3 Comments
Jan 12, 2022Liked by Applied Complexity Science

Compellingly clear and coherent. Irrefutable. Therein lies the tension at play: it is morally inadequate to deny an individual’s sovereignty even if doing so is supported by statistical outcomes for the group at large. It is mind blowing that free world leaders dismiss or ignore this base reality of all humanity.

Expand full comment

In addition to general considerations of mandated treatment vs not, more than general principles have to be considered, as the outlines are full of abstract mostly relative, few absolute boundaries. Particulars of the situation at hand have to be thoroughly considered, too, and adjusted as more is known. No-exception mandated treatment"vaccine" for anything, in this case

vaccines, cannot be justified, for instance re: anyone who has history of allergy to any component of the treatment/"vaccine", anyone who has had Guillain-Barre Syndrome after a vaccine in the past, documentation previous infection with resultant immunity to X virus, etc. I'm omitting the case of religious exemptions, but they are important, too, for people serious about their religion, such as Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses (there may be others), as the moral injury to them if subjected to forced vaccines is grave. In the instance before us, I am offended/shocked/outraged that those in charge of policy refuse to recognize prior infection as a reason for waiver of mandate. I do umpteen pre-employment physicals for RNs going to work in big medical centers, ERs, etc. The comprehensive pre-employment evaluation includes drawing blood to test for antibodies to measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and hepatitis B. If the resultant antibody titers indicate immunity no vaccine or booster is required. Why are they treating Covid differently? Makes no sense, and suggests agenda other than public health. Furthermore, all Covid vaccines currently available in the US are still under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). True informed consent is required by US law for anyone to be treated with experimental drugs/vaccines. It is legally and factually impossible for ANYONE to give true informed consent under threat of loss of livelihood/job, and in the case of these "vaccines", true informed consent is actively blocked. This crucial requirement is also a part of the Nuremburg Code, which sadly most of which was not incorporated into US law.

Now that there is cumulative 2-years experience with Covid, and a little over 1-year experience with the so-called "vaccines", we sadly know at the very least that the available vaccines have marginal benefit and for very brief time, that the available vaccines neither prevent infection nor transmission, so should be reclassified as (possibly) temporary partial prophylaxis. As a physician for 55 years, my alarm bells went off early, when there was coordinated, fierce, condemnation against clinical use of Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin early in course of Covid infections, with immediate threats by licensing boards across virtually all 50 states against any doctors who would dare to try such early treatment. And the ridiculous fear propaganda on all main-stream-media warning that for instance, that Hydroxychloroquine is a "dangerous drug!" and could cause serious cardiac problems (that is only true in massive doses). Rheumatologists Rx Hydroxychloroquine like candy for their patients with inflammatory arthritis, lupus, sometimes sarcoid, without a second thought nor requiring cardiology clearance, Rx'd for its safe non-steroid antiinflammatory properties. So much of the early and continuing propaganda was so clearly bogus, but so many doctors were afraid to speak up because of threats against their licenses should they dare to talk about or (gasp) try a course of Hydroxychloroquine early in someone with Covid. Later the same boom was lowered against any doctor who dared to talk about or Rx Ivermectin, also with outlandishly hilarious propaganda across all main-stream-media formats, again with many doctors silenced having been warned that their licenses to practice were at risk. I've never seen any such campaign against repurposing known, legal, safe medicines. I once had to Rx Ivermectin or almost 100 inmates at a minimum security prison because of rampant crusting scabies unresponsive to the usual topical creams. It cured everybody's scabies and no one has any side effects (and many had chronic diseases from cardiac, to diabetes, HIV, Hep C, autoimmune diseases). I'm not afraid to speak up or write a response such as this one. liberated by the fact that I'm 85 y/o, have retired twice, and currently do some work just in Occupational Medicine (trucker physicals, pre-employment physicals, minor work injuries), and I have less to lose than younger doctors, and if I get fired for speaking out, so be it. Serious conflicts of interests in many areas have yet to be seriously explored: Who owns whole or partial patents on the viruses and the "vaccines"? Who among those "in charge" own stock in Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J??? I mean at the level of Congress, the NIH, NIAD, relevant universities such as UNC, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, various Univ-cum-private researchers who who stand to profit, too. Who is getting funding from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, the Gates Foundation. It is already so clear that the CDC and FDA have been captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate, I don't know if they are salvageable. So when analyzing the pros and cons of treatment/vaccine mandates very narrowly and abstractly, much of the big picture will be missed entirely. And, last but not least, since the "vaccines" were granted EUA status after such a short time without adequate testing of enough numbers with a control group, nobody, I mean nobody knows whether or what any long term harms from these "vaccines" will be, if any.

One thing enforcing strict vaccine mandates will do, very cleverly, whether intended or not, is to eliminate any significant "control" group, thus foreclosing the ability to compare the "treated" group with the untreated. From a future legal defense standpoint, that must make the legal departments of all the potential defendants very happy.

Expand full comment