Do vaccine refusers have an ethical duty to pay for their own Covid care?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
However, when people confront me about why I haven't taken the vaxx, it usually ends up in a heated argument.
First off no one confronted you here. You willingly inserted yourself. 2nd don't get the vaccine. I don't give a hoot if you end up on a ventilator or just get a slight cough.

Now if there is one ventilator and there's you and a vaccinated person that needs it everything else being equal between you two... Good luck toughing it out.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
I see you didn't listen to anything Dr. Parks stated in the video. She emphatically stated that the so-called vaccines don't stop or prevent the spread of the diseases. In fact, she goes on to argue that they weren't meant to stop the spread.

The Vaxx is not a vaccine, we're calling them that, but that's not what they are, not really. So I can't be anti vaxx for something that's not really a vaccine. Once again, vaccines prevent and stop the spread of diseases. Those shots are proving that they don't provide immunity against Covid. Now, big tech and the CDC have recently tried to change the meaning of vaccines since Covid.

The so-called vaccines are being forced upon people, which is a violation of the 1947 Nuremberg Code. If you threaten people with loss of jobs and the ability to earn living or even as some are suggesting, refusing medical treatment, that's forced vaccination or being forced to take an experimental medical practice, which is a crime against humanity.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts: 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision
Ah yes, the ever popular Humpty Dumpty approach to everything:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
 “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
 “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Kroger recently announced they will begin turning the screws on folks choosing to not vaccinate. It seems more and more large businesses are going down this path.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Please listen to the science of what she's saying. It's gene therapy!!
You brought up the YT video of Christina Parks's testimony before, in a different thread, last September. I never bothered to watch the video back then because it seemed like a waste of time.

Today, I watched all ~9 minutes of it, and confirmed my earlier suspicion. First of all, except for her introductory statement at the very beginning, she never said anything at all about the Covid-19 vaccines being gene therapy. No evidence for it, and no evidence against it.

What's more, Dr. Parks is wrong or misleading about most everything she claimed about the vaccines. She made a big point that the vaccines didn't show any ability in their clinical trials to prevent transmission of Covid-19 from one individual to another. That's deliberately misleading because those trials were never designed to show that. It would be prohibitively expensive if those large clinical trials actually tested for disease transmission in 60,000 people, half of whom were actually immunized. The trials did very clearly show that the vaccinations prevented significantly fewer people, among some 30,000 people vs. 30,000 people who were not vaccinated, from getting Covid-19 symptoms, or from being hospitalized or dying. In addition, those trials did show that among the people who were infected, their viral load (as measured by the PCR method) was significantly lower than in infected people on the control arm of the study. That's the next best thing to showing reduced transmission. Dr. Parks is not stupid, I think she actually knows that.

Edit: I looked up published papers for a few clinical trials done for vaccines in the past. None of them tested for the vaccine's ability to stop or reduce disease transmission. Doing that on the large scale required for statistical significance is essentially impossible. Instead of working with public populations, it would take controlled conditions in laboratories, enormous funding, and many years to do that. The way the Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials were recently done, is the standard way vaccine clinical trials are done. Suggesting that the lack of testing for disease transmission is a flaw shows a naive unfamiliarity with how vaccine clinical trials, and clinical trials in general, are actually performed.​

Dr. Parks went on to set up a false "Straw Man" argument about the Pertussis vaccine. She claimed that this vaccine does protect against whooping cough, but does not prevent infection by the Bordetella pertussis bacteria. That is technically correct, but is irrelevant and misleading.
  1. Whooping cough is a disease caused by the B. pertussis bacterium. Covid-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There are few, if any, similarities between bacteria and viruses.
  2. The B. pertussis bacterium alone is harmless. It, however, secretes or sheds a number of toxic molecules (toxins) that directly cause whooping cough. Vaccines directed against these bacterial toxins are sufficient to prevent whooping cough in children.
  3. In Covid-19, the corona virus itself is the source of the harm.
So, claims that vaccines directed against whooping cough (the DPT vaccine) cannot prevent children from being infected are true, but that tells us nothing about the vaccines directed against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19.

