SafeMinds: Fears Rising of Massive Special Education Litigation
Don't Punish Progress: Forbes Writer Says He Was Wrong to Encourage Earliest CoVax Use

Mandatory Vaccination and the Ethics of Human Sacrifice

EthicsBy Twilah Hiari

In 2020, we find ourselves living in a world where some of our fellow humans are not only rationalizing, but demanding human sacrifice. The question is not so much how we got here, but what does it say about our moral malleability and basic humanity.

On June 26, 2020 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The piece serves as a legal blueprint to guide states to increase uptake of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when it becomes available, guidance to when a mandate of the vaccine may be appropriate, and strategies to use to sidestep legal challenges in the event of a vaccine mandate.

As a person who lost the ability to read, write, speak and count in 2014 due to a series of medically induced injuries, including injury from two vaccines, the piece read not so much like the prequel to a dystopian novel, but like a direct threat to my life. 

Included among the criterion the authors suggest as a trigger for state vaccine mandates is Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation of the vaccine for populations including the elderly, health care professionals working in high-risk or with high-risk patients, and persons with certain underlying medical conditions. I strongly suspect that I’d qualify as a person with certain underlying medical conditions.

An unusual characteristic of the paper is its recognition that vaccine injury is real and will inevitably affect some people who receive the vaccine. One of the criteria that the authors outline as a prerequisite for a vaccine mandate is that, “a generous compensation program for people who have serious vaccine side effects should be a centerpiece of these efforts.” 

Do I, as a person who is under potential threat of state mandated vaccination feel assured by a promise of generous compensation should I lose my ability to read, speak and perform the functions of daily living independently again? No, I do not. No amount of money would be fair compensation for a loss so far reaching as severe vaccine injury. Severe vaccine injury is a loss that destroys not only the life of the injured individual, but transforms the lives of that person’s family and community. My spouse would lose a partner again, my community would lose a person who grows and shares a quarter acre of organically grown produce, my friends would lose a loyal support. And I, as a shell of my former self, would require valuable productive energy and resources from a team of other human beings to maintain an existence that no longer nourishes me or anyone whose life intersects with mine.

Let me rephrase and condense the meaning of the criterion for vaccine mandates that I just discussed: Under certain circumstances, states should mandate a medical procedure that we know will destroy the lives of some people. Policymakers can help people buy into these mandates by promising to pay the people who are disabled by the vaccine. The authors recognize severe injury as potential outcome of compulsory vaccination, but they don’t address death, which is another known outcome that has been compensated under other vaccine injury compensation programs.

Consider the ethical gravity of this concept. We as a society have no ethical consensus on the morality of capital punishment, where the state levies the penalty of death against those convicted of the most heinous crimes and severe felonies. Yet here we have a proposal to force a citizen who is guilty of nothing more than having a certain occupation or medical condition to submit to a medical procedure that could profoundly alter or even end that person’s life. The most generous compensation program in the world could not erase the sheer horror of this proposal of state mandated human sacrifice.

The authors’ suggestions for potential consequences for those who refuse to be sacrificed on the vaccine alter? Suspension of employment and stay at home orders. If I do not acquiesce to mandated vaccination, knowing full well that that I may be severely injured again, or perhaps even killed, then I may have my rights to earn a living and participate in society revoked. I can almost hear Josef Mengele cheering from his grave.

The authors of this article, and many vaccine mandate supporters, have arrived at a place where they condone state mandated sacrifice of innocent lives in order to allegedly save other lives. The only similar mandate to potentially lose one’s life in purported service to society in the US is the Selective Service System. It is notable however, that the Selective Service System, unlike this blueprint for vaccine mandates, allows for exemptions based on Conscientious Objector status. It’s high time to ask where the promise of “greater good”, or any good at all can be found in a society that transforms its declaration of intent to protect the most vulnerable into a threat to injure or execute some of the most vulnerable. 

We collectively concede all basic respect for human life by condoning state mandated execution of innocents for any reason. Once we make a moral concession of this caliber, what positive aspects of surviving humanity do we even hope to preserve?

About the author:

Twilah Hiari is a recovering patient with a B.A. in Philosophy. She's the author of Regression, a memoir that chronicles her medically induced descent from undiagnosed Asperger's to more severe autism. She's an impassioned medical freedom advocate who supports holistic, non-coercive recovery methods for neuroimmunological conditions such as autism, PANS/PANDAS, and autoimmune encephalitis.

Comments

Frank Truth Seeker

Excellent and very well written, Twilah, addressing a matter that is swept under the rug, and at the very crux of health policy. It amazes me to read that you had lost the ability read, write, speak, and count just 6 years prior to writing this. How you managed to detoxify to the point of restoring such exceptional writing ability is an article I'd be interested in reading, and I'm sure many people would.

