Vaccinations

Martina said:
Thank you. I hope something good will come out of this. I personally postponed vaccinations twice by now - that means that I don't need to pay the fine and my kid is safe by now.

Great job! Definitely keep the vaccines away from your kid.
 
hlat said:
Martina said:
Thank you. I hope something good will come out of this. I personally postponed vaccinations twice by now - that means that I don't need to pay the fine and my kid is safe by now.

Great job! Definitely keep the vaccines away from your kid.


This reminds me of the session from July 18th 2015 where parasites and viruses as a blockage to developing awareness were discussed, and vaccines were indicated as a means of spreading those viruses among us.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the session:


Laura said:
(...)

Q: (L) So you're saying that awareness is the key to the Great Work, work on the self, graduating to 4D, or whatever. Awareness involves knowledge, and quantum leaps in awareness can be prevented by parasitic infestations, which is somehow related to transmarginal inhibition.

(...)

A: Very close indeed. There is also the "tinkering" that can take place.

Q: (L) So in our particular reality and time and place, the so-called "Great Work", the alchemical self-transformation, must necessarily include work on diet and health issues and a vast increase in knowledge in those areas in order to cancel out the effects of transmarginal inhibition?

A: Yes

(...)

(Pierre) There seems to be something else. The way they refer to parasites is that they are preventing not only the gaining of knowledge and growth of awareness, but also this quantum leap. Maybe if you have parasites, you can still increase your knowledge and awareness, but you'll reach a sort of glass ceiling that prevents you from graduating.

A: Yes


Q: (L) What's the tinkering there?

A: The parasites act as receivers.

Q: (Pierre) Yeah. The parasites act as receivers. So when you are full of parasites, you are more under the influence of bad waves, or waves sent by bad entities. You're more susceptible to those messages. There's a bad influence on you beyond the parasites.

A: Getting free of parasitic microorganisms is one of the first orders of business for transformation.

(...)

(L) Okay, how is the tinkering done?

A: Most often via viruses.

Q: (L) Is the campaign to vaccinate everyone part of this project to make sure that everybody gets the viruses that are needed to stop them from progressing?

A: Yes

As for transmarginal inhibition, there's an article written by Laura on SOTT: https://www.sott.net/article/136090-Transmarginal-Inhibition
 
https://worldmercuryproject.org/livestream/


Here is a link received from the commission headed by Senator Robert Kennedy Jr. It was a conference held this morning, February 15,2017 in Washington DC. It also features Robert De Niro speaking as well. I didn't hear it live. The video was a live stream to be replaced with an archive which wasn't loaded yet, but I'm going to keep checking it.
 
Here's a press release relating to the Robert F.Kennedy Jr conference.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/robert-f-kennedy-jr-announces-the-world-mercury-projects-100000-challenge-with-goal-of-stopping-use-of-highly-toxic-mercury-in-vaccines-300407825.html
 
Charade said:
Here's a press release relating to the Robert F.Kennedy Jr conference.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/robert-f-kennedy-jr-announces-the-world-mercury-projects-100000-challenge-with-goal-of-stopping-use-of-highly-toxic-mercury-in-vaccines-300407825.html

I just listened to the press conference. It was available on a Facebook link.

The World Mercury Project was challenging a group of journalists to find a study that proved that Thirmerasol in vaccines is safe. They would award that person a $100,000 reward. That's a safe wager because no such study exists. It was a conference to implore reporters and journalists to look into the cover up of the dangers of the vaccine industry. There were four speakers. Kennedy, Del Bigtree, (featured in the VAXXED movie), Robert De Niro. I'll re listen for the other two individuals names. They all made excellent points in their brief speeches.

A Q&A was held afterwards. In answer to one question, about Robert Kennedy heading the Vaccine Commission for President Trump, he said a group of pediatricians were condoning the current vaccine schedule of the CDC and that there was pressure against organizing a commission to question if vaccines were safe. Another project that Trump is trying to promote that is meeting stiff opposition.

It was informative and their efforts are worth supporting IMO.
 
It is already on SOTT

https://www.sott.net/article/342716-RFK-Jr-De-Niro-hold-press-conference-to-expose-links-between-mercury-and-vaccines

Kennedy currently serves as Chairman of the nonprofit advocacy group, while De Niro has publicly supported the group's mission in the past. According to its website, the WMP works to "create a world free of the devastating effects of mercury."

The group has publicly spoken out about against vaccines with mercury, and argue those vaccines have caused an increase in neurological disorders among children. During the press conference, Kennedy noted that there is a vast censorship regime taking place in America, due to the massive amounts of money involved in Big Pharma, that disallows any public discussion about the issue of vaccines - with those attempting to do so being labeled "anti-vaccine" as a means of marginalizing them.