There were other false or misleading arguments Parks made, but I think I've said enough to discredit that video. She was introduced with a bit of fanfare about her PhD degree from the U of Michigan. Now she teaches (biology?) at a private Christian Academy. I have to wonder why she isn't employed as a scientist, and does that have anything to do with her unscientific beliefs?
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute.

RNA:
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a molecule similar to DNA. Unlike DNA, RNA is single-stranded. An RNA strand has a backbone made of alternating sugar (ribose) and phosphate groups. Attached to each sugar is one of four bases--adenine (A), uracil (U), cytosine (C), or guanine (G). Different types of RNA exist in the cell: messenger RNA (mRNA), ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA). More recently, some small RNAs have been found to be involved in regulating gene expression.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made. During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.
You've demonstrated ability to cut & paste basic information about biological nucleic acids from the Human Genome Research Institute's web page.

Now that you've mastered that, read and understand this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

I'll follow that with a quiz to see what you've learned. Here's a sample question to help you prepare: Describe briefly the differences and similarities between Gene Therapy and mRNA vaccines.
… No one should be forced to get experimental gene therapy just to get medical care.
None of the Covid-19 vaccines are gene therapy, in any sense of the phrase. Despite what you seem to fervently believe, you're wrong. I defy you to provide convincing evidence that any of these vaccines are gene therapy. I'll give you an A on the quiz if you can.

None of the vaccines approved for use in the USA are experimental drugs. They are fully approved by the FDA. Claiming they are experimental is false.
 
Last edited:
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
I'll never understand why a site dedicated to truth in audio with members that will 100% tell someone that thinks power cords make their system sound better that they are a moron, because it isn't measurable and is obviously snake oil/misinformation....can have members not use that same system of logic when it comes to COVID.

Why spread misinformation about covid on a site dedicated to stopping misinformation about audio?

I'd never call anyone out personally, because I'm not that guy, but I'm very surprised at some of our members being all aboard the bullsh!t train.

I'm asking a legitimate question. Why? What do you have to gain? Can you really smell audio bullsh!t and not smell the same BS when it comes to COVID?

Granted, maybe you have COVID and can't smell the BS....

Having said that, I'm sure a lot of you don't realize some of this is BS, but when presented with an extreme amount of factual information that goes against the BS you believe, you double down instead of learning something and changing your mind.

If you guys want to waste money on power cords, that's fine, but COVID misinformation is actively killing people and making this last MUCH LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE.

I'm so tired of this...
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The so-called vaccines are being forced upon people, which is a violation of the 1947 Nuremberg Code. If you threaten people with loss of jobs and the ability to earn living or even as some are suggesting, refusing medical treatment, that's forced vaccination or being forced to take an experimental medical practice, which is a crime against humanity.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts: 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision
By the way, your home brew "crime against humanity" legal theory is nothing but a fantasy. I suppose you fancy yourself to be a great legal eagle of sorts who has discovered a legal theory that has been overlooked by every lawyer and legal scholar in the country for the past 70 years?

Does this strike you as being realistic? Do you want to join the rest of us here in the real world? Perhaps you prefer Wonderland?

First, this may come as a surprise to you, but the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States:
Article VI
  • Clause 2
  • This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

For 100 years, courts have consistently held that vaccine mandates are constitutional:

>>>Not Breaking News: Mandatory Vaccination Has Been Constitutional for Over a Century
While there is a lot of sound and fury these days about mandatory vaccination against the COVID-19 virus, it should ultimately signify nothing. Mandatory vaccination is 100 percent constitutional and has been for over a century. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), Justice Antonin Scalia stated that “the elimination of communicable diseases through vaccination became one of the greatest achievements of public health in the 20th century.” Id. at 226 (2011) (quotation marks and footnote omitted). Justice Breyer, concurring, agreed. “[R]outine vaccination is one of the most spectacularly effective public health initiatives this country has ever undertaken.” Id. at 245. Bruesewitz effectively eliminated product liability litigation involving vaccines.<<<


So, with that as background, let's take a look at what actually happens here in the real world when someone alleges in court that vaccine mandates are a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Do you have any guesses? Come on there legal eagle, let's hear your prediction.