Vaccine mandates are indeed like forcing people to play Russian roulette - with an inaccurate gun that produces many times more disabilities than deaths.

A matter that is almost completely lost in the discussion is one's right to OPTIMUM health.

I would much rather fully recover from an illness that makes me miserable for a week than lose one vocabulary word or one analytical IQ point to a vaccine, presuming for the sake of argument it even protects me from the disease.

Vaccines contain poisons that are designed to produce long-term effects. It only stands to reason that some of those effects will be harmful, even if to a sub-clinical degree. And I completely agree that NO amount of money is fair compensation for lifelong impairment.

The time is NOW to make a stand for our RIGHT to OPTIMUM health, which is a key facet of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness upon which the United States was founded, but from which it has gone so very far astray.

Bob Moffit

The single most threatening enemy to our nation's FREEDOM AND LIBERTY is the VACCINE INDUSTRY .. which is precisely why the NUREMBURG created our universal HUMANITARIAN RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT. PERIOD.

The acknowledgement of RISK by those seeking to mandate vaccines … is enough to end all talk of MANDATORY … whatever the RISK .. it is up to the individual who is at RISK to decide if that RISK is worth taking.

As for compensation .. consider … compensation for a child who DIED as a result of a vaccine is CAPPED AT $250,000 dollars. DISGRACEFUL DISREGARD FOR THE LIFE OF A CHILD.

Joe F.

Obviously, any rushed-into-production vaccine, much less one that contains mRNA and a nano particle containing PEG (and who knows what else--I'm sorry, there's no reason to trust vaccine manufacturers), is one no sane person would agree to.

And what a strange article ("Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2") from the New England Journal of Medicine. Shame! Shame! on Michelle M. Mello, Ross D. Silverman and Saad B. Omer for writing it. And shame on the New England Journal of Medicine for publishing it.

The authors, Michelle M. Mello, et al., promulgate a blatant lie by writing: "Public trust has already been compromised by federal officials' endorsement of hydroxychloroquine as a Covid-19 treatment without evidentiary support; the same must not occur for vaccines." No, public trust is non-existent because Americans know that DOCTORS who have been treating patients successfully with hydroxychloroquine have been censored and demonized. And Americans trust DOCTORS when it comes to health issues, not politicians, not social media outlets that take down relevant information, not media reporters and certainly not lawyers.

Americans know that hydroxychloroquine used in combination with zinc (and under a physician's care, of course) is effective in treating early-stage Covid. Americans have read how hydroxychloroquine was successfully used to treat Covid in India: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/this-indian-slum-contained-a-possible-covid-19-disaster-with-hydroxychloroquine

And we've also read about the Henry Ford Medical Group study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that found there were fewer deaths among patients treated with hydroxychloroquine than among those who were not: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/

Hydroxychloroquine has been unfairly castigated as ineffective because it's cheap, accessible, it works and it's not a vaccine (i.e., no "big money vaccine profits" for those rushing God-knows-what-crap into existence, to do God knows what to people who take the garbage into their bodies).

Bravo to Twilah Hiari for her eloquent and moving piece.

Ashleigh B

Oh, Twilah, thank you for writing this! As usual, you have beautifully encapsulated the issue and dug down deep to uncover the heart of the problem. You DO matter. Every individual does. We aren't pawns in a chess game. We are human beings. Where there is risk, there MUST be choice. We will not let those who are missing the empathy chip hijack our medical decisions or the decisions we make for our children. We will fight this and we will win. We do not consent to human sacrifice. Please don't ever make me think of you losing the ability to write or communicate. My heart would break into a million pieces if that ever happened to you again.


Ashleigh

Angus Files

Kay Fabe
So anyone that dies in a car crash after being tested positive-ìt was COVID not lorry than ran over them`


In Public Health England numbers, anyone who tests positive for the virus and later dies is counted as a death. However, scientists have claimed this does not present a true picture as someone could die from a non-related illness but still be counted within the coronavirus death total. Health Secretary, Matt Hancock will now move to bring the recording of deaths in line with Northern Ireland and Scotland. Both count a coronavirus death if it occurs 28 days after testing positive. Due to this, the England's death total could be reduced by thousands. The new measure is expected to be announced by the end of the week.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1319301/Coronavirus-news-latest-UK-Boris-Johnson-NHS-ppe-face-masks-coronavirus-deaths-UK

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Angus Files

Carolyn Coglib so sorry to read of your son.The best of it is they dont vaccinate themselves or their own sprogs.

