"All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state" Benito Mussolini, I remember seeing my first red flag of this mindset when it was being discussed how damaging it was to allow criticism of government especially in times of emergency to seep through, we must have unity. That gave me pause, then during covid came the dreaded messaging, "no one is safe until we are all safe", that should strike fear in everyone but it didn't. The messaging is still with us, lurking and threatening and it can be applied to any situation.
Aren't doctors and nurses obligated to treat known criminals - for example if a murderer or rapist was injured while in jail, or while being brought into custody before a trial? Murdering someone seems quite discriminatory, can they and should they refuse to treat such criminals? Or is murder not quite as bad as using naughty language?
It’s astonishing - personal autonomy, bodily integrity, free speech - these fundamental freedoms have been grossly violated by the medical profession and legal system ‘following orders’ without question.
As you say Jonathan, “This is consistent with the complete lack of debate permitted anywhere by any major government around the safety of the Covid “vaccines”…”
This is what we’re experiencing, with unaccountable governments becoming tyrannies - as we’re seeing ourselves in countries such as the UK, Australia and the US.
Mattias Desmet has just published a post which provides food for thought on the rise of totalitarianism:
QUOTE
That rising beast is, of course, not merely an American affair. It is a global phenomenon. The social dynamics set in motion by the riots in Great Britain illustrate this abundantly, for example. What is happening in Great Britain is socially so important that I will dedicate a separate article to it, but I will already touch on it here.
The totalitarian censorship there entered the next stage. People who articulated a dissident opinion on social media are now being imprisoned almost arbitrarily. In some cases, the posts indeed incite violence to some extent; but in other cases, it's hard to detect anything in the post that could be legally sanctionable. And ultimately, this is exactly what the legislator announces: the post doesn't have to be illegal to be forced to censor it.
In this way, the totalitarian system achieves something typical: it cancels every law (see, for example, Solzhenitsyn’s "there is no law") and replaces it with a system of ad hoc rules that whirls around and ultimately descends into radical absurdity. In that sense, totalitarian systems are variants and outgrowths of the bureaucratization of society:
"In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant." (Hannah Arendt, On Violence).
Ultimately, in such a bureaucratic-totalitarian system, every psychological anchor that the law normally provides is lost. In place of the law is a completely irrational and inconsistent rule system. In this way, our rationalist culture culminates in exactly the opposite of what it sought to achieve.
The absurd, suffocating networks of rules first turn against those who do not want to go along with the system. But those who do engage with the system also fall prey to it, narrowly escaping, if at all, the machine they themselves built.
In a totalitarian system, no one is safe; everything and everyone can fall under the rules that are rewritten daily on the walls of Animal Farm by the pigs in charge. This gives us a glimpse of what the coming years will mainly bring: unimaginable chaos and psychological dislocation. And the only anchor will be precisely what our rationalist Enlightenment society pushed to the background: loyalty to ethical principles even if it means losing whatever you possess in the world of appearances.
Throughout the ‘Covid’ debacle I’ve repeatedly challenged the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Australian Medical Association to protect voluntary informed consent for vaccination but they have blatantly ignored me. In fact the RACGP and AMA explicitly called for vaccine mandates!
What has happened to the medical ‘profession’, how could it collaborate with coercive and mandated medical interventions?
Likewise how could the legal system defend mandatory medical interventions in supposedly ‘free countries’?
The West has shown its true colors. The democratic facade has been pierced to reveal a corrupt authoritarian oligarchical elite running the show and pulling all of the strings. They say they are against dictatorship (like Putin) and for freedom, but their actual actions reveal that the opposite is true. It is very sad that we have been living a lie for all of these years.
On the subject of mandatory medical interventions, why do some people think the legal and ethical obligation for voluntary informed consent is brushed aside by renaming a medical intervention a ‘countermeasure’?
This has come up recently on an Arkmedic article*, where, in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, Mike Yeadon says in a comment, “They’re legally “countermeasures” to a public health emergency, which never happened. Countermeasures don’t require consent obviously…”
How can he say “Countermeasures don’t require consent obviously…”?!