Let's cut to the chase. The judge tells them they're idiots:

1639616387310.png


 
Last edited:
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I think Swerd put out a very good rebuttal. Unfortunately I don't think Auditor will have the intellectual honesty to incorporate that into their understanding and just continue to seek bias confirmation.

I'll take a 45 year veteran in cancer research vs a PhD teaching biology at a high school.
 
NINaudio

NINaudio

Audioholic Samurai
I think Swerd put out a very good rebuttal. Unfortunately I don't think Auditor will have the intellectual honesty to incorporate that into their understanding and just continue to seek bias confirmation.

I'll take a 45 year veteran in cancer research vs a PhD teaching biology at a high school.
There were many good rebuttals in the thread that Swerd linked, but Auditor doesn't care. He has an "opposing viewpoint" as he put it and likes to latch onto specific words or phrases in articles that support his viewpoint without understanding the science of gene therapy as a whole. He cherry picks his information, just like that Dr. in the youtube video he posted again where she cherry picked one or two studies that supported her "opposing viewpoint" while ignoring all the others that don't.
 
Dan

Dan

Audioholic Chief
Swerd also has a PhD in microbiology. That's the very sort of organisms we are talking about here.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I think Swerd put out a very good rebuttal. Unfortunately I don't think Auditor will have the intellectual honesty to incorporate that into their understanding and just continue to seek bias confirmation.

I'll take a 45 year veteran in cancer research vs a PhD teaching biology at a high school.
Thanks! I'm always happy to lecture people :). When I do that at home, my wife usually rolls her eyes and puts in her invisible earplugs.

I realize that Auditor will not likely listen. But the Coronavirus thread, and also this one, have clearly gotten wide attention. Yes, it attracts its fair share of right-wing trolls, but it also attracts a lot of people who are simply curious. I've tried to aim my lectures for them.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
By the way, your home brew "crime against humanity" legal theory is nothing but a fantasy. I suppose you fancy yourself to be a great legal eagle of sorts who has discovered a legal theory that has been overlooked by every lawyer and legal scholar in the country for the past 70 years?

Does this strike you as being realistic? Do you want to join the rest of us here in the real world? Perhaps you prefer Wonderland?

First, this may come as a surprise to you, but the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States:
Article VI
  • Clause 2
  • This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

For 100 years, courts have consistently held that vaccine mandates are constitutional:

>>>Not Breaking News: Mandatory Vaccination Has Been Constitutional for Over a Century
While there is a lot of sound and fury these days about mandatory vaccination against the COVID-19 virus, it should ultimately signify nothing. Mandatory vaccination is 100 percent constitutional and has been for over a century. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), Justice Antonin Scalia stated that “the elimination of communicable diseases through vaccination became one of the greatest achievements of public health in the 20th century.” Id. at 226 (2011) (quotation marks and footnote omitted). Justice Breyer, concurring, agreed. “[R]outine vaccination is one of the most spectacularly effective public health initiatives this country has ever undertaken.” Id. at 245. Bruesewitz effectively eliminated product liability litigation involving vaccines.<<<


So, with that as background, let's take a look at what actually happens here in the real world when someone alleges in court that vaccine mandates are a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Do you have any guesses? Come on there legal eagle, let's hear your prediction.

Let's cut to the chase. The judge tells them they're idiots:

View attachment 52359

I greatly appreciate this legal rebuttal to an anti-vaxxer. Thanks.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
People die all the time. No one should be forced to get experimental gene therapy just to get medical care.
I'm not trying to pile on but dude just stop. Like seriously just stop. I'm about as anti gov pro body pro choice as you can get and all that's just pointless if your choices affect other people's bodies and choices.

