Being compelled to consent to a 100% safe and effective procedure is still immoral--and an oxymoron, as well. It's the compulsion that's immoral: the initiation of force against those who haven't initiated it against anyone else. It doesn't matter how benign or beneficial or malevolent or destructive a given end is. We cannot *initiate* coercion against other people and still end up with a fully *human* society, i.e., one in which freedom and individual rights are upheld.
The grocery store would rationalize its demand with the observation that life requires water and therefore making you drink it as a condition of shopping is for your own good. It's an attempt to infantilize and control sentient adults, and that's why it's always the justification used by governments. That and "Won't someone think of the children?"
With vaccines as they're understood by most people, including most doctors, there's currently almost no chance for true informed consent to be achieved. In other medical contexts it's possible but probably not reached very often. It requires honest, informed doctors, and a lot of them are still proving that they're no better at honesty than a meth addict who steals copper out of air conditioners. It also requires alert patients with active minds. Good luck with that.
The article refers to measles vaccination, which is so much in the news at the moment...
Consider these quotes from the article:
QUOTE
‘We do know that the single most influential person in a patient’s life, in terms of encouraging vaccination, is their GP,’ she told newsGP.
‘You’ve got a whole generation who probably doesn’t even appreciate what measles is, and what a threat it is.’
END OF QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Dr Muñoz said awareness campaigns have an important role to play in addressing vaccine hesitancy, particularly amid the rise in measles cases, but that GPs remain a crucial and trusted voice in a ‘proper conversation’.
‘Awareness campaigns are helpful, but [they] really just increase someone’s interest in having a conversation,’ she said.
‘You need a proper conversation, which can take time, with a trained professional about the decision to vaccinate. And the most influential and appropriate person to do that is a GP.’
Exactly Fager 132, "It's the compulsion that's immoral..."
This is the practical angle I am taking in a very difficult situation - challenge the obviously immoral action, the compulsion to vaccinate, and we are on the way to challenging the entire scenario.
As a retired physician I had a few people ask me what to do. I advised not getting the so-called vaccine at least until more was known about the illness and the new vaccine. Not a single person, including 4 siblings, listened to me. They were scared to death. The media did their part in the fear campaign. I don't think anyone will ever pay, in any way, for what happened.
Michael, as a retired physician, can you please advise, what is the informed consent process for vaccination? How is the subject of vaccination initiated with the patient/client, on what basis? How do you actually obtain 'valid voluntary informed consent' from the patient/client for administration of the vaccine product?
Elizabeth. I guess I can also satisfy the definition of a "retired physician" (practiced conventional medicine for about 20 years before dedicating myself only to do acupuncture and academic medicine). When I practiced medicine >25 years ago, I did not know most of what I know today about vaccines. I would think that for most people, getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea. Still, the thought of compelling anyone to take any medical intervention (including vaccines) was considered unethical. I also taught Medical Ethics in a medical school for 15 years. Most ethical principles have exceptions (for example, it is considered correct to violate the principle of confidentiality, if you tell me that you plan to kill someone). The principle of informed consent (truth-telling plus autonomy) does not have exceptions.
Ivan, you say, "I would think that for most people, getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea."
Can you please clarify, are you saying that's what most people think is a good idea, but not you?
Why would most people think "getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea"? It's not something that's going to come to them unbidden, it's because they're subjected to fear-mongering and propaganda to make them submit to the vaccines, and mandates if they don't toe the line.
You also say, "The principle of informed consent (truth-telling plus autonomy) does not have exceptions." Unfortunately, in 'real life' there have been exceptions to informed consent for years, that's why we're in this mess.
Elizabeth. I was talking about the way I thought 25 years ago, which is different from what I think today.
I agree that "in real life" there have been many exceptions to informed consent. I am talkIng about what "should be" if we correctly applied ethical principles. If there have been exceptions to infomed consent, then they have been unethical.
Well if the world population figures are authentic, along with the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered, there are billions of unethical exceptions to informed consent, because people have been lied to about the disease threat and the vaccine products.
It seems to me it is the biggest crime of all time, the agenda being to steal the personal autonomy of the people, and their bodily integrity.
I had brief time as an Internal Medicine physician. I can't remember giving vaccines. However, I would assume it would be exactly like explaining the risks and benefits of things like angioplasty, angiography, surgery, or any medication. My specialty was Interventional Radiology. I tried to be as accurate as I could when discussing any medication or therapy.
Michael, what do you think about Ahmad Malik's @docmalik explanation of informed consent I shared in a previous comment?
Of course Ahmad is speaking from a former surgeon's viewpoint, where a patient seeks his advice and skill to repair, say, a broken ankle.
This is a very different situation to mass populations of people being ordered to turn up for a medical intervention, say a COVID-19 vaccination, that may be of little or no benefit for them. They may be turning up reluctantly in vaccination clinics because they've been threatened they'll lose their job or participation in society if they don't submit to the intervention.
And what is startling is that the vaccinators are collaborating with this intimidation, they're injecting people under duress.
There is NO WAY they can obtain valid voluntary informed consent in such circumstances. First of all, the entire community has been subjected to a torrent of fear-mongering lies about the purported disease, so the 'information' is illegitimate from the start. And the vaccinators themselves are largely clueless about the disease and the vaccine products, so are in no way qualified to obtain valid voluntary informed consent.
To use the common modern parlance...it's an absolute shit show.
There is NO VALID CONSENT for COVID-19 vaccination, and I contend there is no valid consent for any vaccination, because people are never properly informed, and often they're pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to the intervention.
Hopefully there are people outside this substack who are awakening to the significance of this situation...
Michael, here’s an explanation of informed consent, by former surgeon Ahmad Malik, in discussion with Heather Hudson, I included a transcript in one of my articles on consent:
QUOTE
Ahmad Malik: As a doctor for 25 years, and surgeon for most of those years who did consent on thousands of people, you didn't need any of this information, even on day one. I'll tell you why.
So let me explain what informed consent means.
Informed consent means I want to get permission from you.
You're the one who grants the consent.
I want to get consent from you to give you either a medical intervention or surgical procedure. Now, before I do that however, I need to lay out something to you. I need to tell you what your condition is or what your risk of a condition is.
Heather Hudson: Yes.
Ahmad Malik: I need to tell you what the pros and cons of any treatment are. I need to tell you what the treatment is in detail. I need to tell you how often I've done it, and how safe it is, and what risks and complications come along with it.
I need to tell you what your individual risk is of the disease. I need to tell you what your individual risk is of surgery.
I need to tell you what the individual benefit of the surgery or medical intervention is for you, the individual.
I need to do this without any coercion.
I need to do this without any incentive.
And I need to offer you more than one choice. I can't offer you just one choice.
And I definitely cannot mandate it or force it on you.
And denying you access to travel or work or visit places is a form of coercion. Can't do that.
And one of the options I need to give you is to do nothing.
You need to have the right to say, I don't want anything. I just want to be left alone.
I also need to respect your decision no matter what.
I need to be able to say, yep, that's fine. I gave you this option.
You said, ‘no’ - I respect it. I'm walking away from it. I'm not going to judge you or treat you any differently for that. So there's no shaming. There's no guilt. There's no shame. There's no guilt.
This is what informed consent is.
I would also argue you also have a cooling off period, which is where I offer you this. And you don't need to respond to me straight away. You can go away and think about it, ask friends, talk to people. And you have the right to ask me questions as well.
Now that you know what informed consent is, you can see that you don't really need to even know anything about LNPs and and spike proteins and DNA contamination and whatever. You don't need any of that.
Informed consent is what I've just said.
You have someone offer you something with as much details and facts as possible.
Michael, you say, "I can't remember giving vaccines. However, I would assume it would be exactly like explaining the risks and benefits of things like angioplasty, angiography, surgery, or any medication."
