Your Body, My Choice

It’s also interesting to see the pro-abortion rights people suddenly decide that “your body your choice” doesn’t apply if we are talking about COVID vaccines. These are the same people who flatly reject the argument that “your choice to abort is murdering people so you shouldn’t get to choose.”

There is a difference of degree because an abortion invariably results in the destruction of a fetus while a refusal to not vaccinate doesn’t invariably result in anything.

“Yes, but I don’t agree that abortion is murdering people.” And they don’t agree that their decision to not vaccinate can harm the vaccinated. Why should anybody care about your definition of life if you don’t respect other people’s definitions? If “public interest” decides what happens inside your body, then. . . prepare for some decisions you might not enjoy.

You either support forcing people to carry something inside their body that they don’t want to carry, or you don’t. And there’s absolutely no guarantee that tomorrow you won’t be asked to put something inside yourself that you don’t want.

I highly recommend considering if there’s something you won’t agree to put into your body “for public good.” Psychotropics? Opioids? Fake meat? A chip that reports your movements to your employer? Penis? What will your argument be to defend your right not to? I would take me seconds to come up with an argument how refusing each of these is “like literally murdering people.” Hey, we’ve heard arguments that people reading books somebody doesn’t like is “literal murder.” Why are people so certain that this mentality will never be applied to force them to do things they don’t want?

11 thoughts on “Your Body, My Choice

  1. I highly recommend reading the Pfizer’s 2nd quarter earnings report: https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_financials/2021/q2/Q2-2021-Earnings-Charts-FINAL.pdf

    Besides the obvious (how they are all rolling in money), page 26 shows waning immunity to SARS-CoV-2 virus by month 8, page 27 focuses on the Delta variant. Sadly, the data on page 26 jumps directly from month 1 to month 8, it would be really interesting to see what happens in between. The data for the Delta variant only shows immunity one month post-dose 2 and one month post-dose 3. From what I understand, the 3rd dose is identical to the first two, so there is likely nothing special about the delta variant mutation. The immunity post-dose 2 simply wanes somewhere between month 1 and month 8. Get ready for at least 2 boosters a year.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It’s becoming increasingly clear that these vaccines are actually therapeutics that offer moderate protection for a few months. We still don’t know what the long-term effects are, and the payout (to patients, not Pfizer) seems quite modest.

      This is why the CDC is panicking, issuing mask mandates, threatening lockdowns, etc. The vaccines turned out to be a dud.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “The vaccines turned out to be a dud.”

        Still not convinced that’s not on purpose…. the idea that some kind of research is being done with them is also…. not convincing (what is being studied? what is the control group?).

        It’s just stalling for time till Fall to keep the tech-gravy train running….

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “(what is being studied? what is the control group?).”

          Apologies for interjecting but this is too important to leave aside – the control group consists of people who already experienced COVID without being “vaccinated” with experimental mRNA products, who have naturally occurring immunity/antibodies resulting from that.

          That control group is being destroyed as we speak by demanding that they receive experimental mRNA products.

          In turn, that makes it very difficult for anyone to prove what benefit or harm is produced by the mRNA products, which is one of the reasons that the traditional vaccine debate can never be put to bed and constantly causes conflict worldwide. In the Western world at least, it is very difficult or impossible to find a large number of unvaccinated individuals who have developed their own immunity, and to use them as a control group against whatever new vaccine has come out that year.

          So, they’re recreating the exact conditions that keep regular vaccine science in a state of, well, emotion driven anti-science.

          Liked by 3 people

  2. Another interesting idea is that demands others to receive COVID vaccines are extensions of NIMBYism ie “yeah sure you’re free to do what you like but NOT IN MY BACK YARD!”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “That control group is being destroyed”

    So they’re no doing any kind of real research anymore (assuming they ever were). They might was well slaughter chickens and read the entrails for all the knowledge it would bring to the world….

    My intuition says that research protocols are wrecked when those doing the research don’t want to know the answer.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I am not sure if the people doing the research do not want to know the answer, or they already have an answer in mind they would like to confirm. The problem with both of those scenarios is two-fold. First is the potential wrecking of the research protocols, and the second is the problem with data interpretation (i.e., even if their research protocols are flawless maybe their data analysis and interpretation is not). As a person intimately involved in scientific research, I know how difficult it can be sometimes to divorce yourself from your pre-conceived ideas about what you expect to find from what you actually find when analyzing and interpreting the data. Keeping an open mind for alternative explanations that do not fit one’s preconceived notions is a must, otherwise it is easy to dismiss the results that do not fit one’s expectations.

      Unlike pharmaceutical research, my field is very low-stakes and niche – no one is getting rich from it. Still, errors of this type happen. Oftentimes, peer review can help to catch such errors, but what if your peer reviewers and journal editors have the same biases as you? So incorrect and poorly done science still gets published. Ultimately, the science enterprise is self-correcting in the sense that usually, over time, other people try to build on your work and thus naturally scrutinize it and correct it. Sometimes, groups of scientists violently disagree and publish papers for and against a particular interpretations (and, amusingly, can even get very petty about their favorite ideas). It can easily take a decade (or two or three) to settle a fight. In the end, this back-and-forth works. Sadly, what we are seeing now is one dominant opinion with back-and-forth not allowed. Science is not god, there is not one revealed immutable truth we learn from it. Science is just us imperfect humans trying to make sense of our world, repeatedly failing, but in the end learning something nonetheless…

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “So they’re no doing any kind of real research anymore (assuming they ever were)”

      A lot of research is definitely going on, because they’re destroying the possibility of a control group for one specific infectious disease, who have one specific set of antibodies to a particular virus, and nothing else.

      So in future when a medical scientist is trying to figure out how a new kind of mRNA immunotherapy can be used to affect a particular type of cells or proteins relevant to, say, diabetes, they will have no problem finding a group of people who have diabetes who have never taken their new mRNA immunotherapy to use as a control group, because new people are born who develop diabetes every minute of every day, and the spike protein that todays COVID mRNA shots code for isn’t relevant to those cells or that new future diabetes mRNA shot.

      In the case of COVID though, in a world where everyone is forced to be injected with the mRNA product just to live their lives, it will soon be as difficult to find people who have never had a COVID vaccine as it is today to find people who have never had childhood vaccines.

      So, any researcher who sets out to prove that this or that COVID mRNA vaccine is harmful wont have a control group who only has natural antibodies to compare the COVID mRNA vaccine group to.

      What they’re doing is akin to a murder trial happening that relies on DNA evidence, and then sprinkling the suspects DNA on every surface and into every sample taken by the police, so that no one could ever tell where the suspect was or wasn’t. Contaminating everything with the suspects DNA would make it impossible for anyone to prove anything anymore and cause a mistrial forever.

      Like

        1. “So they’re trying to shrink human knowledge not enlarge it.”

          You could look at it that way, sure. In my experience dealing with their types though, the only thing going through their minds is to make and protect the money. Not one blip of thought goes towards anything so lofty as “human knowledge”.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.