Good discussion with Dr. Drew. Unfortunately he is not where he should be regarding these vaccines but it is a start. Eventually, I suspect he will have a clearer picture of the shots. Dr. Drew is the guy who reluctantly advised against the 2nd booster for comedienne, Heather McDonald after she suffered a skull fracture collapsing on stage in a rant about the joys of getting all her injections. (Sickening to watch since it first appears to be a cheap pratfall, but then she doesn't get up.)
Thanks, Dr. K. I just finished the Princeton interview. You did well outlining the growing distrust in "public health". I quote it because the term makes me bristle, but I understand that it would be good to have honest, transparent, and well informed doctors and medical staff and proprietors.
I'm a boomer, 4 kids, engineer, Catholic. My distrust for public health stems from what I learned in opposing abortion for the last three decades. You know as well as I that several vaccines are made from growing disease in the flesh of murdered unborn children, e.g., polio and rubella. For those unfamiliar with this - even my saintly mother-in-law rolled her eyes in disbelief - find Aaron Siri's deposition of the father of vaccines, Stanley Plotkin. If you don't feel ill hearing about chopping up ... I'll leave it at that. But just as bad as the original act is the utilitarian mindset that defends and completes the sacrifice by shooting it into all the children.
So, yeah, I have severe "hang-ups" over modern medicine. But fixing the problem is more than a policy decision. It requires conversion of heart. I'm afraid the recent mind-control operation showed us how far folks are removed from a basic understanding of what it means to be a person made in the image and likeness of the Good God. It doesn't trend in the FB sidebar. The longing for virtue is present, but folks are easily misdirected into false manifestations.
So, keep speaking out. Even if it merely causes someone to sit still for 10 minutes to ponder a concept such as informed consent, it begins to crack the media lock.
I felt disappointed listening to this interview. It seems as though you too have really been deceived by the pervasive and heretical "Greater Good Doctrine" of the NWO and WEF being absolutely pounded into all of us right now for the purpose of conditioning free people to willfully submit to and even demand their own enslavement and rulership for "the good of the whole." If you're a Catholic as I think I recall reading that perhaps you are, I am sure that by now you're even hearing this heretical "Greater Good" doctrine espoused if not directly then at least indirectly by your trusted family priest who probably does not know the origins of that particular message he is putting forward to his parishioners. I could be wrong about this. I sometimes am.
I support you generally in that I feel (hope!) you are on the right team here and I am disgusted by what your employer did in terminating you unjustly and unlawfully.
However, I do not in any way agree with the specific (and I feel, weak) ethical arguments you're presenting. I am, in fact, very concerned about the detrimental legal precedent you may end up setting if your case is successful in it's current format in that you may be creating a legal environment where a free person will now have to justify to The State any refusal made of an unwanted medical procedure.
Unless I misunderstood you, it sounds as though the ethical objection you take to mandatory COVID injections is based on the fact that the injections don't effectively work to prevent illness or spread of disease and that they were not appropriately targeted to most at risk populations. You also stated an objection that natural immunity was not recognized.
Where are the bioethics professors and leaders who are willing to stand up for American liberties and say "It does not matter if I have natural immunity or not, if the injections or other procedures work or not, or if I am in an at risk population or not. As an autonomous free human being, if I wish for any reason of my own individual choosing not to accept ANY medical treatment or procedure, it is within my rights to reject that treatment or procedure whether it pleases the state, my community, my employer or any other individual or entity or not. I am further entitled to COMPLETE PRIVACY regarding the personal medical decision I have made for myself."
This is the position - the one that honors individual free will and liberty and that also demands individuals take personal responsibility for their health and their lives by accepting the consequences and outcomes from their decisions - that I would like to see bioethics leaders in The United States espousing, promoting and teaching to the American public and especially to our American youth.
The position that mandatory medical treatment for anyone should ever be on the table for human beings is both wrong and very dangerous. A society that would accept such terms as a condition of individial existence or participation is a society that is in decline.
Presently, in California it is legal for The State to require children to receive certain medical treatments to attend school. It is legal, but it is wrong.
This is not the first time in our history that something has been made legal which was also wrong. Instead of shrugging our shoulders we should be getting to work to overturn the many unjust and unjustified laws on the books today.
Vaccines (the real ones anyway, not these COVID bioweapons fraudulently labeled as vaccines - this is also something you should be speaking openly about at this point) *may* confer immunity for the individual who receives it thereby protecting individuals who wish to accept them. EVEN IF A VACCINE OR OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE WERE TO CONFER IMMUNITY OR OTHERWISE PROTECT POPULATIONS AT LARGE IT IS IMMORAL AND IMPROPER TO IMPOSE ANY UNWANTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE ON ANY HUMAN BEING WHO REJECTS IT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. There should just be a period right there and the story could end.
Instead, I listened to you going round and round trying to justify and set parameters and conditions around what should be a very simple and straightforward position that No Means No.