In a previous comment I asked Jessica Hockett, "Can you remember the process in the clinic when your children were vaccinated? Was they any discussion at all before they were injected?"
Jessica responded:
QUOTE
Both of my children had the same female pediatrician No, no discussion. Just expectation. But I can't say that I felt intimidated by that at the time, because all of the baby books, etc. treat "the schedule" as a given.
FYI, state law "required" my son to get a shot this year for school but I submitted an objection and that was the end of that. :)
END OF QUOTE
Michael, what do you think about Jessica's experience with her children's paediatrician? Also considering the impact of 'state law' in regard to vaccination.
What do you think about all this in regard to the paediatrician obtaining valid voluntary informed consent for the intervention?
I do -- I just see informed consent as having a different role/part to play and agree with Mike that, at this point, is isn't ethical to act as if it isn't all deception
This isn't to say that you are acting that way; I don't think you are and very much appreciate this dialogue.
In the USA I suspect lots of vaccines are given by pediatricians and family practice doctors. There seem to be lots of people online who haven't had any vaccines. One I follow is in their 70's and has a family with zero vaccine history. The whole family is alive and well. Maybe there are enough people in the USA that don't take vaccines that an honest controlled study could be done. Mandates for things like vaccines are a hard NO. Assumptions were made about Covid vaccines that turned out to be completely false. Maybe it's time to look objectively at lots of medical products that are assumed to be beneficial.
Consider this statement made by Dr Anita Muñoz, "‘We do know that the single most influential person in a patient’s life, in terms of encouraging vaccination, is their GP,’"
Think about that statement...
But how much do GPs know about vaccination? What expertise do they have in the diseases and vaccine products? Are they qualified to obtain valid voluntary informed consent?
Also, consider this statement made by Heidi Larson, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, during her plenary lecture at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December 2019:
QUOTE
We have a very wobbly health professional front-line, that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines.
That's a huge problem. Because to this day, any study I've seen, and we're constantly looking on any studies in this space, still the most trusted person on any study I've seen globally is the healthcare provider.
And if we lose that, we're in trouble.
And we haven't lost it yet, but we've talked about it earlier, some of the challenges are when the front-line professionals are starting to question, or they don't feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it, to the person asking them the questions.
I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.
END OF QUOTE.
What do you think about that statement from Heidi Larson Michael, made in December 2019, just as 'Covid' was about to unfold...?
I did finally read it. It feels like Vaccine Confidence Project is a Big Pharma Sales Team. "What can we do to make people know that they must get every vaccine forever?!" I'm ok with GP and/or pediatrician taking the lead in the vaccine issue as long as it becomes standard for all healthcare professionals study vaccines not just be a pharma arm. Accepting them all as fine with no real knowledge of benefits vs complications is a mistake that needs to stop. And that all Internists/Peds/GPs will get serious about learning everything they can about what they are prescribing.
The difference between a prescription and a vaccine is very stark.
WIth medication, the doctor says you need it and may tell you some things about it, possible side effects etc.
Then, you have the choice to take it - you have to go get it, there's an insert that tells you quite a bit about it, and ultimately you have to take it in your home.
My mistake. It's been quite awhile since I had one. You are right. It's one of those things where it seems to be, "Mike, it's time for your [fill in the blank] vaccine." No discussion. It should be treated differently after we actually study them. Just knowing that a certain injection is unlikely to kill you is not really a great reason to get it.
Michael you say: "I'm ok with GP and/or pediatrician taking the lead in the vaccine issue as long as it becomes standard for all healthcare professionals study vaccines not just be a pharma arm."
Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
What do you mean 'the vaccine issue'?
Are you referring to the vaccine schedule?
You're in the US I understand?
Here's the vaccine schedule - which vaccine products, including multi-component shots and revaccinations, do you support?
By vaccine issue, I mean all things vaccine. What's in them, reactions to them, benefit, if any, from each and every one. I would really like for every vaccine to be studied with decent controlled studies. I would like to be in a place where the doctors prescribe vaccines only after these studies. I would like for the doctors to know what they are giving, complications, success in prevention with each vaccine, and how to quickly treat every possible complication. In all honesty, i'm not sure what to do in the meantime. And I really think it will end up being parents and guardians who are the only ones with a chance to alter the course of the vaccine train at least in shorter term. The Big Pharma money will continue to drive the whole thing telling everyone everywhere that if we halt or slow vaccines, even for a short time, to study them we will kill millions, possibly billions. There are very few practicing physicians pushing for changes and money talks. In the USA large lawsuits might be one driving force to make some changes. I'll be honest. I've been retired for a decade and had little interest in any of it til covid and the so-called vaccine sparked interest again even though most in my sphere wouldn't listen and considered me a crackpot.
Before 2020, I didn't give vaccination a second thought. I wasn't pro or against per se. Did mostly what doctors said to do and knew there were "anti-vaxxers" but didn't have much to say about that mindset either, because I thought people could make whatever choice they wanted.
I've always had the same orientation in my field of credentialed expertise (broadly, education/schools): private, public, homeschool, unschool, etc. - people can do what they want and what's best for their kids/situation. (On that front, my kids were in private preschool, public school through 2020, homeschooled by me in 2020-21, and then private HS for son and public school for daughter.)
Also strongly against testing requirements, including the program I was most vocal about and researched pretty thoroughly: University of Illinois' saliva-testing program. That and personal experiences also prompted me to better understanding the state's communicable disease code, "quarantine", etc. (I talked a bit about that here - https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/is-lockdown-in-us-law) but people can also look at my Illinois related posts from 2021 onward on this substack.
Obviously, there has been a learning curve, but for me the highest and best arguments against mandated anything are guided by the question, "Who has authority over the body and in what circumstances?" There is no case to be made from the Bible (OT/Hebrew Bible or NT) with respect to the need for vaccination, any responsibility to keep others from getting sick (when one is sick), etc.
You say: "Before 2020, I didn't give vaccination a second thought. I wasn't pro or against per se. Did mostly what doctors said to do and knew there were "anti-vaxxers" but didn't have much to say about that mindset either, because I thought people could make whatever choice they wanted."
So before 2020, you "didn't give vaccination a second thought..."
Before 2020, you thought people were able to "make whatever choice they wanted" about vaccination, without pressure, coercion or manipulation?
You didn't know there were vaccination mandates in place before 2020? E.g. for children, for medical workers, for people in the military.
As Michael Carter stated elsewhere in the comments, in the U.S., the priming for vaccination as normal (and not 'mandated') begins in the pediatrician's office (or, for pregnant women, in the ob/gyn office). The "schedule" isn't presented as something mandated or not - just what you do.
Yes, public school attendance in many states requires certain shots. I never thought much about it because I just went along with the schedule. I knew people could object on religious/medical basis. Re: military - no I did not think about those mandates because I'm not from a military family. I have a niece in the Coast Guard now, but that was post-2020.
Jessica, you say “Yes, public school attendance in many states requires certain shots. I never thought much about it because I just went along with the schedule.”
So you “never thought much about it” and “just went along with the schedule”.
Can you remember the process in the clinic when your children were vaccinated? Was there any discussion at all before they were injected?
Was it a doctor or nurse who administered the vaccines?
Both of my children had the same female pediatrician
No, no discussion. Just expectation. But I can't say that I felt intimidated by that at the time, because all of the baby books, etc. treat "the schedule" as a given.