De Niro went on to explain that he believes there is a potential link between autism and the ingredients in vaccines, highlighting a documentary called "Trace Amounts." The film star pointed out that he isn't anti-vaccine, but simply wants safe vaccines, noting that he is the father of an autistic child.
I, as a parent of a child who has autism, am concerned. And I want to know the truth. And I'm not anti-vaccine; I want safe vaccines,
Kennedy and De Niro obviously realize the power residing within the pharmaceutical industry, as De Niro pointed out that even talking about this conceptual project could make "something happen."
 
Quote from: Laura on July 19, 2015, 10:33:58 AM


(...)

Q: (L) So you're saying that awareness is the key to the Great Work, work on the self, graduating to 4D, or whatever. Awareness involves knowledge, and quantum leaps in awareness can be prevented by parasitic infestations, which is somehow related to transmarginal inhibition.

(...)

A: Very close indeed. There is also the "tinkering" that can take place.

Q: (L) So in our particular reality and time and place, the so-called "Great Work", the alchemical self-transformation, must necessarily include work on diet and health issues and a vast increase in knowledge in those areas in order to cancel out the effects of transmarginal inhibition?

A: Yes

(...)

(Pierre) There seems to be something else. The way they refer to parasites is that they are preventing not only the gaining of knowledge and growth of awareness, but also this quantum leap. Maybe if you have parasites, you can still increase your knowledge and awareness, but you'll reach a sort of glass ceiling that prevents you from graduating.

A: Yes

Q: (L) What's the tinkering there?

A: The parasites act as receivers.

Q: (Pierre) Yeah. The parasites act as receivers. So when you are full of parasites, you are more under the influence of bad waves, or waves sent by bad entities. You're more susceptible to those messages. There's a bad influence on you beyond the parasites.

A: Getting free of parasitic microorganisms is one of the first orders of business for transformation.

(...)

(L) Okay, how is the tinkering done?

A: Most often via viruses.

Q: (L) Is the campaign to vaccinate everyone part of this project to make sure that everybody gets the viruses that are needed to stop them from progressing?

A: Yes

It is sad to watch. So many people are of the belief that vaccination is the way to go. You can't even discuss the issue with them. It is encouraging to see that because of injury, there are some high profile people starting to ask questions.

Just wondering if being pro or anti vaccination is a tell as to who is infected with the parasite? Could it be that simple? Likely not but what if it was? Of course there will be a percentage of the population with immunity to the parasite. Roughly 50% to be more precise who have no skin in the game. If you take roughly half of the other 50%, that would leave about 25% of the population who may not be infected or are aware of the issue and are dealing with the infection.
 
Konstantin said:
It is already on SOTT

https://www.sott.net/article/342716-RFK-Jr-De-Niro-hold-press-conference-to-expose-links-between-mercury-and-vaccines

[

De Niro went on to explain that he believes there is a potential link between autism and the ingredients in vaccines, highlighting a documentary called "Trace Amounts." The film star pointed out that he isn't anti-vaccine, but simply wants safe vaccines, noting that he is the father of an autistic child.
I, as a parent of a child who has autism, am concerned. And I want to know the truth. And I'm not anti-vaccine; I want safe vaccines,
Kennedy and De Niro obviously realize the power residing within the pharmaceutical industry, as De Niro pointed out that even talking about this conceptual project could make "something happen."


At the press conference yesterday, De Niro was the least informative with little to say. He plainly stated he wasn't there because of Trump but because of Kennedy. I got a weird vibe from him of not being enthusiastic and not really wanting to be there. He is the schism within the group which wouldn't even be there talking at all if Trump wasn.t giving his support. Hollywood can do so much damage just in a name.
 
Catherine J Frompovich's speculation as to the real agenda behind toxic vaccines from her recent article, Vaccines House Of Cards Is Tumbling Down – Fast:
The vaccine house of cards not only is tumbling down, it needs an entire new, clean, and scientifically accurate assessment of the horrendous neurological problems vaccines have been contributing to, if not causing, in innocent children—the future of the human race. What ulterior motive can there be for such deliberate, clandestine and apparently evil actions other than a pre-set agenda for control purposes, one of which probably is transhumanism.
Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies. One of the core concepts in transhumanist thinking is life extension: Through genetic engineering, nanotech, cloning, and other emerging technologies, eternal life may soon be possible. Likewise, transhumanists are interested in the ever-increasing number of technologies that can boost our physical, intellectual, and psychological capabilities beyond what humans are naturally capable of (thus the term transhuman). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for example, which speeds up reaction times and learning speed by running a very weak electric current through your brain, has already been used by the US military to train snipers. On the more extreme side, transhumanism deals with the concepts of mind uploading (to a computer), and what happens when we finally craft a computer with greater-than-human intelligence (the technological singularity. [14] [CJF emphasis added]
As with all researchers who delve into science and health issues, I have opinions based upon 40 years of research and study. One conclusion I’ve come to is vaccines just may be an integral part of the contrivance to propel humans into the transhumanist agenda. How?

