Response to Peter Singer’s Absurdity. The Listener Magazine Should Do Some Listening Itself.

As another example of the tricked leading the willfully blind, Australian “ethicist and moral philosopher” Peter Singer still pushes their desperate tropes in his article in NZ’s The Listener: that anti-vaxers are crazy and selfish, and the shots are safe and effective, blah blah blah. The usual implication is – by extension – that we all deserve to die as we reject science. Yawn. Anyway, as we have tried to warn incessantly, it is not us who are dying excessively. 

This 18 month-old article, but just published in the Listener magazine and behind its online paywall, can be read here where it was first published. It takes even more moral liberties than it did back then of course, given the capitulation of ‘safe and effective’ in the face of the mound of worrying evidence. Curious then, that The Listener should re-hash it now when, for example, the UK has stopped most covid jabs for the under 75s, except for ‘immune compromised’ and care home residents. Lamentably however, NZ soldiers on with it’s WHO-affiliated vaccine rollout in blissful irresponsibility, particularly focusing on children and ‘pregnant people‘. 

Since some people may be influenced by Peter Singer’s misleading and out-of-date article, we are concerned to get facts out there to save some suffering (and here) before we all shuffle off our potentially trans-human coil. He is a noted animal rights author, but what about basic human freedoms, including the right not to be dragged down or bullied by the undiscerning? 

For Peter Singer and his fellow ‘influencers’ (if only we could write harmless) here is unassailable evidence that blame and shame of the un-jabbed is completely wrong. Check out the many posts by NZDSOS, if only to confirm they exist. Read the work of the HART group, Doctors For Covid Ethics, Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and many others. ​​​​​​

A bioethicist cannot make his claims until a full spectrum of perspectives has been carefully examined with an unbiased lens.  NZDSOS questions his motives on the ethics of offering (let alone mandating) the Covid injections before the phase four Post Marketing Surveillance has been completed. As someone who was born to those who survived the holocaust, Peter Singer should understand deeply the implications of the Nuremberg Declaration on human experimentation. 

The Listener is on a roll…

By ironic coincidence, or perhaps not, as we publish this article we note next weeks edition of The Listener contains an article about the Dachau concentration camp. It tempts with the byline that populations can be psychologically manipulated into tolerating extreme beliefs. We agree entirely, as we already just stated above, but what do you bet the writer will try to draw parallels between Nazi genocide and us “rabid antivaxers” as racists, sexists and homophobes? If we are pleasantly wrong about The Listener’s intentions we will certainly say so.

But wait, there’s more. Just yesterday the Listener published an article on long covid, bemoaning the lack of research, acknowledgement and support that sufferers experience. No mention of the patients’ jab status, nor that post-viral syndrome, and CFS/ME, have been the lot of an unlucky few after practically every virus that does the rounds.

Many of these poor people have languished on sickness benefits for years, treated like pariahs by WINZ and psychological cripples by their doctors, unless lucky enough to hit on an integrative one who individualises approaches. Suddenly the ‘long covid’ people are afforded particular celebrity status just because it may have started following this Wuhan lab virus. However, large studies have shown post-covid syndrome is no more common than similar symptoms after the flu. 

The purported long covid illness sounds very familiar to the many jab injured, whose symptoms are identical to those listed in the article. The same spike protein on the lab-made virus is produced by the body itself in response to the jab. However, the body can then produce hugely more spike everywhere than after the ‘natural’ virus infection, which doesn’t get beyond the upper airways in most people. 

What’s really going on?

To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s famous retort, ” It’s the jab, stupid”.

Bioethicists should look at the “mysterious” increase in illness and sudden deaths in Australia and around the world post jab rollout, chronicled extensively at NZDSOS, which has “baffled” doctors internationally, but inspired them to intensely creative alternative explanations (aka ABV, anything but the vax). Rather, this bioethicist believes that anyone who refuses to be injected is a complete fool and a selfish threat to society.

Has Peter Singer considered that there are always people who have reactions to medications, almost all of which can kill in the wrong circumstances; that there are people who have issues with significant numbers of foods, environmental chemicals, dust, or even just plant pollens and animal dander? Each person has an entirely different make up and a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine just does not cut it. We don’t recommend even panadol in pregnancy, yet government minions push this experimental gene jab Russian roulette on pregnant women?

Peter Singer should take a step back and consider all this in an unpartisan manner. 

NZDSOS believes there are some ethical absolutes. Indeed some of it’s members are being persecuted for trying to uphold them. For example, it is a crime to deprive people of their right to life, and endanger them recklessly. 