FYI, state law "required" my son to get a shot this year for school but I submitted an objection and that was the end of that. :)
Quick edit: The other shot "mandates" I knew about before 2020 were travel-related - i.e., you go to a certain country and are required to get a vaccine for travel
"As a result of events in 2020 and 2021, I’ve come to realize that requiring a vaccine or medical treatment as a condition of attending work, school, public access, or movement within a country is fundamentally wrong and should be illegal. Restricting movement between countries is more complicated because countries do have the power (and responsibility) to control the people and goods crossing their borders. Without strong evidence that a vaccine prevents an illness, transmission of an illness, and poses very low risk to the recipients, the legal foundation for requiring any vaccine to travel or move to a country is weak."
Probably late 2020. It took me only a few weeks to deduce that “covid” endgame was totalitarian digital control at the level of the individual. It’s not easy to explain why I was so certain that this wasn’t only about money but I’ve a long track record of being able to see faint patterns in sparse data before most others. It’s the only characteristic that I could claim made me stand out. I wasn’t unusually good at anything else.
At that early time, I wasn’t prepared to speak publicly about my deductions because first, I was struggling to live with my own conclusions and I was pretty sure nobody else would accept it. So I remained focussed publicly on so-called diagnostic testing for most of 2020, while privately developing my ideas about what the dickens was really happening.
Towards the autumn of 2020, I began in depth assessment of the so-called vaccines. At that time I dismissed them as having any role in the “pandemic” which, back then, I thought was real but not very dangerous. The reason I dismissed them was because I “knew” professionally that it was impossible to reach the market in under several years. That is of course assuming due care and following regulatory requirements. As autumn wore on, I realised with mounting horror that these were going to injected en masse into an innocent & ignorant population at a point in development that meant there was almost no safety data in any group and none at all in pregnancy and in children.
Before any jabs were “authorised” (I knew even then that it was fraudulent but I didn’t then appreciate the decades of public health emergency law changes that Katherine Watt was unearthing) I wrote with Dr Wolfgang Wodarg an open letter to EMA, in which we explained why we were almost certain that they were going to injure people and probably reduce fertility. That was the tipping point for the perpetrators and my censorship went skywards and official smearing became marked.
I don’t think I had done the work necessary to conclude virology was a long planned fraud and with that, that vaccines were also fraudulent until much later. I believe I first said I didn’t believe in respiratory viruses in late 2022. I was then living in Florida. Over subsequent months I looked at all the “pillars of evidence” underwriting virology (and with that, vaccinology too) and became increasingly loud about the conclusions. More dots kept getting joined, such as why it is that you’re not allowed to question let alone challenge any vaccine, or else your professional career will be at stake, no matter what professional field you’re in.
I skim read parts of some famous books on the disappearance of numerous illnesses which we’re told are infectious, which had all but disappeared before any vaccine was deployed.
I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist. Like so many people, unaware even of the possibility of being systematically lied to, I had taken for granted that they were “safe & effective”.
Mike, you say “I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist. Like so many people, unaware even of the possibility of being systematically lied to, I had taken for granted that they were “safe & effective”.”
So are you saying you were “systematically lied to” about vaccines, aka mis/disinformed?
Can you not understand this is the point about arguing for ‘informed consent’? It’s about the information. If it’s a tissue of fear-mongering lies about a disease risk and purported protective product, people cannot authentically consent to the intervention.
And ‘consent’ is the important word when mandates are in play.
I’m astonished at your cavalier attitude on this matter.
Do you not realise countless people have been lied to about a disease risk, and at the same time ordered to submit to an injection under threat of loss of livelihood and participation in society, as happened across the country in Australia?
If the principle of valid voluntary informed consent had been upheld, this wouldn’t have happened.
If the vaccinating practitioners had refused to collaborate with vaccine mandates, this wouldn’t have happened.
Mike, can you please advise, exactly what practical action are you undertaking to challenge 'fraudulent injections'?
What specific measures are you undertaking to seek accountability, in addition to your public presentations on the internet, comments on substack etc?
Also, in regard to the terms 'weapons' and 'medical treatments' and others use of the term 'countermeasures' etc.
Whatever... They're all interventions with people's bodies. And I take the stance that everyone has the final word on what happens to their own body whatever name you give to the intervention, and anyone undertaking the intervention had better have obtained valid voluntary informed consent for the interference...
This means if people are being called upon to have interventions there must be truthful information, and each individual makes their own free decision whether to undertake the intervention or not.
Of course when the intervention is MANDATED, 'information' and 'freedom' have been trashed - do you understand yet why I'm challenging mandates?
This is why first and foremost, my prime focus at this time is on demanding the cessation of all mandates. Because you might not realise it, but there are still vaccine mandates in place for many people - e.g. medical workers, military recruits, children, and others, certainly in Australia.
While there are mandates in place the vital principle of valid voluntary informed consent is obviously trashed, and all remain at risk of the imposition of mandates, and consequent discrimination against those who refuse to submit to the mandate.
Mike, you say, “But I cannot believe you think informed consent has any place whatsoever in relation to assault with no possibility of benefit.”
It is incredible how you are misinterpreting my views.
Vaccination without valid voluntary informed consent IS ASSAULT! It’s actually already happened!
Do you not realise that people are being bullied into these medical interventions, even mandated?!
This is why I argue for valid voluntary informed consent.
If people were truthfully informed about the risks and benefits of the vaccines, and about the risks of the disease I doubt very much they would submit to the intervention.
But what is the point of being ‘informed’ if people are MANDATED to submit to the intervention - do you not see the anomaly here?!
I have laid this out time and time again, but it is wilfully ignored.
Here it is again Mike, in my discussion with retired doctor Liz Evans, one of apparently a handful of doctors in the ENTIRE WORLD who understands valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination!
Our discussion was undertaken along with former policeman Ian Humphreys, both of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.
In the discussion I present a series of PowerPoint slides with a timeline of the destruction of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination in Australia during the Covid debacle.
You need to get across some detail Mike, and stop misrepresenting my position.
Also for your information Mike, in regard to someone actively challenging vaccination policy and practice, rather than just talking about it, see my rapid responses published over the years on The BMJ: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/more-correspondence/
Mike, you've responded to me that you've started looking at vaccination "Probably late 2020", this being sparked by 'Covid'.
I started in late 2008, with pet vaccination, then progressing to human vaccination.
I questioned 'Covid' from the start, see for example my rapid response published on The BMJ in March 2020, including reference to the WHO, Neil Ferguson, and Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
At the time I didn't question the existence of 'the virus', I was more interested in the fact it, whatever 'it' is, didn't appear to be a problem for most people, as acknowledged by the WHO at the time.
So why was there a 'vaccine solution'?
For those of us who have been following this subject for some time, it seemed to be a manufactured crisis used to implement vaccines, anti-virals and social controls, e.g. consider swine flu in 2009, see for example: WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies": https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/186584?path=/bmj/340/7759/Feature.full.pdf
Mike, as you've admitted "I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist."
Do you know for instance that not all vaccines are viral? Have you actually looked at the schedule?
In another response to me you say: "But I’ve also been clear that ALL these injections are fraudulent and better considered as weapons. What they’re not is medical treatments."
So now that you've turned up on the scene do you think you'll be able to wave away ALL these 'fraudulent injections' on your say so?
And you have the downright cheek to infer that people such as me are 'unethical' for pursuing accountability and valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
Considering my original comment on Jessica's other article, as posted by Jessica in her current article above - think about the quality of 'information' that is pressed upon the public to terrorise them and make them submit themselves and their children to vaccination...and even with all the fear-mongering and propaganda, it was still necessary to threaten people with penalties - e.g. loss of livelihood and participation in society - to make people submit to the vaccines.
Quoting from my original comment:
QUOTE
There is NO VALID CONSENT for COVID-19 vaccination, or any vaccination that has been administered under mis/disinformation, aka lies, from 'the authorities', and under pressure, coercion, manipulation and MANDATES.
All those billions of people injected around the world...with NO VALID CONSENT.
It's a massive scandal.
