CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)
Discussion
isaldiri said:
M1AGM said:
Bottom line is some people have had severe reactions to the jabs, and I’d wager many of them were not at significant risk from covid. That’s wrong and needs dealing with, in public, so the hard of understanding get why it’s not ok to just ‘move on’.
It's not quite obvious either though. Not at significant risk is certainly true but equally, for most people over 40, it's pretty hard to argue that first exposure via the vaccines was the safer option overall even if the absolute risk at the lower end of that age range was still very minimal. There still isn't any reasonably substantial evidence that isn't the case. For the younger ages, certainly below 30 it's pretty clear it isn't a definite benefit so it's not that if there is an obvious issue, that doesn't become evidenced fairly easily.
Now whether the gain of risk reduction on a population level from inevitable infection later is worth the population level exposure of rare side effects is debatable but it's far from clear that because people were not at significant risk where some did have severe reactions, it's necessarily 'wrong'.
Edited by isaldiri on Sunday 2nd April 20:54
M1AGM said:
It is wrong if those people decided to get jabbed because they were coerced deliberately. ‘Do it to protect others’ being the most obvious example.
As I said, it depends somewhat on whether there still is an overall population benefit from safer first exposure given that population exposure to vaccine related side effects. It then becomes a moral question of whether and how much 'the end justifies the means' applies to the public health issue wrt to 'the greater good'. Different people draw that line differently - my point is blanket insisting it's wrong is not really that clearcut.Coercion is wrong.
For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Elysium said:
Coercion is wrong.
For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Strongly agree.For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
A homeless person living on the street might have virtually nothing in terms of possessions... but he/she can exercise control over their own body.
Take that away and what is left?
An animal that can be subject to the demands and whims of others with more power.
Like a pet.
Or cattle.
isaldiri said:
As I said, it depends somewhat on whether there still is an overall population benefit from safer first exposure given that population exposure to vaccine related side effects. It then becomes a moral question of whether and how much 'the end justifies the means' applies to the public health issue wrt to 'the greater good'. Different people draw that line differently - my point is blanket insisting it's wrong is not really that clearcut.
There isn't much of moral question here. The end does not justify the means. Only evil people ever claim that it does.To understand that the jabs can cause death and then mandate them makes the doctors and nurses all murderers, and the politicians and "experts" mass murderers.
This is why all medical advice is strictly that.
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
Coercion is wrong.
For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Strongly agree.For a while people thought that the end might justify the means. But we now know that vaccinating healthy did not protect others.
Even if it had, coercion would still have been morally wrong.
It is that simple and that absolute.
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
A homeless person living on the street might have virtually nothing in terms of possessions... but he/she can exercise control over their own body.
Take that away and what is left?
An animal that can be subject to the demands and whims of others with more power.
Like a pet.
Or cattle.
The German Ethics Council voted for it!
https://amp.dw.com/en/covid-german-ethics-council-...
But they stopped short of saying people should physically be held down… how nice of them.
Fear flushed morals down the drain.
Kawasicki said:
I live in Germany. It was truly amazing how the discussion went from the “sanctity of bodily autonomy“ to “mandatory vaccinations are justified“, seemingly with no significant resistance. On the contrary this change was promoted as a good thing in the media.
The German Ethics Council voted for it!
https://amp.dw.com/en/covid-german-ethics-council-...
But they stopped short of saying people should physically be held down… how nice of them.
Fear flushed morals down the drain.
yes truly even more scary then the UK what was going on there and in Austria. I recall there was a ban for the unvaxed from most shops save for "designated food shops" so they did not starve. If you did not get the vax then you were going to be finned something like 1000 euros a week.The German Ethics Council voted for it!
https://amp.dw.com/en/covid-german-ethics-council-...
But they stopped short of saying people should physically be held down… how nice of them.
Fear flushed morals down the drain.
German Ethics Council - an oxymoron if there was ever one. You would have thunk it that Austria/Germany would be a bastion of individual freedoms but sadly see how quickly things can change. You or I DID think that the UK was somewhere that would protect individuals and liberals rules and rights - as an ex-Lawyer who WAS proud of our legal system of checks and balances of our laws (warts and all), our history how wrong I am. Never will I trust our Govt.
Edited by superlightr on Monday 3rd April 08:40
superlightr said:
Kawasicki said:
I live in Germany. It was truly amazing how the discussion went from the “sanctity of bodily autonomy“ to “mandatory vaccinations are justified“, seemingly with no significant resistance. On the contrary this change was promoted as a good thing in the media.
The German Ethics Council voted for it!
https://amp.dw.com/en/covid-german-ethics-council-...
But they stopped short of saying people should physically be held down… how nice of them.
