The right to make good and bad choices

Some politicians want to protect people from themselves; there's a better way

I spent a little too much time Sunday debating an Idaho state senator about his proposed decade-long ban on human gene therapy products. But the conversation probably is instructive enough that I’m writing about it now.

What’s in the jab? The public should educate itself instead of depending on politicians to tell them what is safe

GOP Sen. Brandon Shippy wants to make it so that human gene therapy, such as the mRNA vaccines that were widely distributed in response to Covid-19, are banned in Idaho (except for cancer and genetic disorders) until 2035. His bill says:

No person in Idaho shall administer, by any route or modality, any human gene therapy product for any infectious disease indication, regardless of whether such administration is termed an immunization, vaccine, or any other term. For the purpose of this section, "human gene therapy product" means all products that mediate their effects by transcription or translation of transferred genetic material or by specifically altering human genetic sequences. Human gene therapy products include but are not limited to:

(a) Nucleic acids, such as plasmids and in vitro transcribed ribonucleic acid (RNA)

(b) Genetically modified microorganisms, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi;

(c) Engineered site-specific nucleases used for human genome editing; and

(d) Ex vivo genetically modified human cells.

I have no doubt whatsoever that mRNA vaccines in response to Covid were a horrible idea and continue to hurt and kill people today. Rapidly developed and deployed on the world population in 2020, it seemed fairly obvious to me back then that this was a human experiment that was bound to have bad results. This is why I choose not to get the vaccine or its boosters. I made the choose of my own accord.

But I would never use the force of government to ban someone from making a different decision. In fact, the Covid vaccine (if you can really call it that) is but just one of the western medicine modalities, approved by the government, whose safety and efficacy I question. Chemotherapy and radiation, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety medication are a few others. But I would not prohibit their use.

People have a right to make their own choices about their healthcare, good and bad. They get to choose the modality of healthcare that works for them. If they want to try something that I think is a terrible idea, I would not stand in the way of that. Adult humans are not farm animals, and taking away the right of adults to make medical decisions gives us less autonomy than a goat or chicken that is subjected to the will of the farmer.

Yes it would be simple, perhaps, to ban a product or treatment modality in the interest of a person’s “protection.” Yet it would be better for people to become more educated, not allowing themselves to depend on government to discern what is safe and what is not. Who is stronger and better able to cope with the adversities of life: the person who chooses a path because he’s studied all the available data, or the one whose decision was made for him, not requiring any learning on a particular subject?

A more informed public is more resilient and less likely to be conned into partaking in a treatment protocol because the media and the government are insisting on it. Free people have to do their own research instead of depending on politicians and bureaucrats and media personalities to be right or not be paid to hold a particular view.

If government bans one thing but does not ban another, doesn’t that imply that the thing the government allows is safe? Of course, government bans things all the time, thus giving the imprimatur to anything that it allows onto the market. Is this why so many people were willing to roll up their shirt sleeves in 2020 and 2021 and take a jab of an unknown, largely untested substance?

Such gleeful optimism of the government’s abilities and impartialness leads to decisions that sound like this: “Well, the FDA/CDC wouldn’t allow that on the shelf if it wasn’t OK.” That’s a terrible way to decide something. On the other hand, allowing consumers to go through the mechanics of learning about (even crowdsourcing the knowledge) what is going into their bodies is way better than just relying on decisions cooked up in the halls of power.

Furthermore, when we give government the authority to ban a thing because we don’t like it, one should not be surprised when that authority is eventually misused to the advantage of political donors and powerbrokers. For example, a mental health treatment protocol could be discovered that competes with Big Pharma. Even though that alternative treatment is safer and more effective, that protocol is made illegal. Don’t think that can happen? It’s happening now. Examine the items listed as Schedule I drugs that are banned only because they are competitors and alternatives incumbent protocols.

So is this to say that government has no role and can’t do anything when it comes to the gene therapies that came into existence as a result of Covid? No. For paid subscribers, some options that are within the proper role and scope of government, as well as two more thoughts on this particular legislation: