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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Competence/capacity of the patient.
The consent is given voluntarily.
The consent covers the procedure in question.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! They probably thought no-one was watching.
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:
Former Congressman Ron Paul and his colleague Dan McAdams recently conducted a fascinating interview (watch video below) with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which focused in part on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who was Kennedy Jr.'s...
Just reading the above excerpts is enough to make me want to throw up. The entire article lays out the intrinsic evil of this vaccine and the psychopaths behind it.
Well, at least RFK Jr takes on Merck now as co-counsel:
The national law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman filed a Gardasil lawsuit against Merck today on behalf of a 19-year-old woman, alleging the company misled the FDA, legislators, doctors and moms about the safety and efficacy of its Gardasil vaccine. The lawsuit asserts Merck purposely downplayed the risk of Gardasil’s ingredients, including a proprietary aluminum compound (a potent neurotoxin) and secret and potentially hazardous DNA particles. Plaintiff Julia Balasco alleges she suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent physical injuries such as an autoimmune disease known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) after receiving multiple injections of the human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil vaccine.
The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages against Merck.
According to the complaint, Merck failed to properly test Gardasil before the HPV vaccine was fast-tracked and administered to millions of young girls and boys throughout the United States and the world. Furthermore, Merck knew or had reason to know that its vaccine was defective and ineffective, but instead of warning the medical community and the public, the company wrongfully concealed information and further made false statements concerning the safety and efficacy of Gardasil.
First published on August 24, 2020 It is vitally important to acknowledge that the same so-called “experts” in the medical/academic/scientific community, many of whom have serious undisclosed financial conflicts of interest at the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID, the FDA, the WHO, Medical Schools...
www.globalresearch.ca
Remember the Vioxx scandal? (Vioxx Lawsuit | Settlements, Injury Claims & Notable Cases) I remember one podcast i saw years ago with an ex Merck employee saying that the losses incurred by Vioxx had to be made good by Gardasil, whatever it would take. But anyway, as you know, in countries like The Netherlands, HPV vaccination Gardasil is in the state vaccination program for girls since 2009 and in 2019 the Health Advisory Board advised to also vaccinate boys. And Portugal was one of the first countries to offer HPV vaccination after it came on the market in 2006. And the people say thank you.
I got this legal update from ICAN in my email. I can't find a direct link anywhere on their website: Home | ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network
So, I'll post it as a quote:
It's worrying to know that vaccines trials are such an unmitigated mess.
The NIH and Moderna have rigged the clinical trial of their COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, to avoid capturing adverse reactions that occur more than 28 days after injecting this experimental vaccine. ICAN’s legal team has filed an emergency petition to stop this unethical conduct.
ICAN previously filed a petition to the FDA demanding that this clinical trial include a placebo. The clinical trial for this vaccine was then delayed and when its design was finally issued, it included a placebo. But it appears that NIH and Moderna have decided to play a different game to avoid capturing safety issues that could prevent licensure of their mRNA-1273 vaccine.
Their trick is to only capture adverse reactions that occur more than 28 days after injection if the participant withdraws from the clinical trial. This is nonsensical, since there is little for a participant to withdraw from after getting two doses during the first 28 days of the clinical trial. Once a participant has received both doses, if anything, a participant would have an incentive to remain part of the follow-up check-ups to address any adverse effects.
There could be many autoimmune, neurological and chronic health disorders which have a major impact on the quality of life that this experimental vaccine could cause. All of which may only arise more than 28 days after the injection. But yet, as long as the participant does not withdraw from the clinical trial, these will nonsensically be ignored as if they did not occur. This is unethical and renders vacuous any claim of safety for this product based on this trial.
Given that efficiency in this trial will be tracked for two years, the only reason to not track safety for this same duration is to avoid detecting safety issues that would prevent licensure.
ICAN’s legal team, headed by Aaron Siri, has therefore filed a citizen petition and an emergency stay petition demanding that the clinical trial design for this vaccine be updated to require that all adverse reactions for the entire period of the clinical trial be tracked. These petitions also demand that the number of participants in this trial be increased and that they be tested before and after injection for any T-cells to SARS-CoV-2. ICAN intends to take further legal action if its rational and sensible requests are not met.