And who is responsible?
Of course those who penetrated the skin with the needle without valid consent.
But why did they do this?
They were caught in a hierarchy of 'regulators' and medical colleges and associations, and governments and bureaucrats, the research and university sector, and the WHO, and public private partnerships, and the mainstream media, and even the churches.
Our entire system has been captured to facilitate vaccination, imposed upon the population under duress.
So there is NO VALID CONSENT.
Get this massive scandal understood, and the various protagonists pursued for accountability, and the pandemic/bioterrorism preparedness industries are finished.
END OF QUOTE
Think about it... Valid voluntary informed consent cannot be obtained from people who have been bombarded with highly questionable 'information', aka lies, and who have been pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to the intervention.
There is NO VALID CONSENT!
What is this going to mean when the penny, finally, drops?
I've left this response to Mike Yeadon @drmikeyeadon on the other thread:
QUOTE
As you say yourself Mike: "Truly informed consent as I’ve just outlined would result in very low uptake."
That's exactly my point!!!!
The information that is promoted by 'the authorities' about disease threats is dire, fear-mongering propaganda, aka lies, to drive people to submit to vaccination, as we've seen clearly with 'Covid'.
But despite the fear-mongering, it seems they still have to coerce/mandate people to submit to the intervention, because many people would not make their own free choice to submit to vaccination.
It's about challenging the 'information' Mike, and the compulsion to vaccinate.
Jessica has set up another thread about this, initiated from our comments on this post - do you want to come and join us over there? See: 'There are no genuine vaccines' Hart, Hockett, Yeadon: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/there-are-no-genuine-vaccines
Mine thought is different. It is based on the realisation that the entire field is fraudulent. For me, I cannot campaign for informed consent because I think that phrase & practise is assumed to rest upon a just foundation of public health practice. “Here’s a well intentioned thing, you may join in or not”.
But that isn’t the setting. It’s a bed of lies. I don’t think it’s ethical to act as if it isn’t all deception.
So my journey took me from not giving a momentary thought to the entire thing to speaking out about something much more serious than whether or not to go along with something most others were content to go along with.
We’re facing the prospect of extinguishing human freedoms altogether. I have to give that warning over & above any of the other things I might do or say.
Hence these days I’m dot joining around new format digital ID which is editable in real time and on cashless CBDC.
Where the informed consent argument comes in, for me, is with shots that have already been taken - i.e., "you took that COVID shot, but you were not adequately informed of the risks and benefits - in fact, you were lied to (and your doctor was lied to as well)."
I respect and appreciate different approaches and emphases in calling out the evils perpetrated against humanity in 2020+. I can't consider informed consent a cornerstone of my own orientation for the reasons you've stated. It's all lies - there is no informed consent and the products shouldn't be presented as necessary or offered in the first place.(I think) Katherine Watt and I are on the same page insofar as what the real solution is: Just say no/civil disobedience. Regard the shots as weapons and resist them with every fiber of your being.
It has started to occur to me that the very act of one human injecting another human with anything is a barbarous act. Am I going too far? Maybe...
Mike, re your statement, "I don’t think it’s ethical to act as if it isn’t all deception".
Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
What exactly is the 'all' you are referring to? The entire vaccination schedule?
It's important that you clarify this as it seems to me you are casting me as 'unethical' for pursuing vaccinating practitioners' obligation to obtain valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination - is that correct?
I've been working in this area for 17 years and undertaken much research and correspondence on vaccination, particularly challenging the imposition of vaccine products via coercion and mandates, work that you know little or nothing about.
It seems to me you have no idea what is going on in regard to vaccine mandates, how people are being manipulated into submitting to vaccination for themselves or their children, no questions allowed, including by the vaccinating practitioners!
It is also very concerning that new people who have shown up on the scene since Covid are dominating the narrative and undermining my quest for people to be properly informed about disease threats and the vaccine products - do you not understand that I am challenging the validity of these disease threats and vaccine products imposed?
Sharing here a comment from my friend and colleague Emma McArthur @emmamcarthur.
We've both undertaken much correspondence seeking accountability for the imposition of vaccine mandates and the trashing of valid voluntary informed consent:
QUOTE
I can’t comment on the thread Elizabeth Hart but I agree, consent is vital. As we know, it’s not just about vaccination or healthcare either. Dismantling mandates is one important part of a much bigger picture, especially in Australia. Because so many people went along with government overreach during COVID, eg lockdowns, it basically gave an illusion of ‘consent’. So, the powerbrokers felt confident to roll out mandates because they had destroyed all our rights to normal life and terrorised the masses with lies. Waving this away because there is a bigger picture is unhelpful. Each person has a corner to fight. We are like termites…. Chewing away at our own corner, together we can bring the house down. Big business can make dangerous drugs. Governments will tell lies… but…First principles suggest that as long as we can genuinely say no, tyranny is harder for those who are trying to achieve it because there are always enough people who see through it to fight back.
Being compelled to consent to a 100% safe and effective procedure is still immoral--and an oxymoron, as well. It's the compulsion that's immoral: the initiation of force against those who haven't initiated it against anyone else. It doesn't matter how benign or beneficial or malevolent or destructive a given end is. We cannot *initiate* coercion against other people and still end up with a fully *human* society, i.e., one in which freedom and individual rights are upheld.
Yes, the force or coercion is immoral regardless, even if the injection is saline.
If a local grocery store required people to drink a cup of water before going in, that would be immoral as well - even though water is good for you.
Can there be such a thing as informed consent in a medical settting, considering the intimacy of the setting? Debatable...
The grocery store would rationalize its demand with the observation that life requires water and therefore making you drink it as a condition of shopping is for your own good. It's an attempt to infantilize and control sentient adults, and that's why it's always the justification used by governments. That and "Won't someone think of the children?"
With vaccines as they're understood by most people, including most doctors, there's currently almost no chance for true informed consent to be achieved. In other medical contexts it's possible but probably not reached very often. It requires honest, informed doctors, and a lot of them are still proving that they're no better at honesty than a meth addict who steals copper out of air conditioners. It also requires alert patients with active minds. Good luck with that.
Right, we agree: informed consent is not possible with vaccines.
I have concerns about "the vaccinators" not being informed themselves
Exactly Jessica, "force or coercion is immoral..."
Hence why my primary practical focus at this time is challenging vaccination mandates.
As for "informed consent in a medical setting", that opens up a whole can of worms...
In regard to vaccination in a medical setting - how does the subject arise? Initiated by the patient/client or the doctor?
In this regard, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this article Jessica, published by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, see: GPs remain the frontline in vaccination: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/gps-remain-the-frontline-in-vaccination
The article refers to measles vaccination, which is so much in the news at the moment...
Consider these quotes from the article:
QUOTE
‘We do know that the single most influential person in a patient’s life, in terms of encouraging vaccination, is their GP,’ she told newsGP.
‘You’ve got a whole generation who probably doesn’t even appreciate what measles is, and what a threat it is.’
END OF QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Dr Muñoz said awareness campaigns have an important role to play in addressing vaccine hesitancy, particularly amid the rise in measles cases, but that GPs remain a crucial and trusted voice in a ‘proper conversation’.
‘Awareness campaigns are helpful, but [they] really just increase someone’s interest in having a conversation,’ she said.
‘You need a proper conversation, which can take time, with a trained professional about the decision to vaccinate. And the most influential and appropriate person to do that is a GP.’
END OF QUOTE
well said, yes
Exactly Fager 132, "It's the compulsion that's immoral..."
This is the practical angle I am taking in a very difficult situation - challenge the obviously immoral action, the compulsion to vaccinate, and we are on the way to challenging the entire scenario.