And to knowingly consent patients to something that has killed and maimed people, without telling them of the downsides. They cannot legally agree to being killed anyway. Suicide is not lawful either.

Peter Singer may be mistaking the apparent solidity of his unconscious mind’s wanderings (aka perceptions) with actual reality. If others share his delusions that does not make him any saner. We are all subject to being tricked, and “nudged” to varying degrees, depending on whether we have learnt to simply pay attention to our brains’ inner workings. A little mindfulness can go a long way.

​​​​​​​The mRNA injections contain undeclared ingredients. How is it possible to know anything about them for certain? Deferring to a very small selection of reassuring but inadequate references is not due diligence. Ignoring any science suggesting harm without investigating carefully, even if against the totality of evidence, is indefensible, unethical and frankly reckless for a supposed intellectual or trained scientist – medical, social or otherwise.

What do true giants of epidemiology say about the risk-benefit ratio? Readers may be unpleasantly surprised.

Ethics matter, so that “never again”

This is all unethical at it’s core and NZDSOS strongly disagrees with the notion / hope / guess / fantasy / lie / con of ‘safe and effective’. It should have taken at least a decade or so of hard clinical data to work up the claims so grossly purported by the leaders of this pandemic. But they told us there wasn’t the time…. so, Warp Speed, Mr Scott (with apologies to Start Trek fans).  We told our authorities that haste was dangerous from the start, and unnecessary what’s more, as did many other doctors in other countries.

Peter Singer’s belief in the jab blocking transmission (where is the evidence?) and reducing severe outcomes is fatally flawed, literally, as deliberate mis-definitions were used to hide covid cases and jab injuries suffered by the recently jabbed by placing them in the un-jabbed category. Look around you, and reassess. Provide data, show everyone the hard evidence, do not just state that those who disagree are crazy and ungrounded. That simply isn’t fact, it is a baseless opinion without any documentation. The world is waking up to this.

Through history, and best exemplified by pre-war and wartime Germany, whole societies have been manipulated then maneuvered to a new Overton window (where previously extreme behaviours and attitudes became the new norms). Millions fell for the propaganda. Many cheered, some looked away, a few got out, but only the very brave or frankly suicidal tried to speak up.

Might Peter Singer have thrived in 1930s Germany, or 1960s East Berlin, Prague and Moscow? Like the few who loved their dogmatic and murderous leaders then, isn’t he doing the bidding of those who downloaded into his head lies masquerading as moral absolutes? An ethicist, of all people!

A deluge of illness, but no mystery why

Can Peter Singer not even allow himself to ponder on all the jabbed people still getting covid, over and over in some cases? What about turbo cancers, strokes, bung hearts, sudden deaths, strange new illnesses, in his social circle?

What IS killing off vaccinated people at unprecedented rates? Why are hospitals completely overwhelmed? Why are most business sectors crying out for workers?

How can his ilk not be curious about some of the references, interviews and opinions that have influenced those that see things differently to himself?

Though not a scientist, but supposedly trained in both concrete and abstract observation, Singer should be interested in preserving the miracle that is the immune system, and pricking up an ear to terms like prions and CJD, immunoglobulin class switching and immune tolerance, LINE-1 reverse transcription and integration, P53 and BRCA silencing, toll-like receptors and interferon uncoupling, microRNA, plasmid DNA transfer, absent bifidobacter, SV40 oncovirus, pseudo uridine, and molecular mimicry .

We’ll wager there are informed lay people who can blow his knowledge out of the water.

He is the worst and most dangerous type of expert, taking sanctuary in his echo chamber’s unified opinion to avoid risking another conclusion if thinking independently. Like many academics and bureacrats, he is a herd animal, seeking collective sanctuary rather than discerning possibly dangerous truths.

Early on, another self-appointed know-all, Dr Alistair Humphrey, of the now-defunct New Zealand Medical Association, added to the Medical Council’s threats of suspension by insisting “All doctors must get jabbed, end of story”.  For several handfuls of deceased doctors, dentists and nurses, it was the end of their story. Dreadfully too, around 20 NZ children under 20 have died suddenly after their jabs, without the painstaking investigation usually implicit in clinical trials, and in a compassionate society. The social contract between the drug industry and humanity is surely dead and buried also.

Extrapolating from this important research using US govt insurance data, most people may not survive beyond their 6th or 7th dose. The proof of eventually meeting a toxic batch is gaining strength. As Dirty Harry said famously, “Do you feel lucky, punk?”

The truth of gross wrong-doing will not be blustered away by people like Peter Singer for much longer.