Aug 5, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
What about that part in the UNESCO document on medical ethics and informed consent that says it is unethical to incentivize, extort, bribe, deceive, harass, intimidate, pressure, coerce etc. anyone into accepting any medical intervention even if risk is minimal, even if it would be good for them? Did Ethic Fauci not know about that section of the document?
Aug 5, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Grady and Fauci are the BONNIE AND CLYDE of public health. We can let then share a prison cell because we are compassionate moral people. There is no justification in ethics or law or science to anyone to mandate this or any other shot at any time. Particularly with covid vax: its not a sterilizing agent, it doent stop infection spread or tranmission. The viral loads during infection are the same ( fauci even said so). The vax response is sub-optimal. Everything about this paper is wrong. Its politicized science in the same way the Soviet union used psychiatry to label political dissenters enemies or the state. Here Grady and Fauci show their totalitarian claws
Aug 5, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Great article. It’s crystal clear they will not willingly stop their oh-so permitable targeted harassment. Never mind that having done it all their way for 2+ years we are in worse shape than ever as far as Covid goes (can you say all-cause mortality?).
What really got me was how they just tuck this little gem in under their sliding scale of harassment is good:
“vaccine mandates sit outside this continuum…”. Oh really? And who decided that pillar of truth for the rest of us? Talk about a slippery slope.
I’m guessing climate totalitarian measures would also fall out the continuum. And the 2nd amendment. And grooming children to be transgender. And murdering babies.
Well, we all see this is exactly how tyrants operate. There’s always REASONS why for the greater good evil must be allowed.
The new science, as personified by the Faucis, is the golden calf to whom all must abase themselves and offer up unquestioned obedience and servitude.
Not gonna happen. The outcry against this is only growing. Keep holding to what is actually true and good.
Aug 5, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Biggest story at the moment and indicative of where we'll be come next 'wave' as it hits the quadruple jabbed this autumn/winter:
Djokivic US Open
“Novak Djokovic overcame war and threats of starvation to become one of the world’s top tennis players, if not the top player," Gohmert told the Daily Caller prior to contacting the President. "Yet, now it appears he may not be able to overcome the Biden Administration’s cold, heartless, malevolent, scientifically oblivious mentality in order to compete in the 2022 U.S. Open.
I'd like to see them write a paper on the Ethics of Encouraging Employees to get Vaccinated when; -it's based on thoroughly discredited, immature technology
-so leaky as to have negative efficacy
-has a worse side effects profile of all other vaccines COMBINED, including death
-was rushed through a fraudulent testing regime of just a few months
-still isn't approved
-for a virus that's rapidly moved away from lethality
-being pushed by people who openly proclaim an urgent need to depopulate the planet
She, the wife, is the one who said there was no need for animal testing of the covid jabs. During previous rounds of mRNA-technique testing, the test animals died. Guess she didn’t think it ethical to have animals dying testing C-19 jabs, but who needs ferrets or guinea pigs? Human testing is just fine, ethically, and more accurate, according to Mrs. Fauci
In her defense, she is 70 years old and probably doesn't realize how the internet works and that within seconds we can confirm that actually, yes, she does have just a tiny little conflict of interest. Nor would she be aware that there is literally an army of people just ready to pounce on misinformation like this. She probably thinks it would still take significant effort and time at the local library to find out who she really is and she likely figured she wouldn't get caught.
Right off the bat, that's passive-aggressive coercion:
-->"Emails should be sent that “not only [address] the individual benefits of receiving one of the approved vaccines, but also should reiterate employees’ responsibilities to help protect others."
Since employers are responsible for hiring and firing--what choice does an employee have but to comply with any employer suggestion? Compliance is typically a condition of continued employment.
All of the employer mandates were imposed based on the CDC's recommendation. The rest is mere word play.
If ever there was a time that proves this maxim we are living in it. But it requires Sheep, and of that there are many millions. There are so many who want to believe the Mighty because it is easier and it comes with benefits. That is the essence of Mass Formation.
“People who don’t believe in God will believe anything” (as long as it’s the path of least resistance).
“Policy makers have a duty to carefully consider the effect that mandating vaccination could have on public confidence and public trust, particularly on confidence in the scientific community and vaccination generally (10). If such a policy threatens to undermine confidence and public trust, it might affect both vaccine uptake and adherence to other important public health measures, which can have an enduring effect (11).
The authors quickly move along to deepen the cognitive, behavioral and social sludge into which they want us all to fall:
"At the same time, policy makers should consider the effect that not mandating vaccination could have on public confidence, public trust and inequity, as well as on various important freedoms.
Public confidence and trust may be undermined, for example, if steps known to protect the public from harm are not taken as part of the pandemic response, particularly if they are not implemented in settings with populations that are in vulnerable situations (e.g. congregate settings in which care is provided to older adults and hospitals).
The extent to which mandatory vaccination policies accommodate conscientious objection may also affect public trust (15). There should, however, be strict scientific and prudential limits to appeals for accommodation or “conscientious objection”, especially when such accommodation might be used by individuals to ‘free ride’ the public health good of community protection (i.e., taking advantage of the benefit without contributing towards the cost of its production) or if they threaten public health and others’ right not to be infected with a virulent infectious disease (16, 17).”
This is genuinely terrifying, not to mention rage-inducing. I can't believe there are so-called bioethicists out there who think this behaviour is acceptable (although you're absolutely right in that Fauci's wife is conflicted). The actions on the 'lower' end of the spectrum are essentially 'nudge', not the noble attempts the authors claim they are to convince those stupid vaccine-hesitant (*vomit*) employees who are clearly incapable of making their own informed decisions. The 'upper' end of the spectrum is coercion no matter how you try to dress it up otherwise. The idea that the authors try to claim mandates can be used non-coercively, and therefore ethically, would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Add to this the littering of blatant falsehoods about how getting vaccinated helps others (seriously, why are they still clinging to this LIE?! Even in March this was clearly false), and the assertion that the "pandemic has hindered the ability of businesses to operate at full capacity because of threats of infection" (ah no, that was the rules and restrictions applied by governments and health bureaucrats, not an inherent feature of the pandemic), and this paper is absolute trash.
Ahem, that study failed right out the gate. Covid didn't hurt businesses: governement mandated lockdowns and quarantines hurt businesses. (Along with the trade tiff with West Taiwan and Russia.)
And since there appears to be no hard metrics of any kind, such as contagiousness or lethality, the rest is moot as it is purely hypothetical speculations in ethics without a factual foundation: i.e. the academical version of "I feel this is best".
Judging by what you show here and your review, if I had been handed this as a term paper or such in 'Philosphy, ethics and logic', well "Here, have it back. Read all the things written in red and fix it by the 15th next month or you'll get an F."
As a rough draft around the general idea of the sliding scale of coercion vs. danger vs. legal rights vs. basic principles, it shows promise but the authors have presupposed their position being objectively right: no such thing in the fuzzy sciences.
They are monsters convincing themselves they are heroes. People with psychopathic tendencies in an ethically fluid world.
Yes, these are all very bad people. And yet there are no Million Citizen Marches on Washington.
So baffling.
What about that part in the UNESCO document on medical ethics and informed consent that says it is unethical to incentivize, extort, bribe, deceive, harass, intimidate, pressure, coerce etc. anyone into accepting any medical intervention even if risk is minimal, even if it would be good for them? Did Ethic Fauci not know about that section of the document?
Grady and Fauci are the BONNIE AND CLYDE of public health. We can let then share a prison cell because we are compassionate moral people. There is no justification in ethics or law or science to anyone to mandate this or any other shot at any time. Particularly with covid vax: its not a sterilizing agent, it doent stop infection spread or tranmission. The viral loads during infection are the same ( fauci even said so). The vax response is sub-optimal. Everything about this paper is wrong. Its politicized science in the same way the Soviet union used psychiatry to label political dissenters enemies or the state. Here Grady and Fauci show their totalitarian claws
Great article. It’s crystal clear they will not willingly stop their oh-so permitable targeted harassment. Never mind that having done it all their way for 2+ years we are in worse shape than ever as far as Covid goes (can you say all-cause mortality?).
What really got me was how they just tuck this little gem in under their sliding scale of harassment is good:
“vaccine mandates sit outside this continuum…”. Oh really? And who decided that pillar of truth for the rest of us? Talk about a slippery slope.
I’m guessing climate totalitarian measures would also fall out the continuum. And the 2nd amendment. And grooming children to be transgender. And murdering babies.
Well, we all see this is exactly how tyrants operate. There’s always REASONS why for the greater good evil must be allowed.
The new science, as personified by the Faucis, is the golden calf to whom all must abase themselves and offer up unquestioned obedience and servitude.
Not gonna happen. The outcry against this is only growing. Keep holding to what is actually true and good.
Biggest story at the moment and indicative of where we'll be come next 'wave' as it hits the quadruple jabbed this autumn/winter:
Djokivic US Open
“Novak Djokovic overcame war and threats of starvation to become one of the world’s top tennis players, if not the top player," Gohmert told the Daily Caller prior to contacting the President. "Yet, now it appears he may not be able to overcome the Biden Administration’s cold, heartless, malevolent, scientifically oblivious mentality in order to compete in the 2022 U.S. Open.
Murdering maniacs
I'd like to see them write a paper on the Ethics of Encouraging Employees to get Vaccinated when; -it's based on thoroughly discredited, immature technology
-so leaky as to have negative efficacy
-has a worse side effects profile of all other vaccines COMBINED, including death
-was rushed through a fraudulent testing regime of just a few months
-still isn't approved
-for a virus that's rapidly moved away from lethality
-being pushed by people who openly proclaim an urgent need to depopulate the planet
-AND ISN'T EVEN A FUCKING VACCINE.
She, the wife, is the one who said there was no need for animal testing of the covid jabs. During previous rounds of mRNA-technique testing, the test animals died. Guess she didn’t think it ethical to have animals dying testing C-19 jabs, but who needs ferrets or guinea pigs? Human testing is just fine, ethically, and more accurate, according to Mrs. Fauci
In her defense, she is 70 years old and probably doesn't realize how the internet works and that within seconds we can confirm that actually, yes, she does have just a tiny little conflict of interest. Nor would she be aware that there is literally an army of people just ready to pounce on misinformation like this. She probably thinks it would still take significant effort and time at the local library to find out who she really is and she likely figured she wouldn't get caught.
Right off the bat, that's passive-aggressive coercion:
-->"Emails should be sent that “not only [address] the individual benefits of receiving one of the approved vaccines, but also should reiterate employees’ responsibilities to help protect others."
Since employers are responsible for hiring and firing--what choice does an employee have but to comply with any employer suggestion? Compliance is typically a condition of continued employment.
All of the employer mandates were imposed based on the CDC's recommendation. The rest is mere word play.
Might makes Right!
If ever there was a time that proves this maxim we are living in it. But it requires Sheep, and of that there are many millions. There are so many who want to believe the Mighty because it is easier and it comes with benefits. That is the essence of Mass Formation.
“People who don’t believe in God will believe anything” (as long as it’s the path of least resistance).
Same general ideas as those provided by WHO 'ethics' gurus in a May 30, 2022 guidance document on the ethics of mandatory vaccination:
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/354585/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2022.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
The phrase “informed consent” appears zero times.
Section 5, on “Public trust” begins:
“Policy makers have a duty to carefully consider the effect that mandating vaccination could have on public confidence and public trust, particularly on confidence in the scientific community and vaccination generally (10). If such a policy threatens to undermine confidence and public trust, it might affect both vaccine uptake and adherence to other important public health measures, which can have an enduring effect (11).
The authors quickly move along to deepen the cognitive, behavioral and social sludge into which they want us all to fall:
"At the same time, policy makers should consider the effect that not mandating vaccination could have on public confidence, public trust and inequity, as well as on various important freedoms.
Public confidence and trust may be undermined, for example, if steps known to protect the public from harm are not taken as part of the pandemic response, particularly if they are not implemented in settings with populations that are in vulnerable situations (e.g. congregate settings in which care is provided to older adults and hospitals).
The extent to which mandatory vaccination policies accommodate conscientious objection may also affect public trust (15). There should, however, be strict scientific and prudential limits to appeals for accommodation or “conscientious objection”, especially when such accommodation might be used by individuals to ‘free ride’ the public health good of community protection (i.e., taking advantage of the benefit without contributing towards the cost of its production) or if they threaten public health and others’ right not to be infected with a virulent infectious disease (16, 17).”
This is genuinely terrifying, not to mention rage-inducing. I can't believe there are so-called bioethicists out there who think this behaviour is acceptable (although you're absolutely right in that Fauci's wife is conflicted). The actions on the 'lower' end of the spectrum are essentially 'nudge', not the noble attempts the authors claim they are to convince those stupid vaccine-hesitant (*vomit*) employees who are clearly incapable of making their own informed decisions. The 'upper' end of the spectrum is coercion no matter how you try to dress it up otherwise. The idea that the authors try to claim mandates can be used non-coercively, and therefore ethically, would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Add to this the littering of blatant falsehoods about how getting vaccinated helps others (seriously, why are they still clinging to this LIE?! Even in March this was clearly false), and the assertion that the "pandemic has hindered the ability of businesses to operate at full capacity because of threats of infection" (ah no, that was the rules and restrictions applied by governments and health bureaucrats, not an inherent feature of the pandemic), and this paper is absolute trash.
When Al Capone talks about ethics...
Ahem, that study failed right out the gate. Covid didn't hurt businesses: governement mandated lockdowns and quarantines hurt businesses. (Along with the trade tiff with West Taiwan and Russia.)
And since there appears to be no hard metrics of any kind, such as contagiousness or lethality, the rest is moot as it is purely hypothetical speculations in ethics without a factual foundation: i.e. the academical version of "I feel this is best".
Judging by what you show here and your review, if I had been handed this as a term paper or such in 'Philosphy, ethics and logic', well "Here, have it back. Read all the things written in red and fix it by the 15th next month or you'll get an F."
As a rough draft around the general idea of the sliding scale of coercion vs. danger vs. legal rights vs. basic principles, it shows promise but the authors have presupposed their position being objectively right: no such thing in the fuzzy sciences.
Wow, what a great find of yours!