I also heard you allude to, without actually stating it, AB 2291. It sounds like a great idea to provide mental health care to members of our homeless populations and other individuals who are ill and in need of treatment, right? Except that this bill should actually scare the shit out of everyone living in this state if it were to pass because of the amount of power, personal autonomy and responsibility it removes from individuals and transfers to government and unelected medical authorities and personnel.
This bill, AB 2291, is not about providing care, it is about increasing government power (yet again) by allowing the government to impose unwanted medical treatment to human beings they deem are in need of it.
There are no parameters or limits or protections in AB 2291 surrounding who exactly we are ok with having our govt force unwanted medical procedures on. Could it be used on outspoken citizens like me by a retaliatory rogue government who may wish to impose punishment outside our legal justice system? Absolutely, it could!
Is my life and autonomy and freedom to decline an unwanted medical procedure or treatment greater than the homeless person's rights to the same simply because I'm still functioning "in the system?" No. From an ethics standpoint, my life and autonomy and freedoms do not supercede anyone else's. So we have another easy ethical answer to the question when it comes to AB 2291. No. No, it is never ok to force an unwanted medical procedure on anyone ever.
It is frustrating that so few people understand that it is an erroneous belief that more government actually solves human problems. Growing government takes very serious problems that do exist and makes them even worse. Every time.
The last thing I really would like you to think about please is taking a firm (however unpopular) public stand and statement regarding the immorality and illegality of mass administration of experimental medical treatments to human populations when there are safe and effective therapeutics available. THIS, in my opinion, along with the censorship and suppression of information regarding therapeutics (including the release of deliberate misinformation regarding therapeutics) in order to present obstacles for public access to therapeutics as well as outright removal altogether of public access to therapeutics, is the biggest bioethics problem that governments, pharma, medical authorities, medical practitioners, media, social media, bioethics professors - the list can go on and on - must be held to account for over the last two years.
You simply have to (please do) tell the whole truth regarding what has happened even if it means acknowledging that your ethical position and even your legal case are going to have to be modified based on a more complete understanding and processing of events through the lens of hindsight.
Sorry so long. If I were a better communicator I would have gotten it done in a shorter post.
Sir, if you or your hosts could make transcripts available -- even if auto-generated ones -- that would be greatly helpful. I know this is not always practical. I find myself transcribing important interviews or at least key comments within -- and I wish these were easier to produce and re-check.
Good discussion with Dr. Drew. Unfortunately he is not where he should be regarding these vaccines but it is a start. Eventually, I suspect he will have a clearer picture of the shots. Dr. Drew is the guy who reluctantly advised against the 2nd booster for comedienne, Heather McDonald after she suffered a skull fracture collapsing on stage in a rant about the joys of getting all her injections. (Sickening to watch since it first appears to be a cheap pratfall, but then she doesn't get up.)
Thanks for all your engagement Dr. K.
Thanks, Dr. K. I just finished the Princeton interview. You did well outlining the growing distrust in "public health". I quote it because the term makes me bristle, but I understand that it would be good to have honest, transparent, and well informed doctors and medical staff and proprietors.
I'm a boomer, 4 kids, engineer, Catholic. My distrust for public health stems from what I learned in opposing abortion for the last three decades. You know as well as I that several vaccines are made from growing disease in the flesh of murdered unborn children, e.g., polio and rubella. For those unfamiliar with this - even my saintly mother-in-law rolled her eyes in disbelief - find Aaron Siri's deposition of the father of vaccines, Stanley Plotkin. If you don't feel ill hearing about chopping up ... I'll leave it at that. But just as bad as the original act is the utilitarian mindset that defends and completes the sacrifice by shooting it into all the children.
So, yeah, I have severe "hang-ups" over modern medicine. But fixing the problem is more than a policy decision. It requires conversion of heart. I'm afraid the recent mind-control operation showed us how far folks are removed from a basic understanding of what it means to be a person made in the image and likeness of the Good God. It doesn't trend in the FB sidebar. The longing for virtue is present, but folks are easily misdirected into false manifestations.
So, keep speaking out. Even if it merely causes someone to sit still for 10 minutes to ponder a concept such as informed consent, it begins to crack the media lock.
I felt disappointed listening to this interview. It seems as though you too have really been deceived by the pervasive and heretical "Greater Good Doctrine" of the NWO and WEF being absolutely pounded into all of us right now for the purpose of conditioning free people to willfully submit to and even demand their own enslavement and rulership for "the good of the whole." If you're a Catholic as I think I recall reading that perhaps you are, I am sure that by now you're even hearing this heretical "Greater Good" doctrine espoused if not directly then at least indirectly by your trusted family priest who probably does not know the origins of that particular message he is putting forward to his parishioners. I could be wrong about this. I sometimes am.
I support you generally in that I feel (hope!) you are on the right team here and I am disgusted by what your employer did in terminating you unjustly and unlawfully.