Pfizer and BioNTech have also rigged the clinical trial of their COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b, to avoid capturing many potential life-altering adverse reactions that may occur from this experimental vaccine. ICAN’s legal team again filed an emergency petition to stop this unethical conduct.
While Pfizer and BioNTech have now included a placebo control group in their clinical trial, these companies have decided to play a different game to avoid capturing safety issues that could prevent licensure of their COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b.
The study design for the clinical trial for BNT162b provides that -- despite reviewing efficacy for at least 2 years -- it will only capture “adverse events” for 1 month and “serious adverse events” for only 6 months after each dose.
The adverse events captured beyond a month after injection should not be limited to “serious adverse events,” since there are many autoimmune, neurological, and chronic health disorders which have a major impact on the quality of life, yet are categorized by the FDA as “adverse reactions” and not categorized as “serious adverse reactions.” To wit, there are a myriad of post-licensure adverse reactions reported by consumers and physicians and are also listed in the package inserts for one or more vaccines that any individual living with would categorize as “serious”; yet the FDA, under its current guidelines, may not. These include, but are not limited to: alopecia, autoimmune disease, lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, Bell’s Palsy, hypotonia, migraine, myelitis, neuropathy, seizures, mental disorders, rhinitis, and vertigo.
The study design for BNT162b nonetheless provides that these adverse events should be captured for only 1 month after vaccination while “serious adverse events” are captured for 6 months. These artificial limitations are unethical and make any claim of safety for this product based on this trial specious at best.
Incredibly, the efficiency of Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine in this trial will be tracked for two years. As such, the only reason to not track safety for this same duration is to avoid detecting any safety issues that would prevent licensure. If BNT162b causes a systemic autoimmune issue to arise two months after vaccination, it would be irresponsible and unethical not to capture that reaction just because an autoimmune issue falls into the artificially defined zone of being an “adverse event” or “non-serious adverse event,” rather than what the FDA has decided to label a “serious adverse event.”
ICAN’s legal team filed a citizen petition and an emergency stay petition demanding that the clinical trial design for this vaccine be updated to require that all adverse reactions for the entire period of the clinical trial be tracked. These petitions also demand that the number of participants in this trial be increased and that they be tested before and after injection for any T-cells to SARS-CoV-2. ICAN intends to take further legal action if its rational and sensible requests are not met.
AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford have also rigged the clinical trial of their COVID-19 vaccine, ChAdox1 nCoV-19, to avoid capturing many potential life-altering adverse reactions that may occur from this experimental vaccine. ICAN’s legal team once again filed an emergency petition to stop this unethical conduct.
Unlike the clinical trials for Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines for COVID-19, which are occurring in the United States, the current clinical trial for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine is not under the direct authority of the FDA, since this clinical trial is not occurring in the United States.
News reports have indicated that AstraZeneca will be starting a new clinical trial in the United States for its COVID-19 vaccine that presumably will include a placebo control group. In the meantime, its current clinical trial occurring outside the United States persists in using a MenACWY vaccine as a control. As if that were not enough to rig this trial’s safety results, the study design for their vaccine, ChAdox1 nCoV-19, like the design of Pfizer’s vaccine, provides that, despite reviewing efficacy for at least 2 years, it will only capture “adverse events” for 1 month and “serious adverse events” for only 6 months after each dose.
Therefore, ICAN’s legal team has also filed a citizen petition and an emergency stay petition demanding that the clinical trial design for this vaccine be updated to require that all adverse reactions for the entire period of the clinical trial be tracked against a placebo control group. These petitions also demand that the number of participants in this trial be increased and that they be tested before and after injection for any T-cells to SARS-CoV-2. ICAN intends to take further legal action if its rational and sensible requests are not met.
Just as the pharmaceutical companies will never rest when it comes to promoting and selling their vaccine products, we will never rest in exposing the truth regarding these products.
