccines were available should be prosecuted for a tort by the person who got infected. That is essentially what Dershowitz is saying. If you do not have a right to transmit a disease to someone else, then you should be prosecuted.
This is an obviously untenable standard. Spreading a disease is and has always been an involuntary act. You cannot create a legal liability out of it unless you are deliberately harming someone. For example, if you know you have a deadly disease and deliberately go to crowded places, maybe you have an argument. But if someone had an individual obligation for damages to someone else for spreading a disease, everyone in the world would be a criminal!
Moreover, just getting vaccinated does not change anything. As we discussed earlier, for the vaccine mandates to have any justification, the effectiveness has to be substantially lower than 100%. That means that any person who is vaccinated can spread it. So if a vaccinated person spreads it, then they should be prosecuted as well. They should not get a free pass for getting vaccinated. Vaccination should have no influence on the liability if society decides it wants people to be liable for spreading a disease. Only the fact of whether you spread it or not, which we all know would be difficult if not impossible to prove anyway.
Similarly vaccinated people can in fact carry the disease and give it to other people after they get on a plane. Most unvaccinated people who get on a plane will not even have the disease and will not be a threat. If not all unvaccinated people are a threat, and some vaccinated people are, there is no justification to prevent airline travel or access to stores because people are individually liable, not collectively liable.
Any such restriction is based on relative risk of the group as a whole, and not the risk of that individual who may or may not be infected regardless of vaccination status. This is literally literally the exact mental process that happens with racism. If someone thinks a black person is more likely as a group to commit a crime based on the crime statistics, and does not hire them due to their race, then that is racism and the person is using the exact same argument that airlines or other entities might be using to exclude the unvaccinated from flights.
You have to have one standard that applies in all cases for intellectual consistency. We either treat people as individuals based on who they are or you aggregate people into groups and discard their individuality and discriminate against them based on their aggregate probability to do harm. Are we now to get the message from mandated vaccines that racism and discriminating based on perceived or real group tendencies is now okay? If vaccine passport are allowed, mark my word, pre-crime is next. If some AI algorithm determines you are likely to rob a store, then you can be locked up whether you have robbed anyone or not….all for the better of society. Its just the aggregate math, damn human freedom and individuality.
By the way, why just stop at vaccines? People who are obese probably have chronic inflammation and more likely to come down with COVID and then infect someone else. Should we then mandate they lose weight? Should we ban Big Macs? What about people who spend all day in doors and are vitamin D deficient? Should we mandate Vitamin D3 pills? We know that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 tend to have low Vitamin D3 levels.
When we make people responsible for the health of others and make the sate responsible for the health of everyone, then unrestricted tyranny will set in. The state will decide what you can and cannot put into your body. How many calories will you eat? What can you eat? The state will track and decide. If they can inject an experimental gene or cell therapy never used in large numbers of human beings before with no long term clinical trials for a disease with an annualized risk of dying of 0.02% then they can pretty much be given cart blanche to do ANYTHING “for the good of the communist unit.” Individual rights? What are those?
Do you realize this is why children around the world are being harmed now? The powers that be know that children are highly unlikely to get severe COVID-19. The risk reward requires significantly powered long term studies because the risk of severe disease and death is all but nonexistent relative to the potential side effects like myocarditis and pericarditis. The only reason you would rush this out is because you want to make junior take the risk so that he does not spread it to grandma and everyone else.
This is completely unethical. It is a bit like vaccinating a boys for HPV when they have no risk of cervical cancer (although some ignorant morons think males have cervices too now, since they think there is no such thing as biological gender), something that some irresponsible and unethical pediatricians commonly do. You should never have to take a treatment where the risks to the patient are known to be higher, for the benefit of someone else. It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath: “I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.” It is the definition of communist medicine, poison the individual for the greater good as determined by the technocrats who happened to benefit when big pharma companies benefit (through bribes or stock holding).
People should be responsible for their own bodies. No government or corporation has a right to tell you what to do with your body. The “common good arguments” are based on the same “treat people as a group instead of an individual” mentality that is the same basis of racism and most “common good” flawed logic used to commit some of mankind’s worst atrocities.
And every business and government official that violates the Nuremberg code should he held to the same consequences as the Nazis who violated the informed consent rights of their prisoners. It does not mater that they “did not realize they were being lied to” about the safety of the vaccines. These humans rights are self evident and inviolable. The Nazis were held accountable despite their violations being lawful and ordered by the state. Modern day violators do not even have the excuses the Nazis had, as they should know about the Nuremberg Code. They should know “informed consent” is an absolute right for those of sound mind (whether the treatment is experimental or not). They should know racism and treating people are groups instead of individuals is plain wrong. So they should be punished appropriately when the public eventually rebels in mass to the COVID Tyranny.
Very well-argued and logical article! Your points seem air tight. I would love to see a response/ rebuttal from Alan Dershowitz. Even though I generally disagree with him, I really respect that he agreed to a debate with RFK about vaccines and even recommended (while disagreeing with) RFK's new epic bestseller about Dr. Fauci.
Force (tyranny) vs Choice (freedom). ForceVax vs ChoiceVax.
They call you ANTI, you call them FORCE.