The weaponization of vaccines and vaccine resistance.

There is an immense concern spreading across the Western World, mostly on the internet and social media, (because the MSM is paid to ignore it) that Western "medicine" is a truly graver threat to public health than the diseases--some PROVEN to have been designed in laboratories-- that threaten it. There is nothing more insidious and obvious to honest observers than that the dangerous and ill-considered coziness of the relationship between government agencies "concerned with" public "health," and the "healthcare" industry and its legions of lawyers and lobbyists. New fascistic public/private partnerships, which are providing us with vaccines and working on new ways to make them mandatory, are one of the most dangerous elements of the emerging New World Order.

I have never seen an article more complete and exhaustive on the topic of "informed consent,"-- especially v.v. healthcare industry and its "mandates"-- than this one:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/11/07/informed-consent-vaccine-rights.aspx

The whole thing is definitely worth your time and should be read by everyone interested in the topic of vaccines and the right to not vaccinate. There is so much good philosophy, REAL MEDICINE, public policy enlightenment, political activism advice, etc, in this one article. But let me just cite a few excerpts that are particular elucidating:

A> "There is no guarantee that vaccination will not compromise biological integrity or cause the death of a healthy or vaccine-vulnerable person either immediately or in the future."

That is true. However, we have moral relativists running the country who, in their self-professed wisdom, like to play percentages with human health, especially with the health risks assumed by OTHERS. In fact, many of the people pushing mandated vaccination are KNOWN neither to take vaccines themselves, nor to allow them to be administered to their own children. SO, the double standard is both morally corrupt on its face, and incredibly supportive of the fact that policy "makers" feel they are above the people whom they purportedly "serve," and who pay their excessive salaries.

B> ".. the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court have declared federally licensed vaccines to be 'unavoidably unsafe,' removing civil liability from doctors who give vaccines and drug companies that sell vaccines ... At the same time, the federal vaccine injury compensation program created by Congress in 1986 that was supposed to be a no-fault alternative to a lawsuit — not instead of a lawsuit — has been gutted by federal agencies so that, today, almost no child receives compensation when they are hurt by vaccines."

There is almost no other instance I know of where liability for KNOWN AND ADMITTEDLY DANGEROUS PRODUCTS has been removed by government to such a horrendous and unjustifiable degree. If government can KNOWINGLY allow injury to some of its citizens based on faulty/questionable science (and even some drugs, including vaccines, that admittedly have not been tested at all) than it can do almost anything it wants to its own people, and habeus corpus and a host of other underpinnings of western legal/governmental tradition is no longer worth the paper (or papyrus) upon which it may have been written. With the United Nations emerging as a de facto government, and with Malthusians of all types infesting Western governments and the U.N., the possibility of planned mass genocide via vaccine can not even be ruled out as a possible "justification" (or at least possible "explanation") for such exemptions. Hopefully, the mere profit motive is enough to explain the ever-increasing clamor for mandatory vaccination (beyond just California) but we have no PROOF that that is all that is going on.

C> "I am arguing that the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism is a pseudo-ethic that must be rejected as the moral foundation of public health policy and law so it can be replaced with a compassionate ethic grounded in respect for the human right to autonomy and informed consent to medical risk-taking, including vaccine risk-taking."

BINGO! Barbara Loe Fisher has hit the ball totally over the outfield walls with this one. The entire modern, Western, "healthcare" (come "pharmacare") industry is based on a twisting of the Hippocratic Oath today, which replaces traditional philosophical mores with modern ones that are far less amenable to a free society. The idea that someone on high can pick winners and losers (in ALL human inter-relationships, including the basic right to life) based on elitist "expertise" and "the greater good," is so far from our founding principles that it needs no further refutation from me here. No one voted for our modern "gods," and they'd better figure that out and self-demote, before we are forced to do so forcefully.

D> "Vaccine Risks Are Not Borne Equally by Everyone in Society. Vaccination must remain a choice because it is a medical intervention performed on the body of a healthy person that carries a risk of injury or death. And while we are all born equal, with equal rights under the law, we are not born identical. Each one of us is born with different genes and a unique microbiome influenced by epigenetics that affects how we respond to the environments we live in."

While this point might be considered a corollary of the previous point, in the current context it is a crucial point that deserves mention due to its own DISTINCT MERITS. No one, certainly not based on their preeminent position in society or depth of "medical" (presumed) knowledge, has the right to force anyone else to play Russian Roulette with their life, or the lives of their children or dependents. That is a decision which can only be made by God, and individuals and families who worship Him. Ironically, consequentialism may be the most dangerous threat there is to "public health." It is certainly a far graver threat than the designer diseases produced by the Malthusian consequentialists and their fellow travelers in the "healthcare" industry and in politics.

E> "The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution contains strong language protecting exercise of natural rights.74 These have been defined internationally as human rights, including freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief. But today, it is not respect for natural rights that guides public health policy in the U.S., it is the philosophy of utilitarianism, created by Jeremy Bentham, a 19th century British attorney and social reformer. Bentham mocked the U.S. Constitution for mentioning God and affirming natural rights protected in the First Amendment. Like Comte, Marx and Nietzsche who followed him, Bentham did not believe that man has a soul or innate intelligence, so he returned to the hedonistic Epicurean philosophy of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to define what is good. Bentham's utilitarianism uses a mathematical equation that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action by its consequences. Bentham said that an action is only moral or ethical if it results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."

I will let the above speak for itself. Everything about our current Western culture that was good and decent has been undermined by such "higher criticisms," and stiflingly arrogant revisions of humanity's place, v.v. his Creator. There is no end to these elitist perversions of the underpinnings of western culture-- so highly infused as they are with the conceited and bogus utilitarianism of our legions of quack doctors, government planners, "disaster/emergency" relievers, and their hordes of bureaucratic agencies, enablers, with their anti-libertarian machinations.

Vaccine resistance (or free will adoption) is not simply a current medical debate over a specific way/plan/agenda for "fighting diseases," it is truly the FINAL BATTLE in the struggle between individual liberty and thorough-going totalitarianism.

"...Choose ye this day Whom ye will serve..." (Joshua 24:15.)