Why can't other people see that? I'm not saying your conservative but as a conservative minded person it's incredibly frustrating for me to see entire portions of the conservative base go off on this tangent

Numbers don't lie. If your vacced you don't end up in the hospital your grandmother If she's vacced still gets to end up enjoying the last 5 years of her life with loved ones. 1 + 1 = 2. It's not that fuggin hard man.

If you want to argue that we need to think about vaccing poor countries and not hoard it because Covid will spread and mutate over there and just keep coming around I'll concede you have a point there' are other good points that we need to be thinking about as well to make vaccines and other approaches more effective conversations we need to have. There are even new vaccines they are going to roll out that don't use this MRNA approach hopefully they help or work even better another good conversation to have

But this whole gene therapy stuff conspiracy wacko things just please stop it. This science is being used as pointed out in other medical areas. Nobody is mutating into an Xmen yet. So just please stop
 
Teetertotter?

Teetertotter?

Senior Audioholic
Trump folks or rightest folks, are not worth arguing. They make no sense and have no common sense. Nothing will change their minds and believe in lies. Make any sense???lol
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
OMG, this sh!t again?!
Right? :rolleyes:

He called me stupid for addressing his anti-vaccination stance, when he had previously stated that he had been vaccinated. Throwing out strawmen arguments, out-of-context information, word salads and pure falsehoods - all critical of the mRNA vaccines - is the definition of an anti-vaxxer, regardless of your vaccination status. Anyway, I declined to respond to his puerile insult.

Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was "Dal1as" who called me stupid. I don't believe he is with us anymore. Regardless, apologies to @Auditor55 for the defamation. The rest of my statement stands.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'll give you credit swerd, you have a lot more patience for this kind of thing than I do.
Thanks. I don't think of myself as being exceptionally patient. I do work on that, especially here at AH. When I worked as a scientist, I learned that simply telling others that their ideas were BS wasn't enough. It took an explanation of how better control experiments might actually convince a doubter (like me) that their ideas had merit.

Some people actually did those control experiments, removing my doubts, or convincing themselves that their initial idea had to change. So, I became experienced at wading into someone's scientific or pseudo-scientific explanations, dissecting them, and using their own words to show their errors or gaps in thinking, as well as paths they might take to find a way out. That worked with most scientists. They mostly share in common a concept of what convincing evidence is and what good scientific logic should look like.

But this vaccine controversy we now see in this country is something quite different. It's not really about science – it's really political. It's about individuals living within a larger society and what their responsibility is to that society. Where does one stand on individual rights vs. the common good? Are laws and taxes necessary or evil? Is a government needed to do this? Should there be required military service (a draft) in times of emergency? Or, should we have a professional military class within society, as we seem to now have? Is universal health care, run by a single entity (i.e. a government) the best way to do this? Or, should we have strictly private health care, which tends to vary widely in effectiveness and price to both individuals and society? Same question for retirement savings or pensions. And, in public health emergencies, as we now have with the corona virus pandemic, should public vaccination be required? (Those are only a few examples of unlimited libertarianism vs. common good.)

With the pandemic, I see an alarming trend in our country. I see too many people who believe that their individual liberties should never come second no matter what. They believe they are entitled to endanger all of society by not only avoiding vaccination, but also by fomenting widespread resistance to vaccination. I am forced to wonder if they also want to never pay taxes, never obey laws they disagree with, and never participate in defending their country from an outside attack.

Many on either side of the vaccine controversy don't have a science background. When I see people whose politics fall within the anti-vaccine camp, and who try to make scientific-sounding but false arguments, I take the time & effort to skewer them. I'm glad to know others think I'm patient about this. But, in truth, I'd really prefer to pillory vaccine refusers and publicly inject them – not in the arm, but in the buttocks.
 
Last edited:
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
... Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was "Dal1as" who called me stupid. I don't believe he is with us anymore. ...
On ASR he wrote that he was banned on AH and going on how unfair that was. The moderators there was not amused and told him to stop it, leave all that behind and start fresh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top