Well, humans who tolerate all the neurotoxins and other man-made ingredients in vaccines eventually will become the gene pool and genetic line that Adolph Hitler was striving to create – a “Master Race” – now called transhumanism.

Weren’t the United States and other countries so incensed about that and what was going on that we fought a world war to liberate those whom Hitler was experimenting on in concentration camps? Now, humans are mandated legally to take those chemicals or we cannot go to work, school or whatever! Well, what’s the difference now when the United States is taking the lead in genetic engineering?
Entire article:
_http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/02/vaccines-gates-house-cards-tumbling-down-fast.html
 
This case dates back to 2015 in Ontario, Canada and concerns a science teacher who was disciplined - lots of words of "allegations" are used in the case. The case now (2017) is under discipline hearing ruling and they may indeed try to ruin his work as a teacher. If so, I hope Robert Kennedy Jr. offers him a job.


Ontario teacher faces discipline for allegedly telling students they 'could die' from vaccination
Teacher allegedly disrupted a 2015 vaccination clinic at his southern Ontario school


The MSN is littered with the story so that it sinks in; the anti-vaxxer meme.

Timothy Sullivan, a science teacher at the Grand Erie District School Board, is accused of professional misconduct relating to a 2015 school vaccine clinic where, according to the allegations, he "told students they could die as a result of the vaccination." {and they could}

"His behaviour was confrontational and intimidating," said Christine Wadsworth, a lawyer for the college, in her opening remarks at the discipline hearing.

The college alleges that on March 9, 2015, Sullivan disrupted the clinic at the high school where he teaches.

The name of school is under a publication ban in order to protect the identities of students.

Nurse felt threatened

Angela Swick, a registered nurse with the Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, told the hearing that Sullivan came into the school cafeteria where the clinic was taking place on three separate occasions.

"I remember feeling threatened," she said.

Swick told the hearing that Sullivan requested the product monographs — inserts that contain detailed medical information — for each of the vaccines.

In her 20 years of experience administering vaccinations at schools, Swick said, a teacher had never before asked for this material.

Later during the clinic, with students present, Swick said, Sullivan asked them if they knew what was in the vaccines and "shouted at them not to get it."
[...]
'Pro informed consent'

Sullivan, who said he can't afford a lawyer and is representing himself at the hearing, is focusing his defence on the "informed consent" required for health officials to give vaccines.

"I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm pro informed consent," Sullivan told reporters at the hearing.

"They make it sound like I was running around saying this will kill you. What I was doing was referring them to a product label," Sullivan said in his opening remarks.

In his cross-examination, Sullivan went through a long list of rare side-effects, including anorexia and convulsions, contained in a vaccine's product monograph, asking Swick if she informed each student of them.

"We warn them of the most common side-effects," Swick said.

"But not the most serious?" Sullivan asked.

"It's so rare, that we don't," Swick answered.

Sullivan was suspended for one day without pay by the Grand Erie District School Board.

If found guilty by the discipline panel, Sullivan could have his teaching certificate revoked or be fined up to $5,000, among other potential penalties.

The hearing is scheduled to last two days.

As of this date it should be day two of the hearing.

Obviously, "informed consent" was not high on the list of priorities of nurse Swick. Other articles suggest that Sullivan is an excellent science teacher with a focus on facts, just what the school boards don't want, IMO. As the schools are pretty much a government/pharma lab from the flue shot to HPV, the authorities and media will do their best to shut him down and make an example out of him; and scaring the rest of the teachers off.

A sad state of affairs.

Edit: add link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/teacher-vaccines-hearing-1.3992640
 
voyageur said:
This case dates back to 2015 in Ontario, Canada and concerns a science teacher who was disciplined - lots of words of "allegations" are used in the case. The case now (2017) is under discipline hearing ruling and they may indeed try to ruin his work as a teacher.

The hearing was Tuesday and Wednesday, 2/21 and 2/22.