✅
As a retired physician I had a few people ask me what to do. I advised not getting the so-called vaccine at least until more was known about the illness and the new vaccine. Not a single person, including 4 siblings, listened to me. They were scared to death. The media did their part in the fear campaign. I don't think anyone will ever pay, in any way, for what happened.
Michael, as a retired physician, can you please advise, what is the informed consent process for vaccination? How is the subject of vaccination initiated with the patient/client, on what basis? How do you actually obtain 'valid voluntary informed consent' from the patient/client for administration of the vaccine product?
Elizabeth. I guess I can also satisfy the definition of a "retired physician" (practiced conventional medicine for about 20 years before dedicating myself only to do acupuncture and academic medicine). When I practiced medicine >25 years ago, I did not know most of what I know today about vaccines. I would think that for most people, getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea. Still, the thought of compelling anyone to take any medical intervention (including vaccines) was considered unethical. I also taught Medical Ethics in a medical school for 15 years. Most ethical principles have exceptions (for example, it is considered correct to violate the principle of confidentiality, if you tell me that you plan to kill someone). The principle of informed consent (truth-telling plus autonomy) does not have exceptions.
Ivan, you say, "I would think that for most people, getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea."
Can you please clarify, are you saying that's what most people think is a good idea, but not you?
Why would most people think "getting vaccinated for almost anything would be a good idea"? It's not something that's going to come to them unbidden, it's because they're subjected to fear-mongering and propaganda to make them submit to the vaccines, and mandates if they don't toe the line.
You also say, "The principle of informed consent (truth-telling plus autonomy) does not have exceptions." Unfortunately, in 'real life' there have been exceptions to informed consent for years, that's why we're in this mess.
Elizabeth. I was talking about the way I thought 25 years ago, which is different from what I think today.
I agree that "in real life" there have been many exceptions to informed consent. I am talkIng about what "should be" if we correctly applied ethical principles. If there have been exceptions to infomed consent, then they have been unethical.
Well if the world population figures are authentic, along with the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered, there are billions of unethical exceptions to informed consent, because people have been lied to about the disease threat and the vaccine products.
It seems to me it is the biggest crime of all time, the agenda being to steal the personal autonomy of the people, and their bodily integrity.
Agree.
I had brief time as an Internal Medicine physician. I can't remember giving vaccines. However, I would assume it would be exactly like explaining the risks and benefits of things like angioplasty, angiography, surgery, or any medication. My specialty was Interventional Radiology. I tried to be as accurate as I could when discussing any medication or therapy.
Michael, what do you think about Ahmad Malik's @docmalik explanation of informed consent I shared in a previous comment?
Of course Ahmad is speaking from a former surgeon's viewpoint, where a patient seeks his advice and skill to repair, say, a broken ankle.
This is a very different situation to mass populations of people being ordered to turn up for a medical intervention, say a COVID-19 vaccination, that may be of little or no benefit for them. They may be turning up reluctantly in vaccination clinics because they've been threatened they'll lose their job or participation in society if they don't submit to the intervention.
And what is startling is that the vaccinators are collaborating with this intimidation, they're injecting people under duress.
There is NO WAY they can obtain valid voluntary informed consent in such circumstances. First of all, the entire community has been subjected to a torrent of fear-mongering lies about the purported disease, so the 'information' is illegitimate from the start. And the vaccinators themselves are largely clueless about the disease and the vaccine products, so are in no way qualified to obtain valid voluntary informed consent.
To use the common modern parlance...it's an absolute shit show.
There is NO VALID CONSENT for COVID-19 vaccination, and I contend there is no valid consent for any vaccination, because people are never properly informed, and often they're pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to the intervention.
Hopefully there are people outside this substack who are awakening to the significance of this situation...
Michael, here’s an explanation of informed consent, by former surgeon Ahmad Malik, in discussion with Heather Hudson, I included a transcript in one of my articles on consent:
QUOTE
Ahmad Malik: As a doctor for 25 years, and surgeon for most of those years who did consent on thousands of people, you didn't need any of this information, even on day one. I'll tell you why.
So let me explain what informed consent means.
Informed consent means I want to get permission from you.
You're the one who grants the consent.
I want to get consent from you to give you either a medical intervention or surgical procedure. Now, before I do that however, I need to lay out something to you. I need to tell you what your condition is or what your risk of a condition is.
Heather Hudson: Yes.
Ahmad Malik: I need to tell you what the pros and cons of any treatment are. I need to tell you what the treatment is in detail. I need to tell you how often I've done it, and how safe it is, and what risks and complications come along with it.
I need to tell you what your individual risk is of the disease. I need to tell you what your individual risk is of surgery.
I need to tell you what the individual benefit of the surgery or medical intervention is for you, the individual.
I need to do this without any coercion.
I need to do this without any incentive.
And I need to offer you more than one choice. I can't offer you just one choice.
And I definitely cannot mandate it or force it on you.
And denying you access to travel or work or visit places is a form of coercion. Can't do that.
And one of the options I need to give you is to do nothing.
You need to have the right to say, I don't want anything. I just want to be left alone.
I also need to respect your decision no matter what.
I need to be able to say, yep, that's fine. I gave you this option.
You said, ‘no’ - I respect it. I'm walking away from it. I'm not going to judge you or treat you any differently for that. So there's no shaming. There's no guilt. There's no shame. There's no guilt.
This is what informed consent is.
I would also argue you also have a cooling off period, which is where I offer you this. And you don't need to respond to me straight away. You can go away and think about it, ask friends, talk to people. And you have the right to ask me questions as well.
Now that you know what informed consent is, you can see that you don't really need to even know anything about LNPs and and spike proteins and DNA contamination and whatever. You don't need any of that.
Informed consent is what I've just said.
You have someone offer you something with as much details and facts as possible.
But the key element is choice and free will.
Now, do you see how no one got informed consent?
END OF QUOTE
See:
Abridged: "Consent is really the critical word in informed consent..." https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/abridged-consent-is-really-the-critical
Michael, you say, "I can't remember giving vaccines. However, I would assume it would be exactly like explaining the risks and benefits of things like angioplasty, angiography, surgery, or any medication."
In a previous comment I asked Jessica Hockett, "Can you remember the process in the clinic when your children were vaccinated? Was they any discussion at all before they were injected?"
Jessica responded:
QUOTE
Both of my children had the same female pediatrician No, no discussion. Just expectation. But I can't say that I felt intimidated by that at the time, because all of the baby books, etc. treat "the schedule" as a given.
FYI, state law "required" my son to get a shot this year for school but I submitted an objection and that was the end of that. :)
END OF QUOTE
Michael, what do you think about Jessica's experience with her children's paediatrician? Also considering the impact of 'state law' in regard to vaccination.
What do you think about all this in regard to the paediatrician obtaining valid voluntary informed consent for the intervention?
No discussion at all about vaccines by pediatricians when my children received them 40+ years ago.
Which means there could not be any valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
This is the massive scandal that people still do not understand…there is NO VALID CONSENT for vaccination.
What is this going to mean for the liability protection of the vaccinating practitioners if the penny ever drops?
Do you understand what I’m saying Michael?
Because it seems Jessica Hockett and Mike Yeadon do not…
I do -- I just see informed consent as having a different role/part to play and agree with Mike that, at this point, is isn't ethical to act as if it isn't all deception
This isn't to say that you are acting that way; I don't think you are and very much appreciate this dialogue.
Michael, please see my response to Jessica about this article, I quote from it in my comment to her: GPs remain the frontline in vaccination: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/gps-remain-the-frontline-in-vaccination
I’d appreciate your thoughts on this too.
