Quote of the day—Stephen Michael Stirling

Which is why vaccination should be compulsory, unless there’s independently-corroborated medical reasons for not taking it.

And by “compulsory” I don’t mean fines and scolding; I mean the cops will come to your house and physically hold you and your family down while the shot is administered, and if you resist beat you to a pulp or shoot you.

Stephen Michael Stirling
Posted on Facebook December 12, 2020
[Via a private post by Jonathan.

Best response (also private) by Vector Victor:

“Alexa, vacuum the doormat.”

I find it interesting so many people are so casual about advocating egregious violation of basic human rights.

We live in interesting times.—Joe]


29 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Stephen Michael Stirling

  1. I find the notion of mandatory vaccination bizarre.

    A vaccine protects the person vaccinated. So declining to be vaccinated is like declining to wear seatbelts — you’re choosing to be exposed to an avoidable risk. But, just as with seat belts, doing this doesn’t endanger anyone who did choose to use the protection.

    That being the case, there is no moral justification for any coercion, registration (“immunization passports”) or anything like that.

  2. It’s stunning to see the ignorance of people on display.

    Do they not understand what they are advocating and what the repercussions may well be?

    Jeff B.

    • Do they not understand what they are advocating and what the repercussions may well be?

      Of course they understand.
      It’s a secret desire they want.
      It’s one of the ‘standard’ human moral failings. The overweening desire to be ‘King Of All I Survey’.

  3. “… independently-corroborated medical reasons …”

    Here in Oregon, Dr. Paul Thomas, a prominent voice for recommending an alternative vaccination schedule to the “standard CDC schedule” or going entirely un-vaccinated, recently had his license to practice medicine suspended by the Oregon Medical Board.

    His office, Integrative Pediatrics, serves ~19,000 patients, mostly children. Some use the standard CDC schedule, some use his alternative schedule, and some go entirely un-vaxxed. With large survey samples, several thousand in each “vaxx” group and several hundred in the “non-vaxx” group, he has clinically demonstrated that modifying the standard CDC schedule — omitting a few shots, and stretching out the rest over time (fewer pokes at a time, but still fully vaxxed before kindergarten) — can reduce adverse vaccine reactions (including autism) by ~90% (and of course, the non-vaxx group has no adverse vaccine reactions).

    Surveys, stats, numbers, multivariate analyses … this is called “science”, and he publishes his numbers.

    However, the OMB decided that his “anti-vaccine” advocacy, paired with a handful of “non-vaxx injuries”, deemed him unfit to practice medicine. Apparently, even with all those fancy numbers, his research “fraudulently asserts” a reduction in the risk of autism and other disorders linked with vaccines, and his “conduct has breached the standard of care and has placed the health and safety of many of his patients at serious risk of harm.”

    So the question is, how do you get your “independently-corroborated medical reasons” to skip a vaccine, if the physicians who would independently corroborate are barred from legally practicing medicine as a direct result of that corroboration?

    (It should go without saying, that is precisely the point. The people saying the vaccine should be required for everyone are the same people who censor and silence opposing opinions on all subjects. This is just another example.)

    • “-if the physicians who would independently corroborate are barred from legally practicing medicine as a direct result of that corroboration?”

      It’s entirely possible there’s a middle ground between “any argument for why you cannot have a vaccine can be corroborated reasonably” and “no argument for why you cannot have a vaccine can be corroborated reasonably”

      • Under normal circumstances, yes. But I’d point out the key word is “reasonably”, and Oregon’s government is not acting reasonably.

        There’s a bill already filed for the upcoming legislative session with a very good chance of passing that will remove all vaccine exemptions — religious, moral, and medical — and require all vaccines for all children.

        The only allowed exemption will be for life-threatening anaphylaxis, and that would only apply to the specific vaccine(s) that cause anaphylaxis in that child, and only after it has caused anaphylaxis (and therefore only apply to multi-dose vaccines). Family history will not be considered, nor will known allergies.

        This violates individual rights on many levels. By any objective measure it is not reasonable. But it’s on the table.

    • Identical to the process, now many years old, with “Climate Change”. That one has been working, so why not expand on the success? And that of course begs the question; What’s next?

    • his research “fraudulently asserts” a reduction in the risk of autism and other disorders linked with vaccines

      Autism has no links to vaccinations. None. I can now disregard anything this doctor says as genuinely fraudulent. Even though I completely agree about relaxing the schedule.

  4. The Leftist argument is based on the already existing socialist medical policies and also the original medical philosophy to treat everyone, regardless of any the consequences of previous personal choices. I first came across this in the argument about helmet laws for motorcyclists. The point was that if you choose to not wear a helmet and then suffer a debilitating brain injury that leaves you in a vegetative state, you will most likely require state supplied care for the remainder of your life. So, if you are in that condition, the state has a vested interest in reducing the potential for that liability as all citizens would be paying for your care. Sounds good as far as that goes but it is the typical “government first” solution. Why was it not made possible for motorcyclists to obtain, on the open market, catastrophic insurance that would cover such contingencies? If the cost for such was too high, the individual would then have to make the same type of choice they make regarding the safety of the car they choose to drive. I mean by that; not everyone chooses to drive a Volvo or Mercedes (very high safety ratings) because they can’t afford the car. Personal choice should equal personal responsibility in every aspect. The illogical conclusion this will eventually get to is that even brushing your teeth will become regulated since tooth decay is a significant contributor to poor health and has especially direct links to heart issues.

