FAR Outside Medical Norms: Until You Can Prove Safety, You CANNOT Justify Vaccine Mandates
“I did a calculation … So you killed 150,000 in order to maybe save 10,000 lives.”
Coast Guard rescuer Chad Weston, who helped in Hurricane Ian rescue missions, went on Fox News Tuesday (10/4/22) to explain how he faces termination for refusing the jab.
He’s a man of God — but his religious exemption was denied, and he is one of 20,000 service members who face termination over the military's vaccine mandate.
Fox News pundit Steve Doocy commented, “Given you’re so close to retirement (two years), I’m sure there are people saying, ‘Why don’t you just get the shot?’”
"Because my faith and my belief are more important than that," Watson responded. "If I compromise that, I compromise everything I stand for.”
What a commendable action for this man to stick by his principles and not take the easy way out.
But how ethical is it to mandate these things in the first place?
That’s where we turn to Peter McCullough. But first, let’s play devil’s advocate and hear a pro-vaccine Canadian doctor’s perspective (the lady with the headphones and the mask).
Vaccine mandates are quite normal! We’ve always had them. School boards require that students are immunized against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, meningitis — it’s a normal thing. As a family doctor, every year, I keep all of my patients up to date with all of their routine immunizations. If you’re a doctor and you want to go to medical school, the first thing you have to do — if you’re a nurse and you want to go to nursing school — the first thing you have to do is prove that you are up to date with all of your immunizations. That is just basic public health, and it’s basic sense.
But is this “vaccine” like the others? Because as far as doctors like Peter McCullough can tell, the only similarity it shares with those other shots is in the name “vaccine.” If definitions weren’t changed, they would have rightly been placed in a completely different category, gene therapy.
Dr. Peter McCullough elaborates on how unusual it is to mandate such products:
Mandating an emergency use authorized set of vaccines that have no proven safety is not routine at all. These vaccines are genetic products; they’re given every six months or more frequently. Now there are bivalent boosters that have never been tested on a human being whatsoever.
This isn't usual or normal! This isn't a part of conventional practice. This is far outside the norms that we have — particularly with respect to safety. Until something's proven to be safe, in no way should it be mandated.
Mic drop. And to take it even further...
As explained by Dr. Michael Yeadon:
The elapsed time taken to get an adequate amount of safety data is always longer than the feasible length of any pandemic in history. In other words, a new vaccine is always, let me say it again, always, Mr. Gates, the wrong answer.
It will always take you longer to do a responsible job of creating and testing a novel vaccine than the length of the pandemic. And if you take less time, it means you do not have an appropriate amount of safety data, and therefore, it’s reckless to go and vaccinate the whole population.
Safety is ALWAYS the most important aspect of ANY medical intervention. Because if you kill two, three, four people for every one you save, it DOESN’T MATTER how effective your product is.
More people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group, and it takes 22,000 vaccines to save one life from COVID.
Steve Kirsch: “I did a calculation … So you killed 150,000 in order to maybe save 10,000 lives.”
So really, NO ONE should be injecting themselves with these things, let alone be mandated to take them. It's a disgrace that our military members still have to deal with this.
Thanks for reading.
If you like my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
And to watch the entirety of the interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, click/tap the link below.