Mandatory Ebola Vaccinations ?
Might it become necessary to require universal Ebola vaccinations to control the state of health of the population at large? Though there is not yet a trusted vaccine available to counter Ebola, and though there is no immediate need to fear such a requirement, the question clearly brings attention to the possibility of abuse of government authority.
Does the individual maintain an absolute right to govern his own life? If a vaccine were approved, what if the CDC insisted that its refusal would endanger others? How are citizens outside of the medical community to know the absolute truth about vaccines? Who has the authority to determine the absolute truth about vaccines?
“I am not a medical authority of any kind, and at this point, no Ebola vaccination exists.”
Watch out for the last point. Be suspicious of the CDC’s approval if a miracle vaccine suddenly surfaces, and if Ebola actually appears to become a real pandemic. Neither possibility is likely in my opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.
Thinking outside the box
If you’re a fan of thinking outside the traditional box, here are some ideas to consider. They may help you decide what to do if Ebola did become a pandemic.
Medical epidemics and pandemics are naturally accompanied by public fear. An epidemic becomes a pandemic in the same proportion as fear of the disease.
So, fear and disease definitely go together. How might they be related?
Medical traditionalists hold that fear is a natural and expected consequence of disease, but that fear exists independently of the disease itself. Fear is generally thought of as a mental effect of disease, rather than having anything to do with its causation. An increasing number of medical thinkers disagree. They subscribe to the existence of a distinct mind-body-health relationship which reverses the accepted assignments of cause and effect to fear and disease.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Just so you don’t think this is theoretical hearsay, recognized and respected scientific evidence exists to support the proposition that matter does not act independently of the thoughts and expectations of its observers.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is widely accepted in the scientific community. It was discovered in particle physics experiment. Heisenberg noted that a particle’s behavior changes as it is measured, and that the results of scientific experiments involving the behavior of matter are not independent of their observer. Without mental observation, matter is likely to act in uncertain ways that are different than it would act if it were not being measured. Experimental results are likely to change in uncertain ways. The ways that particles act have been shown to be related to their observation, which must be carried out by an observer.
What does that have to do with epidemics and pandemics?
What does that point of view do for the credibility of vaccines produced by experimenters, each entertaining various expectations as they observe the actions which their vaccines produce on their subjects? At the least, it makes the results uncertain!
That opens up a whole new direction for discussion I’m going to avoid here, but the point to be made is that there is never anything absolutely certain about medical observations and conclusions. No individual has the right to impose his claim to medical authority over another individual.
What about individual rights?
I hold every individual is self- governed. Our authority and accountability are to God, or if you hold atheistic views, to your own self. There is no natural accountability of one human being to another. It is up to each and every one of us to decide for ourselves whether or not we choose to hand over our accountability to another agency outside of ourselves.
On this basis, our human government has only the authority we willingly grant to it. From a traditional medical perspective, I think it irrational for us to expect that the CDC would be more capable of managing the control of disease than would the self governed individuals who are researching vaccines.
From a historical perspective, granting control to government agencies to control and contain emergencies has never proven effective. Just look, for example, at the list of abuses, blunders, and mistakes associated with FEMA relief after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans.
Don’t give up your sovereignty!
On the other hand, it’s up to you as a self governed being to decide for yourself if you want to place you trust in the hands of the self proclaimed authority of federal aid. Do you maintain complete and full trust that whatever preventative actions are decided upon by the CDC are absolutely correct? If so, in the event of the perceived need to require vaccinations, if you were to submit, you would be placing your life in their hands. To submit to government authority is to become willingly enslaved to their requirements, and to sacrifice your own sovereign state of being for theirs. You may be permanently giving up your right to govern your own life and your own future. Not only that – you may be risking your own life.
On the other hand, if you plan to continue to exercise your accountability to God (or to yourself, depending on how you look at it) you will probably refuse to comply with government mandated medical requirements which you already distrust. I maintain that the greatest danger to Americans in the presence of any emergency is the attempt to remove our own right to decide what is good for our own lives in exchange for that illusive “greater good” that socialists believe in so deeply.
Should you choose to refuse a required vaccination, you would most likely be publicly ridiculed and accuse of being a carrier of disease and a danger to society. If you are sure of yourself, and you know where your accountability really lies, would it be better to stand your ground, or to conform to a false authority and risk your own downfall?