Status
_https://www.oct.ca/members/complaints-and-discipline/disciplinary-hearing-details?RegistrationId=420619
Charging document
_https://www.oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=472&lang=E

These are the exact charges against him.
IT IS ALLEGED that Timothy Cyril Sullivan is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he failed to supervise adequately a student or students who are under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

These are the facts alleged.
3. On or about March 9, 2015, the Member:
(a) attended at the School’s cafeteria and questioned a public health nurse about the contents of vaccines being administered to students;
(b) attended the School’s cafeteria a second time and told students not to get vaccinated and/or suggested that they should not get vaccinated;
(c) told students that they could die as a result of the vaccination and/or that one of the side effects of the vaccine was death;
(d) attended at the School’s office during class time to discuss vaccination of students;
(e) left his class unattended;
(f) attended at the School’s cafeteria a third time and accused a public health nurse of hiding information from him about the content of the vaccines.

If he did leave his class unattended and went to the cafeteria 3 times and the office, then he's going to be in trouble. That's not the correct way to fight vaccines. It's not like we can climb the rooftops and shout it out. A better way might have been to spend a week teaching his students about vaccine ingredients and damage to people and even the US vaccine court, using respected medical journals and court rulings.
 
hlat said:
If he did leave his class unattended and went to the cafeteria 3 times and the office, then he's going to be in trouble. That's not the correct way to fight vaccines. It's not like we can climb the rooftops and shout it out. A better way might have been to spend a week teaching his students about vaccine ingredients and damage to people and even the US vaccine court, using respected medical journals and court rulings.

Yes, if he did, that was not wise, nor perhaps his general approach as alleged. Using the school as a forum while being employed there is not considering. It is possible though, if Sullivan had have been teaching his students in the class topics such as on vaccine efficacy statistics, adjuncts and the track record of resulting illnesses and death, as suggested, a backlash may have resulted regardless. However, conversely, the Health Act states that it is the duty of a health practitioner to engage in 'informed consent' - it is the law under the Act. The question can be asked, did nurse Swick violate the Act?

We warn them of the most common side-effects," Swick said.

"But not the most serious?" Sullivan asked.

"It's so rare, that we don't" Swick answered.

Nurse Swick did not say "I" warned them, she said "we" warn them as a generalization. So did Swick actually warn anyone? May be Sullivan did not hear this warning and she took offense when called out? From reading so far, the press never examined this aspect in any detail, and if Swick did not properly gain informed consent (as many practitioners do not), it does not bode well under her oath, it is a violation of a right to be informed, OSIT.
 
voyageur said:
However, conversely, the Health Act states that it is the duty of a health practitioner to engage in 'informed consent' - it is the law under the Act. The question can be asked, did nurse Swick violate the Act?

The issue of "informed consent" is a really sticky one.

There are different approaches to informed consent:

How much information is considered "adequate"?

How do you know when you have provided enough information about a proposed intervention? Most of the literature and law in this area suggest one of three approaches:

Reasonable physician standard: what would a typical physician say about this intervention? This standard allows the physician to determine what information is appropriate to disclose. However, this standard is often inadequate, since most research shows that the typical physician tells the patient very little. This standard is also generally considered inconsistent with the goals of informed consent, as the focus is on the physician rather than on what the patient needs to know.

Reasonable patient standard: what would the average patient need to know in order to be an informed participant in the decision? This standard focuses on considering what a typical patient would need to know in order to understand the decision at hand.

Subjective standard: what would this particular patient need to know and understand in order to make an informed decision? This standard is the most challenging to incorporate into practice, since it requires tailoring information to each patient.

Source

In the US most states use the "reasonable patient standard" - and under this standard the nurse might not have violated the Act, as the majority of patients don't want (or they don't know that they would want) to know the rare side effects.

The other problem is: how "rare" are rare side effects? Here the vaccine industry has done a marvellous job at obfuscating the issue, by shoving them under the rug. If you look at official statistics, "rare" events indeed are very rare, because officialdom does not acknowledge vaccine induced illnesses like autism or Guillain-Barre paralysis as a "side effect", but view these things as totally unrelated.

Here in Australia things are a bit more complicated, as the consent process requires a) that risks are divulged using the "reasonable patient standard" AND b) the "subjective standard" as well. While this approach is much more stringent, it has its own issues: Meeting the patient preoperatively for the first time - and for 15 minutes - how do I establish what his subjective standard is? This is, of course, impossible, so the determination will always be made post hoc by a judge, as the medical practitioner lacks tools and time to be able to ascertain this.

The way I work around this issue is, that I always paint the worst case scenario, even if exceedingly unlikely - i.e. "in extreme cases you might die" sort of thing, which again creates its own set of problems.

