Vaccines

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s news letter featured a link to a screening of the film '1986: The Act' - from the letter:

Announcing the movie you won’t want to miss!
1986: The Act premieres today!




It is a rent or buy film to view, however it looks interesting from the trailer.

God bless Andy Wakefield and his battle against Big Pharma. He’s one of the most, if not the most, slandered medical professional of modern times, but instead of rolling over he has continued the fight and he has had his ‘revenge’ through the Vaxxed films and now this one.
 

Agron

Jedi Council Member
A video about genetically modified vaccinations that are already in use (with MRC5 cell line). This nurse (a forensic nurse) describes the procedure of how these vaccinations are made. Basically these vaccines are cancer inducing.
She says that this is the reason why people who have autoimmune issues get cancer so easily after they have been vaccinated. Her brother that has Down's got paralysed from a "flu shot". She calls these vaccines medical sorcery and witchcraft.


She is referencing this site that has reports on use of vaccines in Italy.
 

jess

Jedi Master
My 23 yo son is traveling to Rwanda in a couple of months for educational purposes. He has been un-vaccinated since birth, a choice that came with a lot of education on how to keep himself healthy and learn natural remedies, something he has embraced, fortunately. He did receive a tetanus shot after losing a battle with a planer/edger last summer. (He's lucky he didn't lose his finger!)

Now that he is traveling abroad, I'm kind of freaking out about all the vaccines that the school is requiring, or at least strongly suggesting that he would need to receive in a very short amount of time. He may choose to waive the vaccines, but Rwanda can apparently use their discretion about allowing him into the country if he doesn't have proof of receiving the yellow fever vaccine, at the very least. It seems that the program coordinator is assuming his childhood vaccines are up to date, when they aren't.

And then there's the issue of him re-entering the US if he remains un-vaxxed, should he happen to pick up something a vaccine is available for.

He has been on the iodine protocol for a few months, and convinced him that a small bottle of Lugol's will go a long way at avoiding some of the nasty pathogens that there are no vaccines for.

Does anyone have any suggestions, experience or at the very least, some reassurance, for this situation?

Hi Skyfarmr,
My daughter is just 2y and I use the lugol in dosage kids since unfortunately she got some vaccines, I avoided most as possible (flu shots and others) trying don't get any legal battle with my husband, using a lot tricks and excuses to avoid the full list of vaccines that doctors-pedriatrics promote.
She is doing really good, actually is above avarage in height and so rarely get sick, just a couple fevers this year and When that happens I increase a bit the iodine drops and using a bath with iodine drops, also I using supplements Vit.C and B.

I wonder too, if anyone has experience using lugol to detoxify the body if you have received vaccines?
I mean could it be the same to use the lugol protocol to detoxify the body in general?
Or could something more specific be used to eliminate as many toxins from the body as possible in case of having received a vaccine?

Thank you very much if anyone has the possibility to share any information related to this
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
Since you're in the US, you can contact this laboratory, funded by Boyd Haley: Mercola interviewed him, you can search for that interview on Mercola's website. Irminix is the most powerfull heavy metal detox known. Haley incredibly cured autistic children with it. You take it for only 15 days. I contacted them to get the product, but it's very restricted: I didn't manage to get the ok from my country's authorities. That laboratory is tightly controled by FDA. Those in the US and UK (and some other countries) can get it via their doctor. You have all the information on their website.
 

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
From what I understand, even though vaccine companies are protected from liability, practitioners who give vaccines are not. I don't know how far any of the following information will get anyone in the current climate so it's shared with a big FWIW - and I am not a lawyer.

The Nuremberg Code states:

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments


The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

    The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Given that RFK has already shown that vaccines haven't been adequately tested in some time and that there is adequate evidence that vaccines can cause injury, then each individual vaccination could be seen as an experiment because nobody knows how an individual will react in advance.

One of the other things that come out of the Nuremberg Trials was questioning what come to be known as the Nuremberg Defence. This is where those who were conducting medical experiments under orders from superiors tried to be absolved of any responsibility for their acts. The outcome was that they could still be held responsible, though they may not be punished as severely as their superiors. That kind of indicates that there might be just cause to pursue the practitioner giving the vaccine.

The above is reflected in the "Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal" where Principles II, III and IV state:

Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

So the above actually points out that international law on the subject overrides any national or local law if you are in a country that is part of the UN.

Next is particular to Australia, but it might give others a clue on what to search for in their own countries.

The 9th Edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook in regards to vaild consent states:

1.3.3 Valid consent

Valid consent can be defined as the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, given after appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to the individual.3-7

For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:8

  • It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
  • It must be given voluntarily.
  • It can only be given after the relevant vaccine(s) and their potential risks and benefits have been explained to the individual.
  • The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or their administration.
  • Consent should be obtained before each vaccination, once it has been established that there are no medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination.


The Immunisation Handbook goes on to list adverse reactions and while these are not as detailed as vaccine package inserts, there is tacit admission by inclusion that vaccines can be harmful.

