How Much Vaccine Collateral Damage Is Acceptable?
Would you maim or kill a smaller number of people to save a greater number of people? The dangers of utilitarianism.
The trolley car scenario, also known as the trolley problem, is a philosophical ethical dilemma that presents a situation where a person must decide whether to divert a runaway trolley onto a track where it would kill fewer people or do nothing and allow it to continue on its current path where it would kill more people.
This scenario is often used to explore moral reasoning and the ethical implications of making difficult decisions that involve choosing between the lesser of two evils. Here it goes:
Imagine you are standing by a set of train tracks. Up ahead, you see a runaway trolley speeding down the tracks. Ahead of the trolley, there are five people tied to the tracks who will be hit and killed if the trolley continues on its path. However, there is a lever next to you that, if pulled, will divert the trolley onto a different track. On this track, there is only one person tied up.
Now, you are faced with a decision: do you do nothing and allow the trolley to continue on its path, resulting in the death of five people, or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley to the other track where it will only kill one person?
This scenario presents a moral dilemma about whether it is more ethical to actively choose to sacrifice one person to save five others or to passively allow five people to die when you could have intervened to save them. It raises questions about the value of individual life versus the greater good.
We can also consider various modifications to the scenarios: In one version, the five people on the track aren’t tied down but are construction workers who are not paying attention. The individual on the other track is a mother with a baby carriage. Does this change the decision?
In another variation, instead of pulling a lever to switch tracks, you are on a bridge overlooking the tracks. There is a very large man standing next to you. The only way to stop the trolley is to push the man off the bridge, causing his body to stop the trolley.
This dilemma raises questions about the ethics of sacrificing one life to save many others and the concept of utilitarianism in ethics.
Utilitarianism in ethics is a philosophical theory that suggests the best action is the one that maximizes overall well-being or happiness. This ethical theory focuses on the consequences of actions rather than the intentions behind them.
According to utilitarianism, an action is considered morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In other words, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome and its impact on the well-being of individuals affected by it.
Spock outlined this philosophy by saying: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one.”
The diference is that Spock volunteered to rescue the Enterprise at the end of Wrath of Khan, but the trolley victim had no such choice.
So the trolley problem is in many ways fueling the hysteria to push vaccines on everyone.
The unspoken message of vaccine mandate activists is utilitarianism…vaccine pushers feel morally justified in that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
This is how they justify the allegedly “rare” side effects that can result in permanent heart damage, neuropathies, serious blood clots, and even death.
They forget that Spock wasn’t forcing people to make this sacrifice, he freely chose it.
To the vaccine utilitarian, harming a few people to “save” many is worth it.
They just won’t say this out loud…usually.
There’s a paid shill or AI bot that has been comment bombing an article we posted on Wholistic News a days ago about immune imprinting and potential ADE.
At first, I thought the commenter was a human paid to post on certain articles, but I think it might be AI. I’m not sure…I’m poking at it with nonsequiters about the Barbie movie and the like to see what it does. So let’s call this person “Shillbot.” I shared a link with studies showing covid vaccine adverse reactions. Here’s Shillbot’s response:
Awesome! I happen to be intimately familiar with this list. So let's go down it. If we go through this list of what are called 'case studies', and:
* the author mentions the studies that show the prevalence of this rare event, will you FINALLY admit that the rate is at the level studied? I mean do you trust the studies or don't you?
* if the author mentions that the vaccine is safe and effective will you agree that these researches take my position
* if I find the same number of 'case studies' for Asprin or another drug, would you agree that a list of case studies are a list of rare events and do nothing to showcase the prevalence (except where cited)?
Let's go to the first one I have access to. The authors state:
"In summary, rare occurrences of COVID-19 vaccine-related neuromuscular complications are indeed possible. Although infrequent, any serious adverse reaction to vaccines must be sought, reported, and rigorously investigated to facilitate ongoing safety evaluation and to minimize vaccine hesitancy among the general population."
Do you agree that these nuropathies are "rare occurrences"??
Here’s my response (with new emphasis)
Rare is an opinion and it doesn't mean shit when it happens to you. I have neuropathy thanks to a fluoroquinolone antibiotic and it ruined my life and puts me in constant suffering so you can eff right off with that so-called "rare" argument. Each rare case is a human life you ruined.
And Shillbot’s answer (emphasis is mine):
No shit, but it tells you what is a rational cost benefit. By that logic, one should never drink water because you might get lead posioning and even though it's rare 'it doesn't mean shit when it happens to you'. So much for drinking water then huh? No actually, if it's rare and the alternative is worse and more common, the rare is the most rational. And with millions of lives saved with the jab and vax-related deaths so rare it's hard to even count, the jab is the most rational thing a person can do if they happen to be in a pharmacy.