I think it would be unfair to take the nurse to responsibility for this lax consent process - the problem lies in the industry pushing their products aggressively, spreading misinformation at every level and silencing anyone daring to raise concerns about vaccines.

If nurse Swick did indeed read the "rare side-effects" from the package insert, she would be out of her job in no time.
 
WIN 52 said:
It is sad to watch. So many people are of the belief that vaccination is the way to go. You can't even discuss the issue with them. It is encouraging to see that because of injury, there are some high profile people starting to ask questions.

Just wondering if being pro or anti vaccination is a tell as to who is infected with the parasite? Could it be that simple? Likely not but what if it was? Of course there will be a percentage of the population with immunity to the parasite. Roughly 50% to be more precise who have no skin in the game. If you take roughly half of the other 50%, that would leave about 25% of the population who may not be infected or are aware of the issue and are dealing with the infection.

Many of the the highly educated people who speaking out against vaccinations and who are perceived as 'anti-vaxx' are actually pro-choice rather than anti vaccination. Part of the problem is the choice is being taken away from us. The right to challenge, the right to refuse, and the right to demand compensation for harm is also, or already has been, taken away from us.

Those people who are strongly pro-vaccine, and just want to stick a needle into anything that moves, I see as STS aligned. Those who seek safer vaccines and more freedom of choice, I see as STO aligned.

Quite a large percentage of the population are just sheep who follow the herd, or like dogs who want a pat on the head for doing something that their 'masters' approve of. I see those people as OPs. Easily controlled with minimal effort. They'll do what is 'easiest' and/or what gets them the most approval from authority.

Besides the potential problem for infestation, or even viral programming is just one problem for those people who seek freedom from the STS yoke. It's just currently, one of the more 'socially acceptable' forms.
 
nicklebleu said:
voyageur said:
However, conversely, the Health Act states that it is the duty of a health practitioner to engage in 'informed consent' - it is the law under the Act. The question can be asked, did nurse Swick violate the Act?

The issue of "informed consent" is a really sticky one.

There are different approaches to informed consent:

How much information is considered "adequate"?

How do you know when you have provided enough information about a proposed intervention? Most of the literature and law in this area suggest one of three approaches:

Reasonable physician standard: what would a typical physician say about this intervention? This standard allows the physician to determine what information is appropriate to disclose. However, this standard is often inadequate, since most research shows that the typical physician tells the patient very little. This standard is also generally considered inconsistent with the goals of informed consent, as the focus is on the physician rather than on what the patient needs to know.

Reasonable patient standard: what would the average patient need to know in order to be an informed participant in the decision? This standard focuses on considering what a typical patient would need to know in order to understand the decision at hand.

Subjective standard: what would this particular patient need to know and understand in order to make an informed decision? This standard is the most challenging to incorporate into practice, since it requires tailoring information to each patient.

Source

In the US most states use the "reasonable patient standard" - and under this standard the nurse might not have violated the Act, as the majority of patients don't want (or they don't know that they would want) to know the rare side effects.

The other problem is: how "rare" are rare side effects? Here the vaccine industry has done a marvellous job at obfuscating the issue, by shoving them under the rug. If you look at official statistics, "rare" events indeed are very rare, because officialdom does not acknowledge vaccine induced illnesses like autism or Guillain-Barre paralysis as a "side effect", but view these things as totally unrelated.

Here in Australia things are a bit more complicated, as the consent process requires a) that risks are divulged using the "reasonable patient standard" AND b) the "subjective standard" as well. While this approach is much more stringent, it has its own issues: Meeting the patient preoperatively for the first time - and for 15 minutes - how do I establish what his subjective standard is? This is, of course, impossible, so the determination will always be made post hoc by a judge, as the medical practitioner lacks tools and time to be able to ascertain this.

The way I work around this issue is, that I always paint the worst case scenario, even if exceedingly unlikely - i.e. "in extreme cases you might die" sort of thing, which again creates its own set of problems.

I think it would be unfair to take the nurse to responsibility for this lax consent process - the problem lies in the industry pushing their products aggressively, spreading misinformation at every level and silencing anyone daring to raise concerns about vaccines.

If nurse Swick did indeed read the "rare side-effects" from the package insert, she would be out of her job in no time.

Yes, agreed. So even advocacy for a person/child is met with silencing, even to the child's very parents (as has been seen).

I read some case law on a related, yet unrelated situation. It argued that training was not adequate even though the person had some training, knew what to say, had a duty to say it and knew the risks involved. I've seen it argued the other way too. In the end, the vaccine program is a sacred cow not to be messed with.
 
Back
Top Bottom