An Australian law firm also posted an article in 2012 about voluntary consent to medical procedures:

Consent
The established presumption is that every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what will be done to their body. Before anything is done to that person's body by any medical professional, their consent must be obtained.

Consent to treatment can be implied, verbal and written. However, it must also meet the legal requirements to make it 'valid'.

It is well established by case law and practice that valid consent must meet the following requirements:

  1. Competence/capacity of the patient.
  2. The consent is given voluntarily.
  3. The consent covers the procedure in question.
  4. That the patient was informed in making that decision.
For a doctor or other medical practitioner, the significant issue must be what constitutes valid consent. Outlined below are the legal principles established around the requirements and what they mean:-

[....]
2. Voluntariness

For consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily. A voluntary decision is one that is made freely by a patient in response to an understanding of the treatment options. The decision must be free from undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.

Treating health professionals and family members may assist the patient to come to a decision. However, assistance must be distinguished from undue influence, with the latter involving a substitution with another person's wishes for that of the patients'. Accordingly, it is for the medical professional involved to be satisfied that it is from the patient, and not from family members or friends, or that undue influences are being placed upon the person.


The above mentions that the doctor, apart from complying with international law, also has to ensure that there has been no undue influence from family members or friends - I wonder if that can be extended to employers?

In regards to 'Informed Consent' the article goes on to say that the doctor must also provide alternative treatment options and no treatment options. It also acknowledges that the onus is on the doctor to ensure that informed and valid consent has been gained and that all information about the risks has been given:

4. Informed consent
When providing advice to a patient about the treatment or surgery to be performed, the following are necessary requirements that a medical professional must cover to ensure that the patient is giving informed consent. The patient should be advised of:

  • the diagnosis
  • recommended treatment
  • material risks (insofar as a reasonable person would expect to be advised of significant risks) in percentage terms associated with:
  • the recommended treatment
  • alternative treatment options
  • no treatment options
  • significant risks to the particular patient.
These policies are from the Queensland Health Policy Statement: Informed Consent for Invasive Procedures and are based on the established case of Rogers v Whittaker (1992) 175 CLR 479which established the following principle:

"A reasonable person in the patient's position if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it; or if the medical practitioner is or should be reasonably aware that the particular patient if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it."

In that case, the warnings were in relation to the losing of sight with respect to eye surgery that was to be performed. Not unexpectedly, the court held that a person is likely to attach significance to such potential risk because the risk was of permanent damage to one eye when the other eye was already badly damaged (see Doctor's duty to warn about risks for more details on this case).

As modern medicine progress, it is worth bearing in mind that the more elective and discretionary the procedure is, the greater responsibility there is on the doctor to provide information about risks. It is not enough for a doctor to just sign a paper; they must sit down with the patient and make sure that the patient understands the risks involved.

Finally, related and reinforcing the above, but secondary to it, are the legal elements of a binding agreement or contract which states that any fraud, misrepresentation, duress, manipulation etc makes an agreement or contract void and puts the injured party in the position of being able to pursue the other party legally - that basically opens the field up a bit to include other authorities and enforcers aside from medical practitioners.

Entering into a contract must involve the elements of free will and proper understanding of what each of the parties is doing. In other words, the consent of each of the parties to a contract must be genuine. Only where the essential element of proper consent has been given is there a contract that is binding upon the parties.

Proper consent may be affected by any of the following matters:

• mistake;

• misrepresentation or misleading conduct;

duress;

undue influence or unconscionability; and

• unfair contract terms in standard form contracts.


While I don't think any of the above will actually prevent or protect against enforced vaccinations in the current climate, it might be handy to know that an attitude of non consent even in the presence of non resistance might form a part of 'knowledge protects' alongside the protocols that Keyhole has given earlier in the thread. The above might also serve to either buy time or figure out which practitioners, employers etc might be more likely to give exemptions in the short term if the information is presented to them respectfully and calmly and in the absence of any thought of legal challenge - which many of us can hardly afford at this time.

It also occurs to me that masks, tests, social distancing, lockdown etc could be seen to be medical treatments - or at least preventatives so the above might come in handy if one is fined for breaches where directives have been unclear or uncertain because they change every 5 minutes and there is so much conflicting information around.

The tricky thing to be aware of is that some countries have changed laws around declaring people mentally incompetent along with virus acts and statutes making it easier to enforce a mental health directives. If that is the case, some acts and statutes are saying that they can then give you any medical treatment they deem necessary so if the above information is used unwisely, one could still end up with a vaccination or being locked away. Though I figure it could be harder to prove mental incapacity if the information about valid and informed consent to medical treatments is known.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The following video is in Spanish. An Argentinian woman recorded a doctor telling her that there was an order from a judge, so she either had to comply nicely and have her newborn vaccinated, or they would simply do it by force. Very sad and infuriating! I'm afraid we'll be hearing of more and more stories like this in the near future. :-(

 

jess

Jedi Master
The following video is in Spanish. An Argentinian woman recorded a doctor telling her that there was an order from a judge, so she either had to comply nicely and have her newborn vaccinated, or they would simply do it by force. Very sad and infuriating! I'm afraid we'll be hearing of more and more stories like this in the near future. :-(


