No to forced vaccination-3

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

We continue with the salient points of a petition or opposition to the bill now in the Senate that would impose a vaccine passport which will give special privileges to the vaccinated. This is a form of undue pressure or force to compel people to be vaccinated with an unknown substance into the human body.

Let’s continue with the reasons for the opposition. It points out that “the (proposed) law itself ADMITS that the Covid-19 “vaccine” does not assure immunity from the disease!  IT, THEREFORE, FAILS THE DEFINITION OF A VACCINE!  If the law itself ADMITS that the Covid-vaccine CANNOT AND IS NOT EXPECTED TO GUARANTY immunity from the disease, WHY WOULD THE STATE DEPRIVE ITS CITIZENS OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IF THEY REFUSE TO BE VACCINATED?”

For emphasis, let’s repeat the definition of a vaccine according to the Oxford Dictionary which says it is a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as antigen without inducing the disease.”

A vaccine thus provide immunity against a disease and does not induce a disease.

The yesterday’s quoted Cambridge dictionary says the same thing in another way: “a substance…given to a person or animal to prevent them from getting the disease that the virus or bacterium causes.”

A vaccine therefore prevents the inoculated from getting a disease, he or she becomes immune.

In case the authors of the vaccine passport are Anglophobe, here is the American Webster’s New World Dictionary, which says that a vaccine is “any preparation…introduced into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease…”

All the English dictionaries are unanimous – a vaccine prevents a disease, no other definition.

Since the bill admits their vaccine that would be forced on the Filipinos does not produce or provide immunity or prevents the inoculated from getting the disease, where on earth did the authors get their definition of their “vaccine” that does not, repeat, does not provide immunity or prevents the body from getting the disease?

Are the authors of this bill giving us a run-around thinking perhaps that the Filipinos now living in fear will just accept whatever kind of injection to be enforced? Or did they just accept the word of the big pharmaceuticals with the billions of dollars to dispense?

Are not the authors deceiving us? For what purpose? Should the Senate not haul the supposed experts in the Department of Health to explain what their vaccine is, different and distinct from the meaning given by the three authoritative dictionaries and statements of several authors and specialists?

The position paper of the Movement claimed that “there are other proven and safer alternatives to Covid-19.”

Indeed there are – cheap, effective, safe and readily available even for home use. I have written extensively on the statements of many experts on this alternative but nobody in the government is listening. Are their ears perchance tuned only to the big pharmaceuticals and their cohorts and their expected billions of dollars in profit from their claimed “vaccine” that is not a vaccine and, of course the collaborating officials of the World Health Organization?

Not only that the government does not listen to other views but they threatened medical and health workers for their sense of duty by proposing other approaches to the pandemic. Need we wonder why they are afraid to listen?

But the Movement dared to tell the senators that “Covid-19 is a form of a flu, and can be remedied by early treatment without need of a vaccine (which does not exist, I may add).  The device of a “vaccine passport” kills the right of the people to freely choose these other proven and safer alternatives.

“Congress can take notice that SO MANY PEOPLE ARE GETTING HEALED FROM COVID WITHOUT BEING ADMINISTERED ANY VACCINE AT ALL. Why make vaccination mandatory?”

They requested a chance “to articulate these concerns in a formal public hearing before action is taken to approve the Bill” and to recognize in the law the right of a person who want to or does not want to be “vaccinated”.

More on this later?