Skip to main content

People who impose their "truth" on others

People who think they know the truth and want to impose their “truth” on others are very dangerous indeed.

Richard Pan, medical-industrial complex "true believer" and author of anti-freedom,
health destroying mandatory vaccination laws in California.

There is nothing wrong with thinking you know the truth about a matter, but trying to enforce that “truth” on other people, against their will, is very evil indeed.

It is doubly bad when such coercive behavior becomes institutionalized and has the force of the law behind it.

This is why I despise compulsory vaccination laws and other coercive attempts to control people’s, or their children's, behavior, which may, in the extreme, involve removing children from their homes and forcibly injecting them with toxic chemicals (for cancer treatment or in the case of vaccination), because their parents don’t subscribe to the same unquestioning beliefs as the overreaching government agencies.

The excuse often provided for this tyranny, that the majority of scientists believe a certain medical intervention is a good idea, is no excuse for overriding people's free will, particularly when the opinion of most people, including establishment "experts" on these issues is so grossly misinformed by biased vested interests.

However, even if the establishment's view on these matters was based on solid facts it still would not justify forcibly imposing toxic chemicals on people who don't want them for themselves or their children.

See also: The solution to anti-vaccine sentiment, What is an extremist?, and Compulsory anything is totalitarian.


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level pla…