The problem with comparing seatbelts to Covid vaccines

Only one is removable at the end of your trip

Despite the glaring logical fallacies underpinning the seatbelt/Covid vaccine analogy, it has been a major talking point for those in favour of coercive vaccination policies.

Now that we have empirical evidence of mRNA spike protein lodged in a deceased man’s brain and heart, I’m hoping we can put this silly analogy to bed.

To recap, the seatbelt argument basically goes, ‘no one wanted seatbelts when they were introduced, but they were enforced nonetheless, and now they save lives and no one minds them anymore.’ Ergo, vaccine mandates are the same kind of thing as seatbelt laws. Let the anti-vaxxers kick and scream, but they will get used to it in the end, and lives will be saved. See: Peter Singer (Professor of Bioethics, Princeton).

Ok, but can seatbelts create spike proteins that travel to the brain and heart, damage your cells, cause inflammation and, ultimately, encephalitis?

A new peer-reviewed report shows that that’s exactly what happened to a 76 year old man who died 3 weeks after receiving his mRNA booster. He died with spike-related myocarditis (mild) and encephalitis (may have contributed to his death). He had no known history of Covid infection, and the spike protein found in his heart and brain during the autopsy was absent the accompanying nucleocapsid proteins (indicating that it was mRNA vaccine spike, not wild Covid spike).

The report is summarised by Kanekoa News here:

Pfizer mRNA Spike Protein Found in Deceased Man’s Brain and Heart: Peer-Reviewed Report

And you can read the source report HERE.

The point is not that the man died, although he did, and it is possible that the booster contributed to his death. The point is that the vaccination changed his biology. Seatbelts don’t lodge themselves in your brain and heart. At least not without a major car crash or major surgery.

So are vaccines and seatbelts the same kind of thing?

One is removable. The other is an irreversible medical procedure that alters the recipient’s biology.

Ergo, are coercive vaccination policies comparable to seat belt laws?

This is probably one of the reasons why the Australian Immunisation Handbook stipulates that valid consent is a legal requirement for the administration of a vaccine. For consent to be legally valid, the following criteria must be met:

Note that points 2 and 4 have not been met in most cases of Covid vaccination in Australia. Coercive work and travel mandates (among other restrictions) were in place for the primary doses and in some states, for boosters as well (for example, one could leave WA in January 2022 having received only 2 doses, but could not re-enter the state until receiving the booster). Further, I guarantee that most Australians were not informed at the time of their coerced vaccination that the spike stays in their body for… actually we don’t know how long. Or that their vaccination may cause immune imprinting. Or that it may cause abnormalities in their blood. Or that the side effects in certain age cohorts are a greater risk than is the virus itself.

Anyhow I digress. Valid consent simply cannot have been given for Covid vaccines in Australia, but regardless, there is a stipulation that it is required (a stipulation which has been entirely ignored by our state and federal governments).

We do not require valid consent for seatbelt use. Why? Because they’re not the same thing.

They cannot be. It’s kind of ridiculous that smart people entertained the idea at all.

There is much more to say on the subject of Australia’s coercive vaccination policies and the ethical questions that are raised, but I will save this for another day.

Comparing seatbelt laws to (Covid) vaccine mandates is silly. Stop doing it. If you hear someone doing it, ask them to stop. Let’s be smarter, together.

---

FURTHER READING

Toby Rogers on the seatbelt analogy:

Seat belts are no vaccines, and motor vehicles are not human beings, by Dr Juan Gérvas

Mandatory vaccination and the 'seat belt analogy' argument: a critical analysis in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, by Iñigo de Miguel Beriain

The Ethics of Vaccine Refusal, by Michael Kowalik

---

And finally, an analogy that does work!