In the USA I suspect lots of vaccines are given by pediatricians and family practice doctors. There seem to be lots of people online who haven't had any vaccines. One I follow is in their 70's and has a family with zero vaccine history. The whole family is alive and well. Maybe there are enough people in the USA that don't take vaccines that an honest controlled study could be done. Mandates for things like vaccines are a hard NO. Assumptions were made about Covid vaccines that turned out to be completely false. Maybe it's time to look objectively at lots of medical products that are assumed to be beneficial.
Michael, did you read the RACGP article I linked to? https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/gps-remain-the-frontline-in-vaccination
Consider this statement made by Dr Anita Muñoz, "‘We do know that the single most influential person in a patient’s life, in terms of encouraging vaccination, is their GP,’"
Think about that statement...
But how much do GPs know about vaccination? What expertise do they have in the diseases and vaccine products? Are they qualified to obtain valid voluntary informed consent?
Also, consider this statement made by Heidi Larson, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, during her plenary lecture at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December 2019:
QUOTE
We have a very wobbly health professional front-line, that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines.
That's a huge problem. Because to this day, any study I've seen, and we're constantly looking on any studies in this space, still the most trusted person on any study I've seen globally is the healthcare provider.
And if we lose that, we're in trouble.
And we haven't lost it yet, but we've talked about it earlier, some of the challenges are when the front-line professionals are starting to question, or they don't feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it, to the person asking them the questions.
I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.
END OF QUOTE.
What do you think about that statement from Heidi Larson Michael, made in December 2019, just as 'Covid' was about to unfold...?
Heidi Larson's plenary lecture is accessible via this link, I made a full transcript of her presentation: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2019/12/02/default-calendar/global-vaccine-safety-summit
I did finally read it. It feels like Vaccine Confidence Project is a Big Pharma Sales Team. "What can we do to make people know that they must get every vaccine forever?!" I'm ok with GP and/or pediatrician taking the lead in the vaccine issue as long as it becomes standard for all healthcare professionals study vaccines not just be a pharma arm. Accepting them all as fine with no real knowledge of benefits vs complications is a mistake that needs to stop. And that all Internists/Peds/GPs will get serious about learning everything they can about what they are prescribing.
Vaccines are not prescribed.
The difference between a prescription and a vaccine is very stark.
WIth medication, the doctor says you need it and may tell you some things about it, possible side effects etc.
Then, you have the choice to take it - you have to go get it, there's an insert that tells you quite a bit about it, and ultimately you have to take it in your home.
That is very different from vaccines.
My mistake. It's been quite awhile since I had one. You are right. It's one of those things where it seems to be, "Mike, it's time for your [fill in the blank] vaccine." No discussion. It should be treated differently after we actually study them. Just knowing that a certain injection is unlikely to kill you is not really a great reason to get it.
Jessica, you say "Vaccines are not prescribed."
This is very interesting to think about...
Here's a document in Australia about medical practitioners prescribing, preparing and administering vaccines: Administration of vaccines - Scope of practice for healthcare professionals: https://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/NCIRS%20-%20Administration%20of%20vaccines%20-%20Scope%20of%20practice_21%20July%202022_Final.pdf
Note this statement in the document:
QUOTE
Immunisation providers should screen people before vaccination, obtain valid consent and ensure that the correct equipment and
procedures are in place as per the Australian Immunisation Handbook.
END OF QUOTE
Michael you say: "I'm ok with GP and/or pediatrician taking the lead in the vaccine issue as long as it becomes standard for all healthcare professionals study vaccines not just be a pharma arm."
Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
What do you mean 'the vaccine issue'?
Are you referring to the vaccine schedule?
You're in the US I understand?
Here's the vaccine schedule - which vaccine products, including multi-component shots and revaccinations, do you support?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/index.html
By vaccine issue, I mean all things vaccine. What's in them, reactions to them, benefit, if any, from each and every one. I would really like for every vaccine to be studied with decent controlled studies. I would like to be in a place where the doctors prescribe vaccines only after these studies. I would like for the doctors to know what they are giving, complications, success in prevention with each vaccine, and how to quickly treat every possible complication. In all honesty, i'm not sure what to do in the meantime. And I really think it will end up being parents and guardians who are the only ones with a chance to alter the course of the vaccine train at least in shorter term. The Big Pharma money will continue to drive the whole thing telling everyone everywhere that if we halt or slow vaccines, even for a short time, to study them we will kill millions, possibly billions. There are very few practicing physicians pushing for changes and money talks. In the USA large lawsuits might be one driving force to make some changes. I'll be honest. I've been retired for a decade and had little interest in any of it til covid and the so-called vaccine sparked interest again even though most in my sphere wouldn't listen and considered me a crackpot.
I don’t remember that line from Chariots of Fire, but I love it!
My favorite is, to paraphrase: but God also made me fast. And when I run I feel his pleasure.
Jessica Hockett and Mike Yeadon @drmikeyeadon, can I ask - how long have you been investigating vaccination?
When did you start doing this work?
Good questions.
Before 2020, I didn't give vaccination a second thought. I wasn't pro or against per se. Did mostly what doctors said to do and knew there were "anti-vaxxers" but didn't have much to say about that mindset either, because I thought people could make whatever choice they wanted.
I've always had the same orientation in my field of credentialed expertise (broadly, education/schools): private, public, homeschool, unschool, etc. - people can do what they want and what's best for their kids/situation. (On that front, my kids were in private preschool, public school through 2020, homeschooled by me in 2020-21, and then private HS for son and public school for daughter.)
I opposed 'lockdown' and mandated masks from the get-go (April 2020 on the latter, in my city), as abrogations of fundamental liberties (freedom of movement) and violations against bodily autonomy. (See footnote 1: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-day-a-grocery-store-in-skokie?utm_source=publication-search#footnote-1-147131801) On X, I was fond of saying that mandated masks were the psychological training wheels for mandatory vaccines.
Also strongly against testing requirements, including the program I was most vocal about and researched pretty thoroughly: University of Illinois' saliva-testing program. That and personal experiences also prompted me to better understanding the state's communicable disease code, "quarantine", etc. (I talked a bit about that here - https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/is-lockdown-in-us-law) but people can also look at my Illinois related posts from 2021 onward on this substack.
Obviously, there has been a learning curve, but for me the highest and best arguments against mandated anything are guided by the question, "Who has authority over the body and in what circumstances?" There is no case to be made from the Bible (OT/Hebrew Bible or NT) with respect to the need for vaccination, any responsibility to keep others from getting sick (when one is sick), etc.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for your response Jessica.
You say: "Before 2020, I didn't give vaccination a second thought. I wasn't pro or against per se. Did mostly what doctors said to do and knew there were "anti-vaxxers" but didn't have much to say about that mindset either, because I thought people could make whatever choice they wanted."
So before 2020, you "didn't give vaccination a second thought..."
Before 2020, you thought people were able to "make whatever choice they wanted" about vaccination, without pressure, coercion or manipulation?
You didn't know there were vaccination mandates in place before 2020? E.g. for children, for medical workers, for people in the military.
Yes, correct.
As Michael Carter stated elsewhere in the comments, in the U.S., the priming for vaccination as normal (and not 'mandated') begins in the pediatrician's office (or, for pregnant women, in the ob/gyn office). The "schedule" isn't presented as something mandated or not - just what you do.
Yes, public school attendance in many states requires certain shots. I never thought much about it because I just went along with the schedule. I knew people could object on religious/medical basis. Re: military - no I did not think about those mandates because I'm not from a military family. I have a niece in the Coast Guard now, but that was post-2020.
Jessica, you say “Yes, public school attendance in many states requires certain shots. I never thought much about it because I just went along with the schedule.”
So you “never thought much about it” and “just went along with the schedule”.
Can you remember the process in the clinic when your children were vaccinated? Was there any discussion at all before they were injected?
Was it a doctor or nurse who administered the vaccines?
Both of my children had the same female pediatrician
No, no discussion. Just expectation. But I can't say that I felt intimidated by that at the time, because all of the baby books, etc. treat "the schedule" as a given.
FYI, state law "required" my son to get a shot this year for school but I submitted an objection and that was the end of that. :)
Quick edit: The other shot "mandates" I knew about before 2020 were travel-related - i.e., you go to a certain country and are required to get a vaccine for travel
From https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/what-do-i-think-about-the-covid-shot
"As a result of events in 2020 and 2021, I’ve come to realize that requiring a vaccine or medical treatment as a condition of attending work, school, public access, or movement within a country is fundamentally wrong and should be illegal. Restricting movement between countries is more complicated because countries do have the power (and responsibility) to control the people and goods crossing their borders. Without strong evidence that a vaccine prevents an illness, transmission of an illness, and poses very low risk to the recipients, the legal foundation for requiring any vaccine to travel or move to a country is weak."
Jessica you say: ...state law "required" my son to get a shot this year for school but I submitted an objection and that was the end of that. :)
What was the process for submitting an 'objection'? Did you request an exemption? On what grounds?
Did state law ‘require’ the other vaccines administered to your children?
Why did you submit an objection to the vaccine ‘required’ for your son this year under the state law, when you had not objected on previous occasions?
What was the vaccine ‘required’ for your son this year?
Probably late 2020. It took me only a few weeks to deduce that “covid” endgame was totalitarian digital control at the level of the individual. It’s not easy to explain why I was so certain that this wasn’t only about money but I’ve a long track record of being able to see faint patterns in sparse data before most others. It’s the only characteristic that I could claim made me stand out. I wasn’t unusually good at anything else.
At that early time, I wasn’t prepared to speak publicly about my deductions because first, I was struggling to live with my own conclusions and I was pretty sure nobody else would accept it. So I remained focussed publicly on so-called diagnostic testing for most of 2020, while privately developing my ideas about what the dickens was really happening.
Towards the autumn of 2020, I began in depth assessment of the so-called vaccines. At that time I dismissed them as having any role in the “pandemic” which, back then, I thought was real but not very dangerous. The reason I dismissed them was because I “knew” professionally that it was impossible to reach the market in under several years. That is of course assuming due care and following regulatory requirements. As autumn wore on, I realised with mounting horror that these were going to injected en masse into an innocent & ignorant population at a point in development that meant there was almost no safety data in any group and none at all in pregnancy and in children.
Before any jabs were “authorised” (I knew even then that it was fraudulent but I didn’t then appreciate the decades of public health emergency law changes that Katherine Watt was unearthing) I wrote with Dr Wolfgang Wodarg an open letter to EMA, in which we explained why we were almost certain that they were going to injure people and probably reduce fertility. That was the tipping point for the perpetrators and my censorship went skywards and official smearing became marked.
I don’t think I had done the work necessary to conclude virology was a long planned fraud and with that, that vaccines were also fraudulent until much later. I believe I first said I didn’t believe in respiratory viruses in late 2022. I was then living in Florida. Over subsequent months I looked at all the “pillars of evidence” underwriting virology (and with that, vaccinology too) and became increasingly loud about the conclusions. More dots kept getting joined, such as why it is that you’re not allowed to question let alone challenge any vaccine, or else your professional career will be at stake, no matter what professional field you’re in.
I skim read parts of some famous books on the disappearance of numerous illnesses which we’re told are infectious, which had all but disappeared before any vaccine was deployed.
I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist. Like so many people, unaware even of the possibility of being systematically lied to, I had taken for granted that they were “safe & effective”.
Does this help answer your question?
Mike, you say “I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist. Like so many people, unaware even of the possibility of being systematically lied to, I had taken for granted that they were “safe & effective”.”
So are you saying you were “systematically lied to” about vaccines, aka mis/disinformed?
Can you not understand this is the point about arguing for ‘informed consent’? It’s about the information. If it’s a tissue of fear-mongering lies about a disease risk and purported protective product, people cannot authentically consent to the intervention.
And ‘consent’ is the important word when mandates are in play.
I’m astonished at your cavalier attitude on this matter.
Do you not realise countless people have been lied to about a disease risk, and at the same time ordered to submit to an injection under threat of loss of livelihood and participation in society, as happened across the country in Australia?
If the principle of valid voluntary informed consent had been upheld, this wouldn’t have happened.
If the vaccinating practitioners had refused to collaborate with vaccine mandates, this wouldn’t have happened.
Look, we simply disagree as to the most effective methods to alert people to what’s happening.
I’ve repeatedly said I’m 100% for properly constituted informed consent.
But I’ve also been clear that ALL these injections are fraudulent and better considered as weapons. What they’re not is medical treatments.
Informed consent definitely applies to the latter category of activities.
But I cannot believe you think informed consent has any place whatsoever in relation to assault with no possibility of benefit.
Please let me know whether you see this distinction and if so that you understand that I’m responding to this distinction.
Obviously if you’re of the opinion that there is or may be medical advantage to being injected, I do see that you’d find my stance mystifying.
Eager to better understand your position as we’ve gone back and forth on this perhaps 5-6 times already.
Thank you Elizabeth!
Mike
A reason they aren't medical treatments is because they're proactive, not reactive.
Shots "anticipate" disease
Mike, can you please advise, exactly what practical action are you undertaking to challenge 'fraudulent injections'?
What specific measures are you undertaking to seek accountability, in addition to your public presentations on the internet, comments on substack etc?
Also, in regard to the terms 'weapons' and 'medical treatments' and others use of the term 'countermeasures' etc.
Whatever... They're all interventions with people's bodies. And I take the stance that everyone has the final word on what happens to their own body whatever name you give to the intervention, and anyone undertaking the intervention had better have obtained valid voluntary informed consent for the interference...
This means if people are being called upon to have interventions there must be truthful information, and each individual makes their own free decision whether to undertake the intervention or not.
Of course when the intervention is MANDATED, 'information' and 'freedom' have been trashed - do you understand yet why I'm challenging mandates?
This is why first and foremost, my prime focus at this time is on demanding the cessation of all mandates. Because you might not realise it, but there are still vaccine mandates in place for many people - e.g. medical workers, military recruits, children, and others, certainly in Australia.
While there are mandates in place the vital principle of valid voluntary informed consent is obviously trashed, and all remain at risk of the imposition of mandates, and consequent discrimination against those who refuse to submit to the mandate.
Mike, you say, “But I cannot believe you think informed consent has any place whatsoever in relation to assault with no possibility of benefit.”
It is incredible how you are misinterpreting my views.
Vaccination without valid voluntary informed consent IS ASSAULT! It’s actually already happened!
Do you not realise that people are being bullied into these medical interventions, even mandated?!
This is why I argue for valid voluntary informed consent.
If people were truthfully informed about the risks and benefits of the vaccines, and about the risks of the disease I doubt very much they would submit to the intervention.
But what is the point of being ‘informed’ if people are MANDATED to submit to the intervention - do you not see the anomaly here?!
I have laid this out time and time again, but it is wilfully ignored.
Here it is again Mike, in my discussion with retired doctor Liz Evans, one of apparently a handful of doctors in the ENTIRE WORLD who understands valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination!
The video of our discussion is linked to in my article: The Australian Government destroyed valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination... https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/the-australian-government-destroyed
Our discussion was undertaken along with former policeman Ian Humphreys, both of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.
In the discussion I present a series of PowerPoint slides with a timeline of the destruction of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination in Australia during the Covid debacle.
You need to get across some detail Mike, and stop misrepresenting my position.
Also for your information Mike, in regard to someone actively challenging vaccination policy and practice, rather than just talking about it, see my rapid responses published over the years on The BMJ: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/more-correspondence/
And lots of correspondence here: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/
And here: https://over-vaccination.net/
Mike, you've responded to me that you've started looking at vaccination "Probably late 2020", this being sparked by 'Covid'.