I suspect that "vaccines" are (or have become) a multi-factorial thing. It seems that initially, the theory behind vaccination was sound, but as time went on, the ingredients used became more and more toxic (mercury, formaldehyde, various tissues, chemicals) and people began having reactions. Now it seems that vaccines have some positive benefits and some negative, not the least of which is that of getting us to fight about the issue and also sink many, many hours of our time into research and debate, all of which is STS. My big concern, and feeling, is that the vaccine agenda has been near-completely co-opted by STS such that it is leading up to a very powerful STS takeover maneuver. Whatever is proffered as a vaccine against Covid could very well be a weapon in the STS arsenal to get people to comply with their agenda. The vaccine itself could contain elements that alter our DNA in such a way that we are more compliant, and/or which makes us literally sick. Doing this to us however might violate our freewill and therefore somewhat nullify their "victory." At a minimum, our acceptance of such a vaccine in the name of "keeping us safe" without thinking it through fully could constitute agreement to further STS enslavement, even if the vaccine doesn't contain toxic materials. This could be true especially in the event that we are forced to get this vaccine and prove that we received it in order to function in life (grocery stores, banks, public places of all kinds, i.e. "no one could buy or sell lest he had the mark"). I don't plan to get the covid vaccine but I suspect that this choice is going to make daily life much more difficult. I'm not willing to take the chance with my soul though! What are your thoughts?
I suspect that "vaccines" are (or have become) a multi-factorial thing. It seems that initially, the theory behind vaccination was sound, but as time went on, the ingredients used became more and more toxic (mercury, formaldehyde, various tissues, chemicals) and people began having reactions. Now it seems that vaccines have some positive benefits and some negative, not the least of which is that of getting us to fight about the issue and also sink many, many hours of our time into research and debate, all of which is STS. My big concern, and feeling, is that the vaccine agenda has been near-completely co-opted by STS such that it is leading up to a very powerful STS takeover maneuver. Whatever is proffered as a vaccine against Covid could very well be a weapon in the STS arsenal to get people to comply with their agenda. The vaccine itself could contain elements that alter our DNA in such a way that we are more compliant, and/or which makes us literally sick. Doing this to us however might violate our freewill and therefore somewhat nullify their "victory." At a minimum, our acceptance of such a vaccine in the name of "keeping us safe" without thinking it through fully could constitute agreement to further STS enslavement, even if the vaccine doesn't contain toxic materials. This could be true especially in the event that we are forced to get this vaccine and prove that we received it in order to function in life (grocery stores, banks, public places of all kinds, i.e. "no one could buy or sell lest he had the mark"). I don't plan to get the covid vaccine but I suspect that this choice is going to make daily life much more difficult. I'm not willing to take the chance with my soul though! What are your thoughts?
You gotta remember that there has been literally decades of brainwashing going on and that the situation is more fraught with issues than anyone realizes. Some of the biggest challengers of vaccine safety get feedback along the lines of: What do you mean there is no legal liability for manufacturers? What is VERS? How come I didn't know that vaccines have been contaminated through the manufacture process? A lot of people aren't even aware that vaccines have adjuvants and that they are not very effective - especially for long term immunity. And they certainly aren't aware of how powerful the pharmaceutical industry is and how it's tentacles reach into much of this planet's business.
I've just had another conversation with infection control at my work. I raised the issue that the flu shot was more likely to increase a risk of Coronavirus infection (US Military study 2017). This was something that wasn't dismissed out of hand, but it was dismissed because 'the study couldn't be replicated' and 'lack of references' in that study. But it still can't be explained. I'm sure 'they' don't want it explained.
I have been told via multiple sources that some people getting COVID-19 have become VERY sick. That was when I raised the issue of the flu shot. It occured to me later, that some people may have had a more severe reaction because of the flu shot, or any vaccine for that matter, as per the Chinese experience. This is the same problem the COVID-19 vaccine will face, but most likely it will be more severe. The problem is re-exposure to a coronavirus post vaccination, especially if the vaccination contained coronavirus either deliberately or unintentionally. In the case of the flu shot, it would be unintentional contamination via the manufacturing process.
Sure, the wrong type of antibodies produced in large amounts will kill a person very quickly. I don't think people really understand how complicated the immune system is.
Speaking of which, caught RFK jr.'s talk from Berlin today - a massive turnout of Berliners to hear his words, and sure hope his words continue to resonating around the world, cause enough is enough, and he certainly, in capitals, squared off against big pharma.
Comment: We don't know exactly how many people were there, but it was probably similar in crowd size to the 1.3 million people organizers estimated filled the streets at an anti-Fascism rally in Berlin at the beginning of August. In any event,...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
This makes me happy.
They probably thought no-one was watching.