Fear flushed morals down the drain.
yes truly even more scary then the UK what was going on there and in Austria. I recall there was a ban for the unvaxed from most shops save for "designated food shops" so they did not starve. If you did not get the vax then you were going to be finned something like 1000 euros a week.The German Ethics Council voted for it!
https://amp.dw.com/en/covid-german-ethics-council-...
But they stopped short of saying people should physically be held down… how nice of them.
Fear flushed morals down the drain.
German Ethics Council - an oxymoron if there was ever one. You would have thunk it that Austria/Germany would be a bastion of individual freedoms but sadly see how quickly things can change. You or I DID think that the UK was somewhere that would protect individuals and liberals rules and rights - as an ex-Lawyer who WAS proud of our legal system of checks and balances of our laws (warts and all), our history how wrong I am. Never will I trust our Govt.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/23/deborah-birx-jo...
captain_cynic said:
Rollin said:
BabySharkDD said:
Sticks. said:
Didn't someone do a FOI question some time ago about how many had died of rather than with Covid and their average age? Probably covered already.
I accompanied a friend to a hospital consultation recently - near me and they don't drive. They'd been experiencing tingling in their feet, ankles, knees and hands for a few months. Blood tests already showed nothing and not diabetes. Consultant said he'd been seeing a lot of it recently and, subject to further tests, it's likely due to either Covid or the vaccine. I've not seen it mentioned anywhere, though I've not kept up with this thread if it has.
Can be a sign of Guillain-Barré syndrome. It’s a rare vaccine side effect that happens quite a lot. I accompanied a friend to a hospital consultation recently - near me and they don't drive. They'd been experiencing tingling in their feet, ankles, knees and hands for a few months. Blood tests already showed nothing and not diabetes. Consultant said he'd been seeing a lot of it recently and, subject to further tests, it's likely due to either Covid or the vaccine. I've not seen it mentioned anywhere, though I've not kept up with this thread if it has.
You lot are quite insane. Looking for things that aren't there... imagining things that aren't happening.
I'm certain this will be part of the conspiracy theory... but there is only so much you can ignore... only so much reality you can pretend isn't happening.
I can only imagine your frustration that no-one believes what you say. It must be so painful to hold on to ridiculous beliefs despite all evidence against them. I honestly wouldn't know, I've always been able to change what I thought based on evidence, even when new evidence countered what I previously thought.
Grumps. said:
rodericb said:
It doesn't happen? It does happen: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr... and that article was written in June 2021 when 6.5 million doses of Covid-19 "jabs" had been given out with preference to older people, of which the subject of the new article is not. The person didn't know they were going to get GBS, the TGA already had eight cases of GBS which had occurred after people had been administered Astra-Zeneca Covid-19 "jabs".
Vaccines (generally speaking) can cause GBS, which is why GBS was listed as an adverse event of special interest in all of the reactions databases. Something which doesn't happen a lot is not "it doesn't happen". And that's for people who hadn't shown signs of GBS previously - there's also the people with history of GBS who were pressured into having Covid-19 "jabs" or had to suffer the consequences of not having them such as the drummer from the band Green Day.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/a...
Unless i am misunderstanding....Vaccines (generally speaking) can cause GBS, which is why GBS was listed as an adverse event of special interest in all of the reactions databases. Something which doesn't happen a lot is not "it doesn't happen". And that's for people who hadn't shown signs of GBS previously - there's also the people with history of GBS who were pressured into having Covid-19 "jabs" or had to suffer the consequences of not having them such as the drummer from the band Green Day.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/a...
"we did not find increased risks for GBS after receipt of either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine".
Elysium said:
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Human rights are not foundational. They are transient and are a merely function of what society at a certain point in time views as important. That rather obviously can and does change. isaldiri said:
Elysium said:
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Human rights are not foundational. They are transient and are a merely function of what society at a certain point in time views as important. That rather obviously can and does change. People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
isaldiri said:
Elysium said:
Informed consent and human rights are foundational. If we let the state have dominion over our very flesh and blood we have nothing.
Human rights are not foundational. They are transient and are a merely function of what society at a certain point in time views as important. That rather obviously can and does change. With the UK /Western world having an easy time of it for the last 70 years or so people forget the struggles that got us to where we are today, we get complacent, we got complacent, we forget that it can get taken away from us in a heartbeat. We dont think there can be a war, that nasty things happen, that perhaps our own Govt isnt there for our benefit. There are so much smoke and mirrors. There is so much focus on "small" woke issues yet the bigger things such as liberty and freedoms get forgotten. The country is only ever 1 week from anarchy.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Edited by superlightr on Monday 3rd April 09:49
Elysium said:
I profoundly disagree.
