Why There Are No Scientific Grounds to Impose Cost On The Uninjected
Well, it seems that the government in singapore is taking away the 'subsidy' for medical treatment for covid patients if they don't take the injection, stating that the government shouldn't be forking out for those whom are taxing the medical system because of the alleged severe illness that allegedly comes to the uninjected. This is on top of other proscriptions on the uninjected, including children.
Firstly, i don't know what 'subsidy' they are talking about given that medical treatment is a high profit industry in singapore. The government's idea of a 'subsidy' is charging people exorbitant sums for something and with a high profit margin, and then giving a discount. That is what they do with housing for their tenants, i mean, citizens, don't they. I think they don't know the difference between a subsidy and a discount.
Anyway, let's get to the reasons why cost-imposition on the uninjected is unscientific.
1. To say that covid patients who don't take the injection suffer severe illness because they didn't take the injection, one must show that all those who DO take the injection DON'T suffer severe infections, and that ALL those who DON'T take the injection DO suffer severe illness. If not, no direct causal relationship can be established between taking the injection and decreased severity. Therefore, one cannot scientifically and conclusively claim that not taking the injection has led to their severe illness.
2. Additionally, that is further supported by the fact that if you don't do antibody t-cell etc tests BEFORE administering the injection, you can't scientifically and conclusively state that the injection saved a single person.
3. To say that it is 'covid' that had led to uninjected people coming down with severe illness, they will have to prove that there are no other possible causes for their condition.
Given that the WHO 'guidelines' state that basically anything can be classified as a 'covid-death' or covid-illness because it COULD be caused by the virus, that is also an admission that it could be something else.
Hence,
to deny 'subsidy' to anyone who is uninjected and said to be a 'covid patient', they will have to,
1. prove that it ISN'T something else that has afflicted them,
2. prove that it is covid and nothing besides,
3. and that their not taking the injection has brought it about or exacerbated it - which cannot scientifically be ascertained incontrovertibly given the fact that both the injected and uninjected can catch, transmit, and be sickened severely by the 'virus'.
4. Given the fact that 99.x% of those having the virus are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic before and after the 'vaccine' was released, no direct causal relationship can be established between the virus in a person and severity of illness, or the vaccine, and the reduction of severity, thus rendering it impossible for the government to claim that it is 'covid' that is causing severity of illness amongst the uninjected.
In fact, there is growing evidence to show that the vaccine and even wearing masks can cause these afflictions which might be blamed on 'covid'.
And pertinent to this, we should also keep in mind that 'Delta wave in India died down when less than 5% were injected, thus, again, dismissing the notion that not being injected causes severe illness.
Furthermore, given the Singapore government profitting greatly from the sale of cars and industries releasing pollution into the air, can they be held responsible as well for the increase in 'covid' cases given that pollution can exacerbate symptoms to greater degree of severity? So it could also be said that both the injected and uninjected might not suffer greater severity if it wasn't for the pollution couldn't it.
In fact, the enforced wearing of masks as well can contribute to increased severity can it not?
And finally, this whole debate is nonsensical given that it is based on the ridiculous notion that human beings don't have an immune system and that immunity can only be acquired through 'vaccines'.
It is ridiculous to presume that only injected persons who suffer 'breakthrough infections' should have lower cost medical treatment whereas those with naturally-acquired immunity who suffer 'breakthrough infections' should face higher cost medical treatment when there is quite a fair bit of scientific evidence to show that natural immunity is more robust. That is plain and simple bias against the human immune system in favour of 'vaccines' wise long-term and epigenetic effects are unknown.
In fact, again, given the fact that 99.x% of people are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic BEFORE the 'vaccine' was released indicates the human immune system is alive and kicking.
And the bottom line is, where there is a risk, there MUST be a choice.
SUM
Not only is the singapore government brazenly committing medical rape of the people through inhumane and disgusting coercive tactics, and also profitting from investing heavily in pfizer and moderna, but they are even going so far as to make medical treatment unaffordable for the uninjected, thus forcing people to buy their product despite nothing being known about its various side effects, long-term consequences, and epigenetic effects.
What if pfizer and moderna made the law? That's what's happening in singapore given the obvious conflict of interest in that sad state's government being investors and shareholders. If it is said the the people are shareholders via their government, then one has to note that the people are a strange sort of shareholder if they can't say no to the injection without repercussions. That makes them subjects of the pharma rather than shareholders.
This, many quarters who put people above profit would be inclined to say, is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
edX
Comments
Post a Comment