However, I do not in any way agree with the specific (and I feel, weak) ethical arguments you're presenting. I am, in fact, very concerned about the detrimental legal precedent you may end up setting if your case is successful in it's current format in that you may be creating a legal environment where a free person will now have to justify to The State any refusal made of an unwanted medical procedure.
Unless I misunderstood you, it sounds as though the ethical objection you take to mandatory COVID injections is based on the fact that the injections don't effectively work to prevent illness or spread of disease and that they were not appropriately targeted to most at risk populations. You also stated an objection that natural immunity was not recognized.
Where are the bioethics professors and leaders who are willing to stand up for American liberties and say "It does not matter if I have natural immunity or not, if the injections or other procedures work or not, or if I am in an at risk population or not. As an autonomous free human being, if I wish for any reason of my own individual choosing not to accept ANY medical treatment or procedure, it is within my rights to reject that treatment or procedure whether it pleases the state, my community, my employer or any other individual or entity or not. I am further entitled to COMPLETE PRIVACY regarding the personal medical decision I have made for myself."
This is the position - the one that honors individual free will and liberty and that also demands individuals take personal responsibility for their health and their lives by accepting the consequences and outcomes from their decisions - that I would like to see bioethics leaders in The United States espousing, promoting and teaching to the American public and especially to our American youth.
The position that mandatory medical treatment for anyone should ever be on the table for human beings is both wrong and very dangerous. A society that would accept such terms as a condition of individial existence or participation is a society that is in decline.
Presently, in California it is legal for The State to require children to receive certain medical treatments to attend school. It is legal, but it is wrong.
This is not the first time in our history that something has been made legal which was also wrong. Instead of shrugging our shoulders we should be getting to work to overturn the many unjust and unjustified laws on the books today.
Vaccines (the real ones anyway, not these COVID bioweapons fraudulently labeled as vaccines - this is also something you should be speaking openly about at this point) *may* confer immunity for the individual who receives it thereby protecting individuals who wish to accept them. EVEN IF A VACCINE OR OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE WERE TO CONFER IMMUNITY OR OTHERWISE PROTECT POPULATIONS AT LARGE IT IS IMMORAL AND IMPROPER TO IMPOSE ANY UNWANTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE ON ANY HUMAN BEING WHO REJECTS IT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. There should just be a period right there and the story could end.
Instead, I listened to you going round and round trying to justify and set parameters and conditions around what should be a very simple and straightforward position that No Means No.
I also heard you allude to, without actually stating it, AB 2291. It sounds like a great idea to provide mental health care to members of our homeless populations and other individuals who are ill and in need of treatment, right? Except that this bill should actually scare the shit out of everyone living in this state if it were to pass because of the amount of power, personal autonomy and responsibility it removes from individuals and transfers to government and unelected medical authorities and personnel.
This bill, AB 2291, is not about providing care, it is about increasing government power (yet again) by allowing the government to impose unwanted medical treatment to human beings they deem are in need of it.
There are no parameters or limits or protections in AB 2291 surrounding who exactly we are ok with having our govt force unwanted medical procedures on. Could it be used on outspoken citizens like me by a retaliatory rogue government who may wish to impose punishment outside our legal justice system? Absolutely, it could!
Is my life and autonomy and freedom to decline an unwanted medical procedure or treatment greater than the homeless person's rights to the same simply because I'm still functioning "in the system?" No. From an ethics standpoint, my life and autonomy and freedoms do not supercede anyone else's. So we have another easy ethical answer to the question when it comes to AB 2291. No. No, it is never ok to force an unwanted medical procedure on anyone ever.
It is frustrating that so few people understand that it is an erroneous belief that more government actually solves human problems. Growing government takes very serious problems that do exist and makes them even worse. Every time.
The last thing I really would like you to think about please is taking a firm (however unpopular) public stand and statement regarding the immorality and illegality of mass administration of experimental medical treatments to human populations when there are safe and effective therapeutics available. THIS, in my opinion, along with the censorship and suppression of information regarding therapeutics (including the release of deliberate misinformation regarding therapeutics) in order to present obstacles for public access to therapeutics as well as outright removal altogether of public access to therapeutics, is the biggest bioethics problem that governments, pharma, medical authorities, medical practitioners, media, social media, bioethics professors - the list can go on and on - must be held to account for over the last two years.
You simply have to (please do) tell the whole truth regarding what has happened even if it means acknowledging that your ethical position and even your legal case are going to have to be modified based on a more complete understanding and processing of events through the lens of hindsight.
Sorry so long. If I were a better communicator I would have gotten it done in a shorter post.
Sir, if you or your hosts could make transcripts available -- even if auto-generated ones -- that would be greatly helpful. I know this is not always practical. I find myself transcribing important interviews or at least key comments within -- and I wish these were easier to produce and re-check.