There is not even one saline placebo controlled randomised study comparing longevity and all cause morbidity between vaccinated and all-vaccine-free people. There is another level to this question: 1) even if vaccines increased longevity in the past, would the same resources put into development of cures for the same diseases produce an even better outcome? If yes, then vaccines were an inferior medical intervention. 2) Even if vaccines extended longevity in the past, when poverty and malnutrition was the social norm, are they still contributing to extending the longevity under modern living conditions? Probably not, because if that were the case the industry would love to refute any doubters with rigorous controlled studies.

Because the risk of a cure applies only when you get sick, whereas the risk of the preventive applies even if you would remain healthy.

The main restriction is that I am blocked from posting anywhere with the exception of my own channel.

If your employer or educational institution would ask you to “speak to your GP” in case you have any doubts about Covid vaccines.

This offers you a possible defence strategy. You could respond that GPs are only qualified to advice on medical concerns, not on ethical concerns, and it would be unethical for you to acquiesce to medical coercion (the withholding of social and economic opportunity by means of vaccine mandates) even if you think that Covid vaccination is medically beneficial, because by doing so you would be giving up the right to free medical consent not just for yourself but for future generations. Without that right all other rights can be medically subverted.

You could also go to your GP and ask whether the Dr is free to give you independent medical advice on Covid vaccines, specifically, advice would be independent only if the Dr is permitted to express professional opinion in disagreement with the official position of AHPRA. It can be proven by citing AHPRA webpage that this is not the case, therefore the Dr is not allowed to give you independent professional advice on this question. Ask the Dr to write you a letter, stating that the Dr is not allowed to give professional advice on Covid vaccines. This way, the recommended process of gaining medical consent cannot be reasonably fulfilled, ie, you are unable to obtain independent medical advice from a registered medical professional, and since the employer could not do so either, then the institutional policy/mandate has failed the test of due diligence about informed consent. You could ask for exemption on these grounds.

In the case of vaccine mandates, doctors do not administer the procedure if consent is not given; rather, economic or social sanctions are imposed on those who did not consent to the medical procedure. This amounts to coercion, and coercion in regard to medical consent negates the possibility of consent, which must be voluntary. For the same reason, coercion to engage in sex amounts to rape even if no physical force was used but the coerced person complied with the sexual demands out of fear of consequences. It follows that vaccine mandates preclude the possibility of valid consent in principle, and amount to intentional bodily harm, even if complied with without the use of physical force. And yet this is precisely the point that all institutions imposing the mandates simply ignore.

Ironically, I have not heard this argument being explicitly raised in ANY of the court proceedings against vaccine mandates. Another ignored argument is the fact that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by coercing employees and students to engage in an activity where a certain percentage of participants are expected to die as a direct result of their participation. So my main question is: why have ALL lawyers who are so prominent on Telegram ignored these obvious lines of legal attack? I have shared these arguments on their channels to no effect except being banned by some for asking this question.

The existing restrictions, including mandatory self-isolation, are the Crisis. To solve this crisis all we need is to remove all restrictions and simply ignore Covid. Within a month, everyone will have had the Covid Cold. (Nevertheless, the majority of the population would benefit from more brutal lockdowns, because most people can evolve only through suffering. I am in a Nietzchean mood today.)

Source: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/more-than-2000-health-workers-almost-200-police-defy-vaccine-mandate-20211221-p59jbd.html

They know that we know that this is not about health. They want us to know.

Hello there! Do your eyes glaze over when you see this chart about Sweden which had no lockdowns, no border closures, no masks.

(If so, you are likely to be in a state of hysteria: try to snap out of it.)

Left vs Right

The fundamental distinction between left and right wing ideologies is their different regard for tribe/race prioritarianism and its native customs. All race or tribe focussed nationalistic ideologies and movements are right wing. If these are also associated with nativist prioritarianism or markers of racial supremacy, they are regarded as extreme right. On the other hand, non-nativist socialism and communism were aimed to transcend race and native traditions, with more universal aspirations about universal dependency on the ideological elite, typically accomplished via removal of general property rights. Both Left and Right are socialistic in their essence but with different aims. Neither Left nor Right is ethical or rational; both are particularly aggressive against individual freedom of thought.

Because you will have to say NO, sooner or later. With every act of submission it will become harder to do so, so you might just as well say NO now.

Why getting vaccinated is now unethical.

I have come to the conclusion that it is unethical to get vaccinated if vaccines are mandated, imposed by coercion, even if we think that vaccines are infallibly beneficial and risk free. Covid vaccination mandates are backed by unprecedented social, psychological and economic coercion, which violates the right to free medical consent, without which every other right can be medically subverted, even the right to life. If we would acquiesce to this single violation when we have the capacity to resist, we would not only give up that right for ourselves but for our children and for future generations, and we do not have the moral right to do this. Since rights are an expression of the moral status of humanity, without rights we are no longer moral beings, therefore no longer human (in the Kantian sense). By not acquiescing to vaccine mandates, by refusing to get vaccines just because coercion is used, we preserve the right to free, uncoerced medical consent for future generations.