People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
But the UK and Europe abandoned those deeper meanings and purposes DESPITE our "democracy" and "freedoms" and we ended up like China with the same restrictions did we not?People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
its smoke and mirrors IMHO there is no really freedoms or rights unless we are given them which can be taken away at a whim and on lies and manipulation. The Govt has such control of the media and what is published and will do anything to preserve its perverse self that it will harm its citizens.
At present we have moved back towards the illusion of having our freedoms back but for how long?
When is the next pandemic planned?
When is the next climate emergency summit?
What is the next bogy man?
Edited by superlightr on Monday 3rd April 09:56
Edited by superlightr on Monday 3rd April 09:57
grumbledoak said:
There isn't much of moral question here. The end does not justify the means. Only evil people ever claim that it does.
To understand that the jabs can cause death and then mandate them makes the doctors and nurses all murderers, and the politicians and "experts" mass murderers.
This is why all medical advice is strictly that.
"Evil" is something I've changed my views on a lot over the course of this. I don't think I really believed in it before. I believed in greed, megalomania, vanity and other shortcomings. Perhaps I thought we had conquered it, or that people doing evil things was only ever a product of desperate circumstances and ignorance. The USSR did evil things but this was a failure of an ideology. Hitler did evil things, but it was the unique circumstances of post WW1 Germany that allowed them to develop. Islamic fundamentalism looks evil, but can be rationalised by poverty, traditions clashing with modernity and other things.To understand that the jabs can cause death and then mandate them makes the doctors and nurses all murderers, and the politicians and "experts" mass murderers.
This is why all medical advice is strictly that.
These people, already wealthy and powerful beyond most people's dreams, invented a pandemic then near as they could mandated an experimental drug. That's way beyond mere avarice and self-importance, though there was plenty of that too - it's evil.
It's very difficult as modern, secular people to acknowledge, let alone confront actual evil. We seem to be wired to call out corruption and greed fairly readily, but explain it as self-interest without the "enlightened" bit which makes self-interest benign and even constructive. The very idea of 'evil' makes us uncomfortable.
Elysium said:
I profoundly disagree.
People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
Human rights might be foundational to freedom and democracy but they are manifestly not foundational to human society in general whether in the western countries or not. There's nothing to prevent society here from changing it's mind on whether human rights are necessarily so important over 'the greater good' of the overall population. That makes it rather transient I'd say......People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
isaldiri said:
Elysium said:
I profoundly disagree.
People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
Human rights might be foundational to freedom and democracy but they are manifestly not foundational to human society in general whether in the western countries or not. There's nothing to prevent society here from changing it's mind on whether human rights are necessarily so important over 'the greater good' of the overall population. That makes it rather transient I'd say......People born in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enjoy the same rights that we do.
Each have, as you say, been defined by society. But the additional rights we enjoy have a deeper meaning and purpose. They are foundational to freedom and democracy. Without them, we might as well be China.
Foundational is not the opposite to transient.
rodericb said:
Grumps. said:
rodericb said:
It doesn't happen? It does happen: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr... and that article was written in June 2021 when 6.5 million doses of Covid-19 "jabs" had been given out with preference to older people, of which the subject of the new article is not. The person didn't know they were going to get GBS, the TGA already had eight cases of GBS which had occurred after people had been administered Astra-Zeneca Covid-19 "jabs".
Vaccines (generally speaking) can cause GBS, which is why GBS was listed as an adverse event of special interest in all of the reactions databases. Something which doesn't happen a lot is not "it doesn't happen". And that's for people who hadn't shown signs of GBS previously - there's also the people with history of GBS who were pressured into having Covid-19 "jabs" or had to suffer the consequences of not having them such as the drummer from the band Green Day.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/a...
Unless i am misunderstanding....Vaccines (generally speaking) can cause GBS, which is why GBS was listed as an adverse event of special interest in all of the reactions databases. Something which doesn't happen a lot is not "it doesn't happen". And that's for people who hadn't shown signs of GBS previously - there's also the people with history of GBS who were pressured into having Covid-19 "jabs" or had to suffer the consequences of not having them such as the drummer from the band Green Day.
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/a...
"we did not find increased risks for GBS after receipt of either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine".
The quote I pasted was copied from the second link you provided.
I agree that having any vaccine carries risk, as has been the case since the first ever vaccine was developed.
ChevronB19 said:
Who on here would’ve taken an Edward Jenner smallpox vaccine when it was first developed, and also who would agree it was a good idea?
After all, it was experimental at the time.
Honestly a genuine question.
James Phipps didn't get much choice in it either.After all, it was experimental at the time.
Honestly a genuine question.
(He was the son of Jenner's gardener).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff