Public Health

The Right to Hold a Job Becomes a ‘Benefit’

I once wrote an article for QuadrantStruggling with the Burka.” I used John Stuart Mill’s concept of what liberty looks like to help construct my argument. However much I disliked the burka, defined as the full body, head and face covering, it seemed unsafe to ban it. What people wear in a purely public place, as distinct, say, from the classroom or the courts, is surely a matter for them, I argued.

Babette Francis wrote a pointed letter to Quadrant disagreeing with my conclusion. She suggested that as a man, and as someone who had not lived in an Islamic country, I didn’t understand the position women were put in; being compelled to cover up so egregiously. “The burka is similar to a ball and chain around their ankles when in public – symbolic of imprisonment and servitude,” she wrote.

Her letter was instrumental in me changing my mind. I had got wrapped up in academic niceties. The real Islamic world is not nice. Taken to its limits, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban, it is very nasty indeed. But it’s not hard to find stories of intolerance and women’s oppression in any Islamic country. Islam threatens civilised values.

This piece is about COVID and compulsory vaccinations, not the burka. However, I mention it because both involve tensions between individual rights and the rightful responsibilities owed to society. And, as with the burka, deciding the matter is a struggle between competing arguments with circumstances playing a determining role.

I revised my view on banning the burka. Banning a symbol of women’s oppression on Australian streets trumped individual rights. On compulsory vaccinations, the circumstances point me in the opposite direction; to support the individual’s right to decide whether to have the vaccine. Circumstances alter cases.

At one level it is simple enough. Each person has the right to refuse medical treatments. The Nuremberg Code would seem to support that right but, as with many legal provisions, it is not clear cut. The code refers to (medical) experiments. Is the vaccination an experiment?

The Code does say that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. Here sophistry can creep in. In this case courtesy of an AAP fact check, where it is asserted that there is “no mandatory vaccination program in Australia [and risibly] Patients receive and must complete a consent form.” Professor of bioethics at the University of Sydney, Angus Dawson, is quoted thus: “It is true that a choice not to be vaccinated may mean that you do not have access to certain benefits, but this is not coercion, as such.”

You notice the sleight of hand, when things you might have regarded as being part of your individual rights as a citizen are being described as “benefits”. And, moreover, that the denial of these so-called benefits (like being employed, meeting with friends, attending festivities, travelling, eating out, going to a pub, movie, theatre, sports stadium or gym, and who knows what else, church?) is not coercion. Really? Not coercion? It’s akin to blackmail pure and simple.

To be clear, if being fully vaccinated is required before being permitted to participate in the ordinary business of life, then it is de facto mandatory. The question is not whether it’s mandatory, it most assuredly is, but whether it can be justified.

Justification turns on responsibilities versus individual rights. A citizen who chooses to live in society, and not reclusively, must accept the attendant responsibilities. Responsibilities which might at times infringe on individual rights. One such responsibility is not to walk around with an infectious disease putting others at grave risk. I don’t think, as guiding principle, many would find fault with this limitation on individual freedom.

To go back to the burka. At first, I found no fault with my argument that the burka should not be banned. But this, as I’ve said, paid too little heed to the circumstances on the ground. In the case of mandatory vaccinations, there are a number of circumstances to be taken into account. These, in my view, do not support mandating vaccinations to protect society. And I’m leaving aside entirely concerns on the part of some about the safety of the vaccines.

First, the fatality rate of the disease is now relatively small as treatments have got better and those most at risk have protected themselves by getting vaccinated.

Second, the vaccinations are proving to be effective for only a short interval of time; already boosters are being delivered or readied. What purpose is served by continuing to insist on repeated vaccinations of those in non-vulnerable groups, when vulnerable groups are protected and being given booster shots? No purpose that I can fathom. It goes back to the earlier suggestion of many. Protect the vulnerable so that everyone else can go about their lives. That’s now been done, albeit circuitously.

Third, those vaccinated readily catch the disease and have a viral load the equal of the unvaccinated who catch the disease. It’s therefore moot whether vaccinations reduce the spread.

The last point is particularly relevant. The residual benefit of the vaccine is that it protects against severe disease. Those who feel at risk can accordingly choose to be vaccinated and revaccinated, as per the first and second points above. But if the chances of contracting and passing on the disease turn out to be more or less the same for the vaccinated as for the unvaccinated, the argument for mandating vaccinations, already toppling, is completely lost.

In view of the circumstances, the case for mandating vaccinations is extremely weak. And it bears emphasising that the onus is on those who would take away individual freedoms to justify the case. Sadly, an additional morbidity of our age is that the powers that be seem incapable of marshalling an evidence-based and well-considered case. Why go through the tiring intellectual exercise of making a case, I suppose they think, when you can issue a mindless diktat, taking no effort at all?

34 thoughts on “The Right to Hold a Job Becomes a ‘Benefit’

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    Thank you for a well-thought, intelligently-worded statement of the case. If only our tyrants–and, more importantly, ordinary people–would listen to such reasoning!

  • Macspee says:

    Tell that to Qantas and Virgin. Get vaccinated or lose your job.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The compulsory niqab, currently so popular with the authorities and the general public, was evidently only a precursor to soften us up for the ‘jab’ (an appropriate name for something once dignified by the term ‘vaccination’ but now just a makeshift piece of genetic gimcrackery). Making the ‘jab’ compulsory is the next step.
    Premier Andrews evidently wants to reassure his followers that the space occupied by properly vaccinated persons will not be contaminated by the unwelcome intrusion of the great unjabbed. It seems the vaccinated secretly covet an ambience of exclusivity like that enjoyed by members of the Melbourne Club (uncontaminated by females and the lower classes generally) and the Lyceum (no men, thankfully).
    Why else would the vaccinated, secure in the protection they imagine the ‘jab’ provides, be so determined to avoid the company of the unvaccinated – or even (which is another matter entirely) that of anyone who was not only infected but also infectious? Hence my Melbourne club analogy.
    The one certainty is that, with the advent of the vaccine passport, we will see the bitter end of the broadly egalitarian society we used to value and enjoy. That was the society my father flew his Spitfire out over the English Channel to defend, the same one his bother was protecting when he died in the inferno of a burning aircraft over German-occupied Europe.
    The progressive socialist government presided over by Premier Andrews seems to be on the wrong side. Long committed to cementing racial and gender distinctions into public policy, Andrews has seized the opportunity to further divide Australian society with discriminatory Covid regulations. I’m not surprised that his government decided recently to ban the public display of Nazi symbol. Evidently it was a little too close to home.

  • Ceres says:

    Whilst legally the Australian constitution is specific that civil conscription of dental and medical matters cannot occur, practically it means that if you want to feed your family, pay your mortgage and actually live, you will be required to do as your employer mandates or be unemployed.
    As rightly pointed out unvaccinated and vaccinated are both spreaders so the argument against the unvaccinated, is invalid.
    So logically the mandate for vaccines on spreader grounds just flew out the window.
    However logic and rational thinking have bitten the dust in this country, having lost its sanity.over the past two years.

  • Stoneboat says:

    Stephen Due,
    I am so very grateful for the Christian heritage bequeathed us and variously dismayed, upset, ashamed at how we’ve lost (more accurately relinquished) it in just a few short years.
    Your father flew his Spitfire and my father flew his RN version, the Seafire.

  • john2 says:

    “those vaccinated readily catch the disease and have a viral load the equal of the unvaccinated who catch the disease.”
    This point is indeed particularly relevant – in fact, pivotal – as you point out, Peter (on the assumption that viral load is directly proportional to virus transmissibility, ie the degree of infectiousness of the person).
    However, an MD friend told me just a couple of days ago that the viral load in an infected vaccinated person is likely much less than in an infected unvaccinated person. Either he is misinformed, or I have misunderstood him, or your statement is incorrect. Can you assist me in deciding the issue by citing sources for your assertion?

  • Necessityofchoice says:

    It will come as no surprise to many, that the prize winning philosopher Peter Singer , as well approving a little window of opportunity to kill new born babies, believes covid vaccines should be compulsory.

    Source ? A Q and A with Fran Kelly on their ABC 8 / 9 / 2021

  • RB says:

    The lockdowns represent the worst of political dip-shittery managed in a heavy-handed philosophically disgraceful manner by leaders lacking any vestige of credibility or compassion driven by a baying mob casting about for a saviour from the government. It’s a mess that will end the careers of the incumbents, a happy result that cannot arrive soon enough.

  • Peter Smith says:

    These are references I used a little while ago. One from the CDC the other coming out of Public Health England. But I think it is now well accepted.

  • rod.stuart says:

    True, the Nuremburg Code is something Australia signed.
    But of even more importance is the Biosecurity Act (2015) Section 60.
    In order to impose a medical treatment, experimental or not, an individual contol order must be in place.
    And incliuded in the requirement for a control order are masks and other parphenalia.
    Is Leprecahn Airlines going to go to court to obtain a control order for each individual employee? And if so, on what grounds?
    Not to mention the Privacy Act 1988 section 94H, which makes it an offence to inquire as to an individual’s health information including vaccinations, or even their “contactd tracing”.
    They are not following the riules already established.

  • rod.stuart says:

    The following essay rather completely describes the inanity with which we are confronted. Long but worthwhile, as is Peter Smith’s essay.

    Julius Ruechel: The Snake-Oil Salesmen and the COVID-Zero Con: A Classic Bait-And-Switch for a Lifetime of Booster Shots (Immunity as a Service)

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    I would like to know more about that mysterious – to me – cohort, the “asymptomatic”, which apparently includes children under 10 years of age. Are they asymptomatic because they have strong” immune systems,?


    Some people who chose, in good faith, to be jabbed must now be having misgivings when they witness how our public service health bureaucrats and Premiers such as Ms Berejiklian threaten punishments for those refusing the jab. Those coercive measures used by Australia’s Premiers, threatening loss of liberty to jab refusers has got to be one of the worst strategies to generate goodwill acceptance of the jab. People naturally reason that if bullying and coercion are required for a medical procedure then there must be something sinister involved.

  • Greg Williams says:

    Alice, it used to be that if you were asymptomatic, you were not ill. Have you ever heard of asymptomatic ‘flu? or asymptomatic measles? or maybe even more profound, an asymptomatic broken leg!!! For all of my life, up to this point in time, to recognise that I had an illness, I had to have symptoms.

  • Pablo07 says:

    A year has passed since open letter (published in Quadrant) of medical specialists of significant experience and professional stance on the development of covid related measures. Including psychological demage, access to medical services etc.
    “I respectfully * disagree” was the response from the elected leader of this state.

    Is it not time to refresh omniscient premier’s memory? PCredlin? Anyone?

    * Really?

  • john2 says:

    Thanks, @PeterSmith. I have looked up the references you cited, together with a few others that flowed out of google’s machine. The evidence does appear to be trending in the direction you indicate, ie that being vaccinated does not necessarily reduce one’s propensity (vis a vis the unvaxxed) to be infectious to others if one happens to catch the delta variant.

    It seems to me therefore that there remain only two grounds for considering getting vaxxed*: (1) self-protection (ie to reduce one’s risk of severe disease and death), and (2) the public good served by reducing one’s risk of taking up a hospital/ICU bed, a la “saving the NHS” from being “overwhelmed”. As one who has no current intention of getting the jab, it is the latter argument that I find difficult to defend against when being challenged by the pro-vaxxers (eg members of my extended family!) Why? Because I have long ago lost trust in any government-provided (and MSM-mediated) stats or information relating to COVID, including the issue of hospital capacity (for which, by the by, we have had over 12 months to gear up for ahead of the winter COVID season; but alas, we are where we are). I am unclear as to whether this “overwhelming” is a clear and present danger, or just another scare-tactic. It would be useful for a Quadrant contributor with detailed knowledge of the NSW hospital system to opine on the subject!

    * A third ground commonly cited is to contribute to meeting the 70-80% vax target that we have been promised will enable the “opening up” of Society. Given that I consider the whole lockdown philosophy as fundamentally and grievously misguided, irrational and immoral (versus “focused protection” – eg Great Barrington), I am loth to acquiesce and thereby legitimise the whole disastrous exercise.

  • nfw says:

    Ceres above completely misunderstands Section 51 (XXiiiA). It is not about conscripting the populace to be guinea pigs in medical experiments; it is about NOT conscripting into service those who would be injecting or medically controlling the citizenry. It was supposed to stop the nationalisation of health services, which has happened by stealth anyway. and

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    Well said, John! Besides, every person who does not believe the jab is right or necessary, but gets it anyway, drives another nail into the coffin of freedom of choice for the rest of us.

  • Peter Smith says:

    john2, you say: “the public good served by reducing one’s risk of taking up a hospital/ICU bed, a la “saving the NHS” from being “overwhelmed”. As one who has no current intention of getting the jab, it is the latter argument that I find difficult to defend against.”
    I don’t think it is difficult to defend. It seems to me that being overweight, smoking, drinking a little too much, mountain climbing, and a host of other activities use up hospital beds, yet no one makes a point about that.

  • gilmay97 says:

    In defense of workers sacked for exercising their right not to get the covid Jab that contains likely permanent body altering RNA.
    As it is obvious the ACTU will be involved in litigation in defense of workers sacked for exercising their democratic right not to be given the Jab, as medication must not be forced, coerced, or by threat or intimidation.
    We did some research that you may find of interest, some of it is very concerning and powerful evidence in court defense.
    The government have not and will not advised:
    1. of the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?
    2. details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?
    3. of the full list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?
    4. of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?
    5. that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT ‘experimental mRNA gene altering therapy’?
    6. that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
    7. of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid-19 and the likelihood of recovery?

    As it is an RNA vaccine it adds a foreign a section to your base DNA that is supposedly beneficial in that it promotes spike proteins to fight the virus — it does not stop you getting, carrying or spreading the virus, as found in Israel who are now giving a third Jab — and no doubt a future fourth. BUT where is evidence the effect (RNA) will ever leave the body, senior medical scientists say it may be transferable to future generations. No one will answer questions.

    We searched the internet looking for science on the subject and found these:
    First autopsy of dead person vaccinated for covid found to contain spike proteins in every bodily organ

    What COVID Injections Do To Your BLOOD! Doctor Releases Horrific Findings!
    *The actual photographs are attached for your solicitors file

    Please have a look at them, they are from reputable medicos.

    We asked health ministers and politicians that these be investigated, and were ignored, one would have thought the seriousness of these medical findings would warrant further research, but apparently no one wants to question the status quo for fear of ridicule.
    We asked Health Ministers: –
    A coroner as a government or judicial official has a prescribed duty is to oversee or conduct an inquest into the manner or specific cause of death, when numerous deaths occur it is a Coroner’s responsibility to identify why and what were the causative factors accidental, deliberate or criminal, for future prevention and police prosecution.
    When over 400 people die from covid vaccination where is the Inquest to finitely and provably establish the exact cause of their death?
    What is written as the cause of death?
    A cause of death cannot be just listed as an adverse or fatal reaction to a vaccine, that does not identify a cause of death, that identifies an action that caused the death result.
    What specific cause of death has been established and proven: That states the precise identity of what caused the death, how and why and to what organs.
    Many fit healthy people have died solely from vaccination effects — some have been reported as death from blood clotting, has the coroner’s office identified why and what were the causative factors for clotting? Was it contaminated, faulty or deliberated act to cause death and if so a criminal offence?
    Were clotting factors in all vaccines, or specific brands — when deaths are being caused and vaccines known to cause deaths then predetermined factors constitute premeditated murder and government complicity, whereby criminal charges are relevant.
    Clearly an Inquest is required under the terms of your legal responsibility of office.
    As government reports state blood clotting are isolated cases — what specifically were the causes of the non-isolated other deaths?
    Have there been blood slides taken and photographed from people after vaccinations at regular intervals of blood irregularities being caused as a precautionary identification factor for medical and coronial reference?
    Have major organs and brain been autopsied to identify if spike proteins or other were present and causative factors for death? (Pfizer documents acknowledge spike proteins can be transferred onto unvaccinated people ‘by inhalation or skin contact’.)

    Just think what would happen if a number of bodies were found, there would be an immediate outcry demanding an investigation by police and an AUTOPSY report, to find the precise cause of death; why not with Covid.
    NOTE: Covid vaccines have now killed MORE innocent people than the ATOMIC BOMB dropped on Hiroshima, which was a weapon of war.
    We did some research and found some interesting data that needs to be in the public arena, such are powerful items for defence. Please take a few moments to take on board these important findings by senior medical researchers — explaining what is exactly in the Jabs, it is deliberately ignored by the press.
    This is serious research and cannot be ridiculed.
    La Quinta Columna has made an urgent announcement, as biostatistician Ricardo Delgado, Dr. José Luis Sevillano and the team of researchers and professors with whom they have been conducting their research have confirmed the presence of graphene oxide nanoparticles in vaccination vials.
    It has also been found on the swabs and on face masks. Graphene Oxide is a toxic bioweapon, and the real cause of COVID-19.
    * Source: La Quinta Columna –
    * English translation: Orwell City –
    * Voice over: Free2Shine
    * COVID Shot Dangers – The “vaccine” exposed:
    * Download guide here:….content/uploads/2021
    THIS IS IMPORTANT:….post/transmission-el

  • John Michelmore says:

    It seems strange that businesses can discriminate against the unvaccinated, yet if you were black, brown or green it is called discrimination and illegal. When you consider this and that vaccinated can spread the disease it is madness and totally out of logical proportionality.

  • STD says:

    Rebekah, do not lose hope, remember, that even freedom has its price – the historical example being, that good ,that which is worthwhile is obtained at its own cost- PATIENCE.
    Professor Robert Clancy has given us the good option ,that of waiting for Novovax – greater efficacy without major side effects- it is efficacy that is the greater indicator of legal duty of care- this is informed consent properly understood. If Novovax proves to have no deleterious effects in comparison to AstraZeneca and Pfizer then the legal avenues will all point to the government- those who lost their lives because of the poorly understood efficacy in these vaccinations ,will I think, be entitled to the same stolen generations compensation- poetic justice and treatment awaits.

  • pgang says:

    Good news everyone. In the USA at least you no longer need to get the clot shot to be fully vaccinated. The CDC have updated their definition of a vaccine to the following.
    Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
    Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
    So if you take some vitamin C to ward of off COVID-19 you are effectively vaccinated.

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    From a health perspective, it sounds as though Novovax would likely be much safer for us and our descendants. If it’s also developed by using aborted babies then there’s still a problem.
    However, even if there were no other concerns, I am deeply averse to complying with what government and society are trying to force on us–even if it is medically safe. To do so, it seems to me, would be to validate the entire system that is being put in place. It would be an acknowledgment that the government has the right to control everything we do, create a two-tier society, and link freedom to a medical treatment. Surely to do so would not be ethical!

  • lbloveday says:

    “… someone who had not lived in an Islamic country”.
    What is an “Islamic country”? Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, would seem to warrant the tag from its title, as does the Islamic Republic of Iran, but what about Indonesia, with the highest Muslim population of any country and others with Muslim majorities such Lebanon with reportedly 40% Christians?
    Pakistan had a female PM Benazir Bhutto, Indonesia a female President Megawati Sukarnoputri and they did not wear burkas!

  • Peter Smith says:

    Not too sure of your point lbloveday. Wherever Islam is dominant in any country you will find oppression of minorites and women. It’s the nature of the beast. For example, the fact that Bhutto was elected president and didn’t wear a burka is irrelevant. It did not prevent Christian woman Asia Bibi being persecuted and sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet or from the governor of the Pujab Salman Taseer being assassinated for defending her.

  • pmaltman says:

    John2 says: “It seems to me therefore that there remain only two grounds for considering getting vaxxed*: (1) self-protection (ie to reduce one’s risk of severe disease and death), and (2) the public good served by reducing one’s risk of taking up a hospital/ICU bed, a la “saving the NHS” from being “overwhelmed”.
    It seems to me that there is really only ONE legitimate ground for considering getting vexed – self-protection. The second postulated ground should only be considered if obese individuals, individuals who smoke or don’t exercise regularly are also prevented from using precious medical and hospital resources. Where does this end?
    Phillip Altman

  • Lo says:

    Rebekah M, I agree. Freedom that is conditional on me having a medical treatment I don’t believe I need, to protect me from something I’m not at all concerned about, is not freedom.
    I’m not having it and I’ll live with the consequences.

  • lbloveday says:

    “Not too sure of your point lbloveday”.
    Ok Peter, let’s simplify it – I have lived, worked and played in Indonesia for about 17 of the last 36 years, the rest in Australia. It has the largest population of people identifying (I could elaborate on that, but not now) as Muslim (90% of their 260ish million) in the world.
    Do you consider it an “Islamic country”?

  • lbloveday says:

    Lo “I’m not having it and I’ll live with the consequences.”
    That’s my preferred position, but when my advanced Alzheimer’s diseased mother says “It’s lovely to hear your voices, but I want to see your faces before I die”, and the only way that’s likely, not certain, to happen is by my being jabbedx2, I have to reconsider. Am considering, not from my desires – I’d rather remember her as I last saw her 2 years ago – but from an obligation to cater to hers.

