France and Greece have decided at the legislative level to exclude physicians who have not completed the full cycle of vaccination. From September, 15 those who refuse immunization will not be able to work in health care and will not receive a salary. In France, less than a third of the population received two doses of the vaccine. Interestingly, today you need to enter not two but three doses. One can only guess what the norms will be in a month or two.

Chancellor Merkel said that Germany was not yet ready for such radical actions as France. But Ukraine acts traditionally – impersonally and under the guise of voluntariness conducts a study of public opinion by throwing provocations. Social networks began to distribute photos very similar to social advertising with the following content: “Either stay at home without a salary, or vaccination. I choose vaccination. “

The issue of payment for social advertising is not secondary, as the fact of state involvement directly gives grounds to fix its new function – excommunication by means of blackmail. Anyone who wants to use as a counterargument to ensure the public good through vaccination will be wrong, because vaccination has nothing to do with anti-epidemic measures, the philosophical and legal basis of which is based on the primacy of the common good over the individual.

Just in case, I would like to remind you that the priority of the common is contrary to the liberal philosophy of life and individualism, so the anti-epidemic culture was just famous for the USSR, not the United States. Moreover, liberal philosophy, with its ownership of its body and destiny, runs counter to state paternalism and its parental concern to ensure the smooth running of COVID. Or maybe the individual decided to catch the coronavirus hard, not easy? – and he does not need vaccination. That is why harsh anti-epidemic measures in the heart of the rights and freedoms of Western civilization look very strange, especially against the background of liberal coronavirus strategies of totalitarian post-Soviet Belarus. Even in Russia, despite all the peculiarities with the severity of anti-epidemic actions, we see an unprecedented rampant free-thinking in matters of vaccination, and not somewhere, but in the scientific and academic environment.

But let’s put philosophy and human rights in parentheses. If you rely solely on medical science, then all anti-epidemic measures make sense if they break the chain. A retrospective analysis of lockdowns and quarantines suggests that the unprecedented restrictive and preventive measures carried out during several incubation periods and several waves proved ineffective. Vaccination, which, in the end, has never been effective in respiratory viruses, also seems ineffective. And no attempts to sacralize the immunity formed by vaccination do not help here. And the question is not even that, unlike vaccination in other nosologies (measles, tetanus, mumps), immunization against COVID does not prevent the development of the disease, but only facilitates its course, the question is that artificial immunization does not affect the circulation of the virus – once in the vaccinated body, the virus can not only persist but also actively reproduce without clinical symptoms, which is called super-spread (super-spreader – a person who is highly likely to infect others compared to a normal infected person).

The other day, the BBC published a material based on the statement of the famous actress Jennifer Aniston: “I can easily get sick, I am not hospitalized and I will not die. But I can pass it on to someone else who is unvaccinated and has health problems – and so I will endanger their lives “with the title:” Jennifer Aniston refused to communicate with unvaccinated friends. ” The issue here is not the usual manipulation of headlines based on the fact that most are limited to reading only the title of the article, and not even that the BBC positions itself as a holder of journalistic standards, the issue is that the need to manipulate the headline directly indicates the ineffectiveness of vaccination.

The persistence with which the holders of the meanings of Western civilization assign anti-epidemic properties to coronavirus vaccines has long given reason to suspect the use of a pandemic to achieve non-medical and inhumane goals. There are well-founded opinions in the selection of an official and the construction of a disciplinary society driven not by fear, not even death, but a decline in social status. Perhaps for someone in the West, such suspicions may be considered conspiratorial and unfounded, but not for Ukrainians. At least, they should not be considered as such.

Clarification of the global anti-cancer policy easily comes if we compare anti-tuberculosis and anti-AIDS measures here in Ukraine with the vaccination campaign in the world.

In Ukraine, anti-tuberculosis anti-epidemic measures were based on human rights and the priority of the individual over the public. Officials from the Departments of Health and the Ministry of Health promoted ideas received at seminars and trainings paid for by international donors on the inadmissibility of discrimination and retardation of tuberculosis patients. Discrimination was understood as treatment in anti-tuberculosis dispensaries staffed by specially trained staff. According to the new understanding of anti-epidemic measures, tuberculosis patients should visit family doctors in the general flow of patients of different ages and with different immunity.

It is obvious that the USSR stubbornly ignored the main reason for the spread of tuberculosis – unsanitary prisons, but the Soviet anti-epidemic measures were built correctly, looked logical and accepted by the population. BCG vaccination in the Soviet coordinate system was justified – if a country is a “zone”, then everyone is subject to general vaccination. Vaccination against tuberculosis, in contrast to coronavirus, is actually an anti-epidemic measure that stems from a fundamentally different morphology of pathogens. Once in the immune system, Koch’s bacillus is reliably neutralized, unlike coronavirus, breaking the epidemic chain of infection. In North America and other developed countries, tuberculosis vaccination is not carried out for obvious reasons.

The anti-epidemic logic against AIDS looks absolutely enchanting. Despite the existing national legal framework, seminars and trainings at the expense of foreign foundations have done their job. Only in the case of AIDS, the stakes were not on doctors, but on patients. An unprecedented thing of institutionalization has taken place. In Ukraine, a whole institute of so-called patient organizations has been established, the leader of which is a patient party of HIV-infected people. HIV-infected people have given themselves the right not to report their condition to others, including when visiting hospitals and dentists. Today, it is not possible to find out the state of HIV infection even in a hospital when taking a medical history. Testing of somatic patients with AIDS takes place in a quasi-legal way, if not underground. Relatives of HIV-infected people may not report the condition of their relatives for weeks, stubbornly disorienting doctors, citing the right not to report their diagnosis. There is no mention of any remorse about the epidemic danger and exposure to the danger of doctors.

That is what we see. In the case of AIDS and tuberculosis, our Western “partners” completely neglect the public and the general, prioritizing the rights of the individual. Instead, the coronavirus has the opposite policy of appealing to public safety. We also see that no one requires HIV-infected people to carry HIV passports and report their condition. Instead, we see a requirement to demonstrate covid passports in public and to prove through tests that you are not infected. It is worth recalling here that we are talking about a ban on the profession of medical workers with a justification or even accusation of exposing them to the danger of patients. But for some reason no one talks about the danger to doctors themselves from patients with tuberculosis or AIDS.

And that’s not all. Patients with tuberculosis and especially AIDS belong to the group of risky social behavior. AIDS patients, with all sympathy for their condition, profess a philosophy of pleasure: sex, drugs and more. International foundations have already succeeded in forming a new normality – when people with antisocial behavior through the exploitation of the compassion of others have achieved not only the recognition of normality, but also increased their social status. For example, one of the leaders of patient organizations actually served as deputy of “acting” Minister Ulyana Suprun, representing the Ministry of Health on Radio Liberty and other sites related to grant funds.

From all this we can draw disappointing conclusions about Western pseudo-humanism. In fact, behind the screen of humanity are clear attempts to spread various infections in the marginalized social strata of third world countries, if we talk about tuberculosis and AIDS, as well as attempts to reduce the rights and freedoms of citizens of developed countries, establishing total control over a well-fed if we talk about COVID. The only consolation is the potential for resistance, which in Ukraine remains quite high in contrast to Germany.