Over the years, I’ve discussed how various “detoxification” regimens that make up so much of alternative medicine (and, not coincidentally, the basis of many treatments for many conditions—like autism—that antivaxxers used to attribute to vaccines) have more in common with religious purification rituals than they do with science or medicine. This concept of “purity” versus “contamination” (implied to be with evil) also has a lot to do with the idea that “natural immunity” to a disease (which in reality should be called post-infection immunity given that vaccine-induced immunity is natural) and has infected the discourse over COVID-19 vaccines. Not coincidentally, concepts of “contamination” versus “purity” (or even “pureblood” or “purebloods”) are also behind the fear stoked by antivaxxers that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines “permanently alter” your DNA, thus contaminating and corrupting it with evil (the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).
-
"religious rituals"
-
"vaccine induced immunity is
naturala myth" -
argue semantics over where the permanent change in your body actually takes place. they want you to believe vaccines give you life-long immunity, but at the same time deny that vaccines cause life-long changes in your body.
While a competent adult is free to refuse any medical intervention whatsoever, as long as the consequences of doing so are understood, the same is not true for parents refusing life-saving medical interventions for their child. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, is free to refuse blood transfusions based on their religion, even if that refusal will result in their deaths, they should not be allowed to refuse such transfusions for their children. If they do, the state has a duty and obligation to step in to see that the child gets proper medical care.
- presuming that no "well" woman would ever abort her own child, should we presume that any woman seeking an abortion is "un-well", and therefore the state needs to step in on behalf of the child ?
Del Bigtree, to name another example, is perfectly free to refuse “vaccinated blood” after bleeding down to a very low hemoglobin level due to his hemorrhoids, even at the risk of his life, but he does not have the right to let one of his children die a transfusion is needed too save that child’s life. Of course, Bigtree also had adoring fans who paid for a flight to a quack clinic in Cancun to receive just such a transfusion of “unvaccinated” blood, thus ensuring his ability to continue to exist as one of the “purebloods,” but most people are not so fortunate.
Del Bigtree is a good man, and has dedicated many years of his life to exposing vaccines to the whole world.
The hemorrhoids hot take seems a bit sophomoric, for a PhD.
Here in the US, you might remember an incident from nearly eight years ago that I like to cite to point out how so often children are viewed not as autonomous beings but rather the property of their parents during the time they are being raised. I’ve written about this attitude more times than I can remember, encapsulating it with a quote by Senator Rand Paul that sums up this attitude about as close to perfectly as I can. It’s an attitude that permeates every discussion about the health care of children. He said it three years ago at the height of the Disneyland measles outbreak, when calls were just starting to be made in California to ban nonmedical “personal belief exemptions” to school vaccine mandates, calls that ultimately led to SB 277, the law that did ban nonmedical exemptions in California:”The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” Parental rights are not, nor should they be, absolute, and there is no evidence that “vaccinated” blood is any less safe than “unvaccinated blood.”
Parental rights are not, nor should they be, absolute
Parental rights are not, nor should they be, absolute,
Parental rights are not, nor should they be, absolute,
- so... no presumptive right to any abortion?
i mean, you don't get much more absolute than a certain death.
I have not really seen evidence of this “demonization” of the parents reading various New Zealand-based accounts of the story.
- He goes on to demonize the parents, and call for their parental rights to be terminated because they "might" not give their baby ALL of the 70+ CDC recommended vaccines for children age birth to 5.
What I have seen is the appropriate refutation of their conspiracy mongering about “vaccinated blood” being “tainted” and somehow unsafe and questioning why parents would risk their baby’s life based on unscientific nonsense. Of course, to antivaxxers, any science-based criticism that points out that a child’s life should not be endangered because of fear of a medical treatment that isn’t based in any evidence that that medical treatment is, in fact, dangerous.
a child’s life should not be endangered because of fear of a medical treatment that isn’t based in any evidence that that medical treatment is, in fact, dangerous.
- i think this drunken rambling is trying to say he hasn't personally seen any evidence that any vaccine has ever caused any problem, but thats mostly because he chooses to ignore the evidence, and/or explain it away as merely an anecdote, a big coincidence, a spurious correlation, or temporal.
There’s also another consideration, something that I had meant to write about before this child’s story hit international news, namely the “safe blood” movement, sometimes called “SafeBlood,” which is based on the same nonsense:
Anti-vaxxers are trying to create a new global infrastructure for the supply of unvaccinated blood, driven by conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs about the dangers of mRNA COVID vaccines.
SafeBlood Donation was founded by a Swiss naturopath, George Della Pietra, who considers global coronavirus vaccination campaigns to be “the crime of the century.”
He and his supporters believe, wrongly, that mRNA coronavirus vaccines “contaminate” the blood and destroy the immune system, and that unvaccinated people will be harmed if they receive transfusions of blood supplied by vaccinated people.
- "wrongly" ?
then he utterly fails to support this claim.
Indeed, this naturopath claims that his own studies of “vaccinated blood” has revealed horrifying “contamination,” with him adding, “I’ve never seen blood like this. This was, to be honest, the main reason I started the whole thing, because when I saw this, I was so horrified.” The story also notes that he believes there is an an agenda afoot to vaccinate everyone on the planet in an effort to control the world’s population.
- so instead of going down the rabbit hole and seeing why this naturopath was so highly motivated, ...
he just calls it a conspiracy theory and moves on the the next subject.
Although it is tempting in this case to accede to the parents’ wishes, as unscientific as they are, in the name of the child, I would make the argument that if the parents are willing to let their child die rather than let him receive “unvaccinated blood,” chances are very good that their children won’t be getting any of the other recommended childhood vaccines and will receive quackery for medical care in other areas; so a good case can be made for revoking the parents’ rights with respect to medical care.
- abortions are quackery. abortions are not medical care.
After all, the only difference between the blood of those vaccinated and the unvaccinated is likely to be the presence of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which, increasingly, more and more unvaccinated people also have given how many have had and recovered from COVID-19. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out, the amount of spike protein generated by the vaccine is tiny compared to the amount generated by an actual…oh, you know…COVID-19 infection.
i disagree that the antibodies acquired from a so-called "natural" infection (during a man-made PLANdemic) are the exact same as antibodies acquired from the so-called "vaccine"
the amount of spike proteins generated are enough to cause blood clots in almost every dead body that is getting embalmed, according to embalmers on the movie "Died Suddenly" movie (questionable source, buyer beware)
The bottom line is that, as much as we might want to empathize with these parents, they are potentially endangering the life of Baby Will based on what are, in essence, religious (or very religion-like) beliefs devoid of evidence. In this, they are no different from adherents of religions that believe that disease should be treated with prayer rather than medicine,
- abortion is a satanic cult ritual
the lady who brought the RwV case to SCOTUS admitted on her deathbed that she was a paid actor, and that she only said what her script told her to say.
63,000,000 abortions since RwV
abortion is NOT healthcare.
We have to counter the attitude that children don’t have rights of their own as autonomous beings apart from their parents, that their parents have absolute power over them, and that the state should never interfere with that power, no matter how much it is abused. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s one worth fighting for the sake of the children.
Unborn Lives Matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski
David Henry Gorski is an American surgical oncologist, professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, and a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, specializing in breast cancer surgery. He is an outspoken "skeptic", and a critic of alternative medicine and the anti-vaccination movement. He is the author of the blog Respectful Insolence, and the managing editor of the website Science-Based Medicine.
TOP https://twitter.com/search?q=David%20Gorski
LIVE https://twitter.com/search?q=David%20Gorski&f=live
mudbloods drool