Really sad.... in Mexico is not that bad yet in relation to legally forcing vaccination, the problem in Mexico is that most people believe in the health system as if it were religion, without question, accept everything that doctors say, prescribe, etc ..., Including my own family, who disagreed when I told them that I was delaying the vaccination of my daughter.
In my case just I got permanent resident card recently, I'm not american citizen, and just in orden to obtain that card and stay close to my daughter, and against my beliefs, because I disagree with vaccination, I had two options to choose, whether to lose custody of my only daughter or get vaccinated to get the green card.
I totally agree about the best is totally refuse the vaccination, but in some situations, is maybe about just trying to choose the best possible and in the most practical sense find solutions to repair the damage that vaccines can cause, when the person is forced to vaccinate.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
Really sad.... in Mexico is not that bad yet in relation to legally forcing vaccination, the problem in Mexico is that most people believe in the health system as if it were religion, without question, accept everything that doctors say, prescribe, etc ..., Including my own family, who disagreed when I told them that I was delaying the vaccination of my daughter.
In my case just I got permanent resident card recently, I'm not american citizen, and just in orden to obtain that card and stay close to my daughter, and against my beliefs, because I disagree with vaccination, I had two options to choose, whether to lose custody of my only daughter or get vaccinated to get the green card.
I totally agree about the best is totally refuse the vaccination, but in some situations, is maybe about just trying to choose the best possible and in the most practical sense find solutions to repair the damage that vaccines can cause, when the person is forced to vaccinate.
The problem is that new vaccines are not the same than before. Now there are recombined, artificially laboratory-made, genetically modified. So I'm not sure our detox supplements will be enough. Those can detox heavy metals in vaccines but not the artificial RNA/DNA that will incorporate in our own DNA. Plus the nanoparticules chips that will control us.
What would the green card bring to you? Not so much nowadays.

If a judge orders you to do the vaccine, will you follow? I will not. If they come to me with a syringue in their hand, THEY will do it to me by force, NOT ME accepting it, submitting to it. Be it on me or on my child.
THEY would steal my free will, NOT ME capitulating/surrendering and finally giving them my free will.
I will refuse even court judgement as long time as I can, and maybe time will do its work.
This is how I've managed a situation (not in vaccine stuff, but another case, my child's custody): I refused to follow judge's orders, I 've even be threatened then condemned to prison. I kept refusing giving them my child. Then, one day, at the court, the judge droped all charges against me. I couldn't believe my eyes.
My body is mine, not theirs, so I will decide for my body. My child is mine, not theirs, so I will care to my child as long as God will allow me, not do what others will decide for others' children.

Cs regularly talk about importance of free will :love:
 
Last edited:

Ruth

The Living Force
Finally, some good news! (amen) Especially when it comes to the state of Victoria, Australia. A legal challenge has turned out to be a strong position to engage the Government from. If people collectively take the position of strength, knowledge, truth and science as well as having the numbers, they can have a strong influence over elements of totalitarian draconianism. I've been wanting to see some good news for some time. :-) This makes me happy.

 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I've been wanting to see some good news for some time. :-) This makes me happy.

I wish them strength and sympathetic hearings and discerning judges, Ruth.

With wishful thinking, other than a complete ban, I'm inclined to say a discerning Judge might say to the industry and political proponents of these new (as @nature points out) outlandish vaccines, that they each, in clinical controlled objective studies, are the first to take on the jab that they are clamoring over. The pro vaccine public, if they are patient, can sit back and see how it all works out before lining up their children and themselves. It might take a few years, yet the results would likely be obvious.

That would be a pretty good judicial ruling in the spirit of public safety, osit.
 

Ruth

The Living Force
Finally, some good news! (amen) Especially when it comes to the state of Victoria, Australia. A legal challenge has turned out to be a strong position to engage the Government from. If people collectively take the position of strength, knowledge, truth and science as well as having the numbers, they can have a strong influence over elements of totalitarian draconianism. I've been wanting to see some good news for some time. :-) This makes me happy.

Yeah well, it didn't last. They've reversed their decision. Can't have people having any freedom or using any form of scientific basis for their position! And there's a CRISIS on, don't you know! :-O They probably thought no-one was watching.

 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Had caught RFK jr. tonight in an interview with Ron Paul. It was also a toss-up where it could be best posted, either in John and Robert's assassinations threads or here. In this interview, RFK jr. provides some interesting background on his family, including the feud between Joseph Kennedy and Allen Dulles - the latter, RFK jr. had said, never forgave the former, and thus declared war on the Kennedy family thereafter, basically.

The interview, however, seems best suited for here as much of the interview is focused on vaccines. RFK jr. also provides background on why it was that he started to research vaccine injury, which was a real service to others. Given our times and what is at stake, just knowing the world still has an advocate who keeps fighting the good fight is a good reason to share this interview. So thanks, RFK jr. and Ron Paul for the interview and to SOTT for capturing and posting it:


.
 
Top Bottom