The Master of Moscow writes,
Someone with a loathing of guns can certainly refuse to have one in his home. And if he lives in a part of town that is otherwise heavily armed, his home can enjoy the same kind of safety from burglars as do the armed ones. Such is the nature of the world.
One of the reasons why we are even able to have a debate about vaccines is that vaccines have been so successful. The gunless fellow is certainly free to claim that his house is left alone because of the good vibes put out by his multi-colored wind chimes. We all think that’s cute, and are glad we live in a free country where there are guys like that.
But the analogy breaks down with something like whooping cough. That’s not so cute.
All of what Doug says here and says throughout this piece is premised on the idea of “herd immunity.” This is a concept that is not scientifically indisputable.
Now what is statistically indisputable is if one lives in a neighborhood where people point guns at bad-guys while pulling triggers you will be safer in that neighborhood even if you dislike discharging weapons. But as we see in the above link (lots of good science there for those who practice scientism) it is the case that when comparing guns in neighborhoods with vaccines and herd immunity one of these things is not like the other.
So Doug, right out of the gate, indulges in the false analogy fallacy. (Don’t tell anyone or his Canon press logic course sales might dip.) This, boys and girls, is what I like to call the kumquat – Rutabaga fallacy. I suspect Doug only used this fallacy because
1.) He is ignorant regarding the facts on herd immunity theory
2.) He was just seeing if anyone was paying attention
The Credibility of the CREC continues,
Now I do have views on the efficacy of vaccines, but I want to address another element of this — the idea that even if they were effective, a requirement that everyone get vaccinated is necessarily statist and tyrannical. Why isn’t this a matter of personal choice and conviction? The answer is that it is not a matter of personal choice because everyone else is involved.
“And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days” (Lev. 13:1–4).
1.) Doug assumes a great deal here and we are being asked to do a large amount of reading between the lines to gain his meaning.
In a pretend world where it is everywhere known and proven that vaccines are effective does it remain true that the State would have role and responsibility to force vaccines on the population?
What if the vaccines were effective but with dire possible consequences Doug? What if the vaccines were cultured on aborted babies and what if vaccines were full of heavy metal (no, not “Metallica” Doug) like mercury? Would it be wrong for a Christian to object to State mandated vaccines — even if they were effective — if it meant that one was taking a bath in mercury and formaldehyde? Would it be un-Christian — even if vaccines were effective — to resist the State’s requirement for vaccines if it were known that the side-effects could be worse then the disease contracted? Would it be un-Biblical for a Christian to protect his children from vaccines — even if they were effective — if the Christian didn’t want to tacitly support the abortion industry?
Really though, in the end vaccines are just so much junk science and the fact of the matter is, is it is far from conclusively proven that vaccines are effective but even if they were and are effective it would not be a slam dunk that they could be forced on us by the State.
2.) The Scripture verse is nice Doug. When we get God speaking with the kind of authority on vaccines such as He has on leprosy we will be sure to tune in and adjust our beliefs and practices accordingly.
The fomenter of Federal Vision finishes,
So take this as a very limited claim. This is not a claim that vaccines are always perfect, or that the side-effects are not a problem, or that frauds can never interfere with the science (as happened with the Lancet article which claimed a correlation with autism), and so on. This is a fallen world, and no problem of this nature can ever be addressed risk-free. The claim I am making here is very limited. If a person has decided personal convictions about the contagious disease he is carrying, the society in which he lives has an equal right to have decided and contrary convictions about that same contagious disease he has. And if there is an outbreak of such a disease, and the government quarantines everyone who is not vaccinated, requiring them to stay at home, the name for this is prudence, not tyranny.
Doug is assuming here that those vaccinated are not the carrier of the disease. However,
a.) with live virus vaccines, in the period after people are vaccinated, those vaccinated can still be the ones carrying and transmitting the disease
b.) vaccinations is not equal to immunization. Those who are vaccinated are not immune to the disease. Nobody knows how long these vaccines last. Nobody knows just how often booster shots are needed. Further, the vaccinations have created mutant forms of the diseases that they are now trying to eradicate and so the vaccinated are not necessarily protected from the new form of the disease. Plus, a quarantine of those non-vaccinated is not going to do any good since the vaccinated can carry the disease as well as the non-vaccinated. The only good quarantine is the quarantine of those who actually have the illness or who have been exposed.
Maybe Doug meant all this. Maybe we were supposed to read this into everything he said. I suspect it is more the case that Doug shouldn’t have even written the article because he seems to know more about multi-colored wind chimes then he does about vaccines.
Now to wrap this all up. Let’s keep in mind that the FEDS never do anything they do without citing prudence as the reason. When they were seizing guns in the aftermath of Katrina that was done for prudence’s sake. When the FEDS were entering into private homes after the Boston bomb without search warrants or reasonable cause that was done in the name of prudence. The FEDS never do anything illegal except in the name of prudence. For Doug to suggest that the FEDS could act with prudence in this kind of matter is to just invite the FEDS to create a false flag in order to do just that.