We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the Vaccine Mandate Exemption

As the restrictive form of a poem sometimes forces a clearer expression of a thought than less demanding prose, so the need to present his belief in the scientific process as a request for religious exemption to the vaccine mandate forced physician Joseph Fraiman to create what Sarah Hoyt called “one of the more interesting pieces of writing i’ve seen in a while.”

Given my faith in the scientific process, I do not claim that this observational data is a good representative of reality; however I also cannot claim with certainty that it is false. Without randomized controlled trial data comparing the rare risk of hospitalization in young healthy participants, there is no way of estimating if the vaccine is more likely to prevent hospitalizations than to cause a serious adverse event. …

The entire concept of the mandate is based on the idea that it is safer for patients and staff to be near vaccinated individuals. This is not based on any experimental evidence; this is classical anti-science ideology. It is offensive to believers in the scientific process that one can claim to be certain regarding the truth of an objective reality, without experimental data to support that view. … those who have faith in the scientific process are concerned that this hubristic certainty of benefit, without experimentation, can easily harm more than benefit. … Now if our hospital system was attempting a cluster randomized trial across its many hospitals, in which hospitals are randomized to mandate or no mandate, I would gladly be a participant in this study and be randomized to a hospital with a vaccine mandate or not. …

… followers of the scientific process believe that experts do not dictate what is true about our objective reality. … To a follower of science who has reached a different conclusion than experts on the potential benefits and harms of the vaccine; in this situation for an employer to mandate the vaccine in question would be the equivalent of forcing an individual of Judeo-Christian faith to pray to a pagan idol to keep their employment.

Would being vaccinated interfere with your sincerely held religious belief or your ability to practice or observe your religion? If so, please describe.

Yes, being vaccinated would interfere with my sincerely held beliefs which is the reason I am requesting the exemption. I believe I should be allowed to finish my scientific evaluation of the meta-analysis of the vaccines, which is still ongoing. If my evaluation determines the harm benefit profile in an individual of my demographics is favorable I will gladly take the vaccine, but not until that point.

The longish text is worth reading in full here (h/t instapundit).

That Fraiman did not get a mere arrogant refusal owes as much, I suspect, to his presentation (both skilled and restrained) as to his factual details – a bureaucrat would have to be fanatical indeed not to realise that, if they just said ‘no’, the writer might prove a persistent and difficult opponent, not so easy to denounce and silence. But of course, like a Judeo-Christian in a Mohammedan country, this believer in the scientific process had to pay the Jizya to those who believe science is a result, proclaimed by ‘experts’ who are not to be doubted, still less mocked.

Your religious exemption has been reviewed and approved. Because of the direct threat posed by individuals who are infected with Covid-19, our accommodation requirement for your needs [my bolding] is to wear a N-95/KN-95 mask (which we will provide) and undergo weekly testing.

6 comments to Samizdata quote of the Vaccine Mandate Exemption

  • bobby b

    Now let’s see what the AMA does to him.

  • Now let’s see what the AMA does to him.

    Yes that was also my thought, they really do not like being crossed like that.

  • rhoda klapp

    “Without randomized controlled trial data comparing the rare risk of hospitalization in young healthy participants, there is no way of estimating if the vaccine is more likely to prevent hospitalizations than to cause a serious adverse event. …”

    Is he really so confident in RCTs? Nothing else would do? Because nobody is going to do an RCT on this.

  • Paul Marks

    First the authorities changed the traditional meaning of words and phrases.

    For example, “Herd Immunity” is a term that traditionally had nothing to do with vaccines – but now the powers-that-be have changed the definition of the term to involve vaccines.

    The word “vaccine” itself has had its meaning changed – it no longer means preventing getting someone developing a disease or preventing them spreading that disease, yet the “mandates” rest (if they rest on any other than the threat of violence) on the idea that the injections do prevent people getting or spreading the disease.

    The last line is the idea that the injections prevent the disease being as bad as it would be without the injections – but there are increasing doubts over that, doubts explained away by talking of “new variants” of the virus (and viruses do indeed mutate), and declining efficiency of the injections.

    For example, say I had-had the “booster” injection at the start of December (as the authorities wished) and I now died of Covid 19 – they would simply say that as four months have passed, the “vaccine” had declined in its protection of me.

    But if I die of Covid 19 without taking the “booster” – they will say that taking the booster would have prevented me dying.

    It is all rather odd.

    As for the behaviour of the government medical authorities and “professional bodies” in the United States (and other countries) it has been utterly despicable over the last two years – for example Early Treatments for Covid 19 that would have been saved many lives have been ruthlessly smeared, and the medical doctors and medical academics advocating their use, have been persecuted.

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Due to its length it took me a while to get round to reading this, but I was glad I did. Only a few years ago I would have thought that most of what Dr Fraiman says about the way science should work was apple-pie sentiment; true but so obvious that there was no reason to repeat it. Boy oh boy, was I naive. It does need to be restated, very badly. Dr Fraiman has found an original and witty way of doing that.

  • bobby b

    Dr. Fraiman has found a quite entertaining way to make the regime look silly.

    There is no worse crime. I fear for him.