I started in late 2008, with pet vaccination, then progressing to human vaccination.
I questioned 'Covid' from the start, see for example my rapid response published on The BMJ in March 2020, including reference to the WHO, Neil Ferguson, and Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
At the time I didn't question the existence of 'the virus', I was more interested in the fact it, whatever 'it' is, didn't appear to be a problem for most people, as acknowledged by the WHO at the time.
So why was there a 'vaccine solution'?
For those of us who have been following this subject for some time, it seemed to be a manufactured crisis used to implement vaccines, anti-virals and social controls, e.g. consider swine flu in 2009, see for example: WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies": https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/186584?path=/bmj/340/7759/Feature.full.pdf
Mike, as you've admitted "I had never, before the fake pandemic ever spent any time considering vaccines either personally as a father or professionally as a research scientist."
Do you know for instance that not all vaccines are viral? Have you actually looked at the schedule?
In another response to me you say: "But I’ve also been clear that ALL these injections are fraudulent and better considered as weapons. What they’re not is medical treatments."
So now that you've turned up on the scene do you think you'll be able to wave away ALL these 'fraudulent injections' on your say so?
Well done you...
Meanwhile people such as me have been painstakingly challenging the vaccines in a systematic fashion for years, see for example my correspondence here: https://over-vaccination.net/aluminium-and-vaccine-safety/ and here: https://over-vaccination.net/cochrane-collaboration/
And you have the downright cheek to infer that people such as me are 'unethical' for pursuing accountability and valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
You have not got a bloody clue.
Does 'informed consent' require disclosure of the doctor's financial interests, immediate or otherwise?
Am J Public Health. 1999 Feb;89(2):171–175. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.2.171
"The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates"
G Fairbrother, K L Hanson, S Friedman, G C Butts
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1508536/
Considering my original comment on Jessica's other article, as posted by Jessica in her current article above - think about the quality of 'information' that is pressed upon the public to terrorise them and make them submit themselves and their children to vaccination...and even with all the fear-mongering and propaganda, it was still necessary to threaten people with penalties - e.g. loss of livelihood and participation in society - to make people submit to the vaccines.
Quoting from my original comment:
QUOTE
There is NO VALID CONSENT for COVID-19 vaccination, or any vaccination that has been administered under mis/disinformation, aka lies, from 'the authorities', and under pressure, coercion, manipulation and MANDATES.
All those billions of people injected around the world...with NO VALID CONSENT.
It's a massive scandal.
And who is responsible?
Of course those who penetrated the skin with the needle without valid consent.
But why did they do this?
They were caught in a hierarchy of 'regulators' and medical colleges and associations, and governments and bureaucrats, the research and university sector, and the WHO, and public private partnerships, and the mainstream media, and even the churches.
Our entire system has been captured to facilitate vaccination, imposed upon the population under duress.
So there is NO VALID CONSENT.
Get this massive scandal understood, and the various protagonists pursued for accountability, and the pandemic/bioterrorism preparedness industries are finished.
END OF QUOTE
Think about it... Valid voluntary informed consent cannot be obtained from people who have been bombarded with highly questionable 'information', aka lies, and who have been pressured, coerced, manipulated and even MANDATED to submit to the intervention.
There is NO VALID CONSENT!
What is this going to mean when the penny, finally, drops?
I've left this response to Mike Yeadon @drmikeyeadon on the other thread:
QUOTE
As you say yourself Mike: "Truly informed consent as I’ve just outlined would result in very low uptake."
That's exactly my point!!!!
The information that is promoted by 'the authorities' about disease threats is dire, fear-mongering propaganda, aka lies, to drive people to submit to vaccination, as we've seen clearly with 'Covid'.
But despite the fear-mongering, it seems they still have to coerce/mandate people to submit to the intervention, because many people would not make their own free choice to submit to vaccination.
It's about challenging the 'information' Mike, and the compulsion to vaccinate.
Jessica has set up another thread about this, initiated from our comments on this post - do you want to come and join us over there? See: 'There are no genuine vaccines' Hart, Hockett, Yeadon: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/there-are-no-genuine-vaccines
END OF QUOTE
I respect your perspective and always have done.
Mine thought is different. It is based on the realisation that the entire field is fraudulent. For me, I cannot campaign for informed consent because I think that phrase & practise is assumed to rest upon a just foundation of public health practice. “Here’s a well intentioned thing, you may join in or not”.
But that isn’t the setting. It’s a bed of lies. I don’t think it’s ethical to act as if it isn’t all deception.
So my journey took me from not giving a momentary thought to the entire thing to speaking out about something much more serious than whether or not to go along with something most others were content to go along with.
We’re facing the prospect of extinguishing human freedoms altogether. I have to give that warning over & above any of the other things I might do or say.
Hence these days I’m dot joining around new format digital ID which is editable in real time and on cashless CBDC.
Where the informed consent argument comes in, for me, is with shots that have already been taken - i.e., "you took that COVID shot, but you were not adequately informed of the risks and benefits - in fact, you were lied to (and your doctor was lied to as well)."
I respect and appreciate different approaches and emphases in calling out the evils perpetrated against humanity in 2020+. I can't consider informed consent a cornerstone of my own orientation for the reasons you've stated. It's all lies - there is no informed consent and the products shouldn't be presented as necessary or offered in the first place.(I think) Katherine Watt and I are on the same page insofar as what the real solution is: Just say no/civil disobedience. Regard the shots as weapons and resist them with every fiber of your being.
It has started to occur to me that the very act of one human injecting another human with anything is a barbarous act. Am I going too far? Maybe...
I’ve reached the same stance, and it feels odd yet appropriate.
The tests are as problematic as the vaccines, no?
They feed each other
Who needs a SARS-CoV-2 test? Or an influenza test?
No one.
Mike, re your statement, "I don’t think it’s ethical to act as if it isn’t all deception".
Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
What exactly is the 'all' you are referring to? The entire vaccination schedule?
It's important that you clarify this as it seems to me you are casting me as 'unethical' for pursuing vaccinating practitioners' obligation to obtain valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination - is that correct?
I've been working in this area for 17 years and undertaken much research and correspondence on vaccination, particularly challenging the imposition of vaccine products via coercion and mandates, work that you know little or nothing about.
It seems to me you have no idea what is going on in regard to vaccine mandates, how people are being manipulated into submitting to vaccination for themselves or their children, no questions allowed, including by the vaccinating practitioners!
It is also very concerning that new people who have shown up on the scene since Covid are dominating the narrative and undermining my quest for people to be properly informed about disease threats and the vaccine products - do you not understand that I am challenging the validity of these disease threats and vaccine products imposed?
Sharing here a comment from my friend and colleague Emma McArthur @emmamcarthur.
We've both undertaken much correspondence seeking accountability for the imposition of vaccine mandates and the trashing of valid voluntary informed consent:
QUOTE
I can’t comment on the thread Elizabeth Hart but I agree, consent is vital. As we know, it’s not just about vaccination or healthcare either. Dismantling mandates is one important part of a much bigger picture, especially in Australia. Because so many people went along with government overreach during COVID, eg lockdowns, it basically gave an illusion of ‘consent’. So, the powerbrokers felt confident to roll out mandates because they had destroyed all our rights to normal life and terrorised the masses with lies. Waving this away because there is a bigger picture is unhelpful. Each person has a corner to fight. We are like termites…. Chewing away at our own corner, together we can bring the house down. Big business can make dangerous drugs. Governments will tell lies… but…First principles suggest that as long as we can genuinely say no, tyranny is harder for those who are trying to achieve it because there are always enough people who see through it to fight back.
END OF QUOTE