  • davyddwilliams says:

    Why I Won’t Vaccinate
    Covid 19 is a humanly manufactured virus that had its origins in the US before “gain of function” research and development was moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. How it came to find its way from the laboratory into the world is as yet unknown, although there is widespread speculation that it was either deliberately, or carelessly, released. The declaration of a pandemic followed very soon after its release was identified.
    The earliest consequence of Covid’s emergence was the death of many people who were elderly and/or had co-morbidities. In Australia, the overall death rate declined as deaths from influenza plummeted, suggesting that Covid replaced ‘flu as the means of old people escaping from this world.
    Covid is simple to treat. Zinc stops viral replication; the enzyme is Inhibited from making copies of itself in the cell. But Government has restricted use of these drugs. The Commonwealth Health Dept. says “There is currently insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use of Ivermectin, Doxycycline and zinc either separately or in combination for the prevention or treatment of Covid 19. More robust, well-designed clinical trials are needed before they could be considered an appropriate treatment option”. This is twaddle. Both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are proven successful treatments of Covid in its early stages. Dozens of studies support early intervention with zinc. The most vulnerable may need hospitalisation and some may die; but the death rate has been reduced from 7.5% to .5% with early use of these drugs and this regime has been followed by many clinicians with great success. Most doctors today though, just follow orders; just as they did in Nazi Germany.
    Government responses have been absurd; deaths of ninety-year-olds have been described as “tragic”, whereas it was probably a merciful release to those dying. Death itself has been mystified, as though mankind can put a stop to dying.
    Governments are now bullying and intimidating people into vaccination; “no jab, no job” is becoming the cry. Perhaps soon it will be “no jab, no pension”. The unvaccinated are being demonised and various penalties are being developed to force them into vaccination, such as not being able to travel by public transport, airlines, buses, trains etc.; being unable to enter shops, doctors surgeries, offices or other places of business. A vaccine passport, or ID Card, is being seriously considered and will no doubt become a reality. Hysterical and irrational outbursts against the unvaccinated are increasing.
    The point it; if the vaccine is so effective, why should the vaccinated have any fears from the unvaccinated? Clearly, the motivation behind the pressure to vaccinate has other purposes.
    There is no medical necessity for this experimental vaccination. Recovery rates are better than for influenza; 99.98% recovery rate for under 18’s; 99.95% for 18-45y.o; above that the death rate is halved with use of HCO drugs. Natural antibodies are better than vaccination. Most Doctors who are voicing solutions other than vaccination are being silenced.
    It should be pointed out that the vaccines are ineffective; the vaccinated can still catch the virus and still transmit it to others. For that reason, annual or biannual booster shots are now being called for. Therefore, the real motivation to vaccinate has other origins.
    In my view the whole Covid thing is a gigantic scam, a business model devised by an international cabal of greedy sociopathic elitists, with the purpose of creating extraordinary wealth through the routine and regular vaccination of the world’s people.
    A more sinister purpose can be construed from the nature of the vaccine itself. Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) interferes with the genetic sequence of a gene to produce different programmed consequences. It is at least dangerous and, at worst, allows genetic programming of humans.
    The real danger of these vaccines lies in the undeclared effects of the genetic coding contained in the vaccines.

  • Greg Williams says:

    Nice summary, Davy. Interestingly, I received a message from a friend last night, that a gentleman with whom I had trained for many years, is seriously ill in hospital with a rare condition called Guillain Barre syndrome. I had never heard of it, so looked it up. Apparently is it brought on when your immune system starts to attack your nervous system. Victims first feel tingling in their extremities, such as toes and fingers, and then it can spread to then entire body, ending in paralysis. When I looked for what caused it, two of the causes mentioned were COVID and the J&J COVID vaccine. I mentioned this to my wife, who is regularly encouraging me to get vaccinated, AND, she is a rabid fan of the ABC. I had said to her when passing on this information about my friend, that she wouldn’t hear that on the ABC!! However, later last night she came to me and said that the ABC had said in a news report that there is a remote chance that the AZ vaccine could result in someone falling victim to the Guillain Barre syndrome. If the ABC is mentioning it, it must be rife!!

  • Greg Buchanan says:

    These aren’t vaccines and they are indeed experimental, trials have not completed, proper testing was abandoned and long term effects are unknown. Although many medical doctors and scientists are warning about the ‘significant’ risk of antibody dependent enhancement should a vaccinated person come in contact with another infectious agent or is booster jabbed. This disgrace needs to end now, not tomorrow, not next year, but right now.

  • Simon says:

    “Is the vaccination an experiment?”

    -It is according to Greg Hunt, Peter. He said the world was taking part in the biggest experiment in history with these vaccines, or words to that effect.

Leave a Reply