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP.

Carolyn Coglib

My son ended up in the ICU due to his newborn hep-B shot.

We literally have no consensus on why. Was it the ingredients, the way he reacted to the antigen? We don’t know because medicine and media would rather silence me with screams of antivaxxer, or with censorship , or by shredding studies, than actually bother to learn why.

Who in their right mind would put their child in a car that almost killed their child, again, when in response to intelligent questions everyone :
—distorted their complains as anti-car
—tried to silence them
—ridiculed them and pretended he was born with the injury
—claimed the injuries right after the crash were coincidental
—never studied the car for defects, studied how or why it’s systems work
—demanded you now put him in that car again or any car or he could not go to school
—made you fight tooth and nail And pay legal fees for Services (CA) and medical care to help him recover then tried To drive out and criminalize the MDs ( CA) who were the only Drs actually causing your child to begin to improve?
—finally they set up a group to attack you and say your efforts to help your child heal mean that you must not love him

Kay Fabe

Of course, those populations considered for mandates (Elderly, comorbidity ) are being excluded in the vaccine safety trials and the efficacy is likely to be reduced.

Deaths will be blamed on covid. The vaccine-not working will be blamed on their age/health. Meanwhile, fewer older and sick people around , which is one of their priorities

Ronald N. Kostoff

We've had mandates, effective mandates, and effective human sacrifice for many many decades. If our society allows unrestricted construction of cell towers emitting radiation up to the FCC limit, and the biomedical literature shows damage to health at orders of magnitude lower emission levels (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/62452), aren't we effectively mandating human sacrifice? If OSHA allows industry to generate toxic chemical emissions at orders of magnitude higher levels than those shown to cause health damage in the biomedical literature (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/60067), aren't we again mandating human sacrifice?

We deserve what we get, and get what we deserve! As long as we the public allow these indignities to happen, they will happen. The perpetrators are only half the equation; we are the other half!

greyone

Thank you for noting the immensity of moral concession encompassing vaccination coercion.
Standing orders should not exist in an ethical sociomedical construct.
Coercion should not define the dr/patient experience, as with vaccination.

I recall the testimony of one of the authors, Saad Omer, at the measles Senate hearing.
I wonder what his current projects in Colorado and Sacramento involve?

Tim Lundeen

It's like the state can mandate Russian roulette, as long as there aren't too many bullets mixed in and the winners are better off. In what reality does it make sense to do this?

If the alternative was for most people to die, you still wouldn't need to mandate it -- most would get it willingly, understanding the alternative. Soldiers volunteered eagerly for WW I and II, despite knowing a lot of them would die.

But here the alternative is not mass death, but a slight reduction in mortality. How in the world can this be ethical?

We could just give free Vitamin D testing and free supplement for people below optimal levels. Adequate Vitamin D reduces the risk of getting sick at all, and reduces the risk of death by 20X.

Or we could just use available more optimal therapies to treat viral illness (all types, not just COVID-19). These would reduce the death rate to near zero. With no risk to anyone from a vaccine.

Kate C

You write so well. I shudder to think that you lost this ability, and that others may try to take it from you again.
When my son was diagnosed at 14 with pdd-nos, the very motherly doctor assured us that Risperdal was the answer. After a couple of months on it, he too lost the ability to read. He had read since age 5 and always had a thick book in his hands. We had to get audiobooks and play them on long car rides so that he could do his schoolwork. When we weaned him off the drug the ability to read came back.

Not an MD

Thank you, Twilah, for your passionate, brilliantly written piece. My two children were harmed by their vaccines, and it seems sadly clear that as long as the life-destroying tentacles inherent in our unapologetically aggressive vaccine program do not "seem" to affect people or their children, those who think they are unscathed don't give a damn about those who are killed, maimed, or forever diminished in their potential due to the vaccines they received. The vaccine-injured are either written off callously, not acknowledged in the first place (i.e. categorically denied), or vilified as a clinically insane enemy of the poor, dear vaccine manufacturers, and therefore an enemy of all science and scientific progress. The only thing crazy here is the demonization of people who are vaccine-injured or vaccine-killed, as if only those who die from "vaccine-preventable illnesses" are people who had a life worth living; children who died from or were harmed by vaccines are useless, nameless nobodies. We need to end that insane, pharma-driven and public-health-endorsed thought crime campaign against all who have been harmed by this liability-free product. It is time to re-humanize ourselves as a whole, and understand and acknowledge that if we want a strong society that is caring toward its people, technologically advanced, and capable of military defense, we cannot achieve that if we destroy the brains of our children (and adults) with vaccines.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)