    We have long passed the point where we can pull back and say no more control over our personal choices and it was accepted mostly because it was convenient for us.

    • Never understood the mandatory helmet laws. Just pass a law that says if you are in a nearly-fatal accident and not wearing one, you will be denied heroic measures and are automatically made available as an organ donor. Solve two problems with one simple trick.

      Action, consequence. Easy.

      • Helmet laws, seatbelt laws — these can be understood as a government assertion that it owns you, and wants its property to be protected.
        One problem with helmet laws is that they are the camel’s nose. If “dangerous behavior” as defined by some government weenie is to be controlled, what is the limit of dangerousness that may be prohibited? Eating too much food? Not exercising? Eating meat? Going skiing? Riding a motorcycle? Riding a bicycle? Skydiving?
        The list is endless. The only principle that works in dealing with this is “hell no” across the board.

  5. So…this means the vitally important leftist battle cry, “My Body, My Choice!” is now forever null and void?

    Remember the AIDS outbreak? I certainly do. Remember the refusal to track infected people’s contacts and so on, and on and on? That couldn’t be done because we don’t want to stigmatize anyone, right? And it’s a violation of basic rights, don’t you know. Those were the arguments, and so people were going around infecting others uninhibited. And early on, AIDS didn’t have a 99.97% survival rate. It was pretty much a death sentence.

    Ah yes, I remember it well.

    But blatant hypocrisy has never been a problem for the left. It’s a feature, and so we should never expect any intellectual consistency out of them except for one kind; consistent advocacy of decay, decline, chaos and destruction and the consolidation of power.

    Also; the word is, the Nuremberg accords are against anyone being forced to take medications without their consent. That’s in response to what the Nazis were doing in their notorious “medical experiments” (quite in accordance with early 20th Century American Progressives, by the way). Apparently now we’re all “undesirables”, and can be forcibly subjected to medical experiments at the whim of government?

    Also; have you all noticed that practically no one has had a cold or the flu since March? Hmm. Maybe COVID has been out attacking all other viruses and killing them. In that case, COVID would be the breakthrough we’ve all been waiting for; the cure to the common cold! [/sarc]

    But all of that is just distraction. It’s the attention-grabbing action of the right hand, preventing us from seeing what the left hand is doing.

    So I advocate looking anywhere BUT at those things to which our attention is being directed. OF COURSE we’re being lied to, cheated and misdirected, and so we must ask ourselves what the objectives are. Only then will we be able to find the “man behind the curtain” as it were, but we’re too thoroughly Mesmerized by the spectacular imagery, fire and smoke. Where’s Toto when we need him?

    As always; all roads lead to Rome, by the way (often through Malta).

  6. It never ceases to astonish me – they keep acting like war is peace and peace is war – even though I know better. Consistency and logic are simply not relevant. The only thing that matters is that we obey our betters.

    And that goes aright along with science-based anything. It’s also like the words ‘We’re from the government and are here to help you’.

    In addition words like it’s 95% effective are likely too good to be true. We’ve had the common cold around for ever and even though it is from the same family, we don’t have a vaccination for it. So why should I trust them and take the vaccine?

    • Don’t forget this vaccine uses MRNA, which no vaccine before has used.
      Plus, this Covid-19 is Nouvell Corona virus 2019.
      What happened to Covid 18, 17, 16, and so on? My raving loony leftist cousin showed a picture on Facebook of a Lysol container she had that included The Corona Virus among the viruses the Lysol killed.
      Whether this is still on the labels of the most recent products, I have not remembered to check it out at the grocery store. We all remember the fish tank cleaner lady, to put that on the label might persuade someone to feed it to her husband.

    • Well, the experimental vaccine was 95% successful. 95% of the otherwise healthy test subjects didn’t die over the four week period of the trials.

    • Heh! And with a national no bail system. And open borders for the cartels. What’s body disposal going to cost?

    • I’m pretty certain the technology is sound. I can’t speak to the legal claims made. I’m not sure about the secret printing on the ballots but that technology has been around for decades so I would hope they have done that. And if not, then if there were ballots printed on someone’s home printer that should be easily detected as well.

      • Thanks for the review. I will guess that it never sees the light of day. Regardless of the outcome I would love to see a few hundred thousand of the “Go home, we are finished counting for the night” votes run through his process.

        • I would like to see that and a lot of other things too. Unfortunately, we are not in that particular space-time continuum. This is the nightmare version of 2020.

  7. If you don’t trust government to have your best interests at heart, know politicians lie as a matter of course, and have a knowledge of Agenda 21 and what the reality behind all this media propaganda is, why would you allow them to inject you with some unknown substance?
    Do you trust the veracity of TPTB?
    I’ll trade one of my shots for one of yours!

  8. It may be that it kills covid-19 at 95% rate. But they can’t tell us what else it’s killing at the same time? As drugs effect the whole body.
    My 75 year old brother got it. Over in 3 days. My 93 year old mother tested positive at the rest home 14 days ago. Still smiling, eating. Just a dry cough.
    Not that this isn’t a bad bug.
    But, all that’s going on now is about power, money, and control.
    And just like BLM/Antifa, has nothing to do with race. Same play-book.
    And right on time: A new strain of covid has just appeared in England! No one saw that coming. Riiight!

Comments are closed.