So a number ruined it's hard to even count vs millions of lives saved?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537923/
Sounds like one of the most rational calculations in the course of human history.
Note the lack of empathy in this response.
So let me repeat what I wrote above with added quotes:
Each “rare” case is a human life you ruined.
I believe that most covid vaccine defenders know deep down these vaccines have harmed a hell of a lot of people. But they’ve rationalized this harm by believing the lie that the vaccines saved millions and millions of people.
They don’t want to admit that they are simply being utilitarians who are OK with a so-called smaller number of people dying or having their lives ruined with chronic illness in order to save an allegedly larger number of people.
Now…in theory I can make some arguments as to when utilitarianism might be correct.
First off, I believe the harms undertaken must be CONSENUAL with FULL DISCLOSURE of potential risks.
Second, the risks of not using a particular intervention should be extremely high.
Third, such calculations make more sense if we are looking at extinction level events, not a (now common) respiratory virus that is like a bad cold at worst for the majority of sufferers.
IF, in the future, we ever experienced some crazy lethal pathogen like in the movie Contagion, whereby fifty percent or more would die from the germ, then I might see some utilitarian argument for a vaccine mandate. And even then, I’m in favor of not mandating anything shot into people’s arms but prefer isolating people who don’t want shots. This brings up other problems such as “will people be rounded up into camps?” so I realize this is not ideal either.
But we have not seen this type of crazy pathogen unleashed on the world yet.
COVID-19 was not the MEV-1 deadly virus in the movie Contagion.
But we were fearmongered into thinking it might be.
Early on, when covid was just starting, I did a “back of the napkin” style calculation of covid deaths, and based on what they were saying at first, we should have had a quarter of the US population die from covid…and clearly that was not the case.
Where vaccine utilitarianism becomes particularly pernicious is when we mandate vaccines designed not to stop a rampaging pathogen, but rather, simply lower the risk of potential future disease. We’ve seen this with the HPV Gardisil vaccine, which has a lot of nasty side effects and can potentially increase cancers in people who already have been infected with HPV.
Gardisil also causes autoimmune disorders. Here’s a report from a parent on X:
My daughter was sick from the day she received the HPV vaccine, she suffered horrendous migraines, has developed coeliac disease, suffers chronic anemia and has the onset of osteoporosis. She's never been the same since the day she had it and I feel so guilty for allowing it.
…
From that day forward I never saw the daughter I had before, again. Every single day she felt sick with debilitating migraines and it took a while to get a coeliac diagnosis over 4 yrs of constant illnesses, by which time the coeliac had become so extensive it brought on other>>>
Complications and horrendous pain. It took two years of finally eating the right food and taking iron supplements to bring her back around, but being coeliac has really messed with her mind. People think it's just diet, but it's so much more and now I live with the guilt.
Does it make sense to cause a new autoimmune disease to fight a POSSIBLE case of cancer in the future? By the way, try to look up what percentage of people with HPV develop cancer…it’s not easily found…they are more focused on telling you what percentage of certain cancers are caused by HPV, e.g.:
Cervical cancer: Almost 100 percent of cervical cancers are caused by HPV. There are approximately 11,100 cases each year.
Really? How do they know that for sure? I’m not saying HPV doesn’t cause cancer, but there are certainly other factors at play here. And oh, by the way, you can also prevent HPV by putting a glove on it and not being promiscuous.
But it’s not cool these days to tell kids to keep it in their pants.
So what damage and destroyed lives are worth the “protection” created by certain vaccines? Covid is one thing, but what about airborne Ebola? Would you advocate for a dangerous vaccine if the human population was at risk of extinction? How would you know for sure?
I would never mandate a vaccine. I have come to the conclusion that even 1 child with severe autism invalidates the entire paradigm. Vaccinationism inherently demands the destruction of innocent children. You do not get to choose arbitrary people to pay your sacrifice, which is what vaccinationism amounts to.
I didn’t bother reading the bot but appreciate everyone else’s thoughtful perspective. I think I remember reading smallpox was a 30% kill rate. I was thinking at 50% it would make sense to mandate a vaccine because of that movie “Contagion” but Covid proved they really didn’t have a working vaccine or rather an effective one, certainty not safe, even though they swear it was. All the while demonizing effective natural alternatives. Does the damage done to people from the covid vaccine justify the vaccine pushers utilitarianism? Obviously no and the corruption leaves me with little trust that a future vaccine would be safe and effective if some horrible virus does happen. So now I’m rethinking my answer and well I’m not sure I would do it even at a 50% kill rate.