Whatever they’re called somebody has to administer them.
It’s that individual wielding the needle who is ultimately responsible, even if they are ‘just following orders’.
And this isn’t just about ‘the law’ - this is an ethical and moral issue, which the medical ‘profession’ has failed dreadfully by collaborating with mis/disinformation, coercion and mandates.
In pointing out the truth, that there’s not been a pandemic, though the public has been thoroughly brainwashed into believing there had been, I’m showing that these injections are not even medicinal products (see Substack articles by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova).
You’re absolutely right about informed consent and I back you to the hilt.
Unfortunately these injections are literally not vaccines.
They’re classified in exactly the same way as is police tape or a clearance order & “reading the riot Act” to crowds are. They’re imposed when those in charge in their sole discretion choose to deploy them. Surely this distinction is more than subtle and must be made clear to the public?
THIS is the reason why they’ve set aside informed consent. Government lawyers will no doubt have advised politicians of the real status of the injections.
Perhaps you’d get greater traction in your very important campaign if you chose to feature what I’ve just outlined?
What’s happening is truly horrifying. I cannot interpret this as other than deliberately chosen mass harm and murder.
Respectfully, if your focus is solely on informed consent to these injections, you’re inadvertently reinforcing to most readers that they are vaccines, albeit rushed ones (and of course some will say “Didn’t you realise they were operating under emergency circumstances…mistakes were made etc?”).
You might of course pursue both “legs” in parallel: these injections purport to be vaccines & informed consent may never be waived, no matter the circumstances; and by the way, we’ve all been artfully misled about the nature of the alleged public health emergency & the “countermeasures”?
I hope this is helpful. If not, I will not comment further. There are way too many “fronts” on which to battle.
Dr Y, I do my best to educate people about Emergency powers, but there are some people who just cannot believe that they are real, and it has been nearly 5 years now.
I think it is an involuntary protective mechanism. If they allow themselves to understand that under the Emergency, there are things such as legal warrantless searches, kidnap, quarantine, and forced injection, they will lose hope.
Unfortunately these people are holding us back from actually removing the laws. I do not engage with them anymore.
How does the WA Emergency Act overrule the legal and ethical obligation of people administering COVID-19 vaccines, or any vaccines, to obtain voluntary informed consent?
Mike, you say "I will not comment further. There are way too many "fronts" on which to battle."
But I suggest 'informed consent' is THE major battle front. Without voluntary informed consent we have nothing, we are under tyranny.
If the medical profession had done their duty, and refused to inject people who were under mis/disinformation, coercion and mandates, we wouldn't be in this mess.
In regard to my previous comments, I provide more information for context.
The reason why Emma McArthur and I have the letters from the Australian Government confirming informed consent should be obtained for vaccination is because we initiated the correspondence to seek clarity on the practitioners' liability position.
The background is that in early 2021 there was concern about the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, and this had rattled the practitioners - they wanted assurance they had liability protection for giving the injections.
In July/August 2021, the then Morrison Government gave the practitioners the impression they had protection. Emma and I wondered about this, and in November 2021 Emma sent an email to the then Health Minister Greg Hunt, asking:
QUOTE
Please could you advise to what extent the Commonwealth COVID-19 vaccine
claims scheme provides insurance and indemnity for the civil and criminal
liability that would arise where battery and clinical negligence occur due to a
failure to obtain valid informed consent?
END OF QUOTE
The response Emma received from the then Morrison Government confirmed that the practitioners DO NOT have specific liability protection after all, only a vaccine claims scheme for the vaccine injured was put in place, i.e.
QUOTE
The Scheme does not provide an indemnity for practitioners or insurers, it does
however provide patients who have suffered one of the eligible clinical conditions
or an administration injury as a direct result of a COVID-19 vaccine, with faster
access to compensation rather than a costly and complex court process.
END OF QUOTE
The letter from the government also noted:
QUOTE
I can advise that informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19
vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.
END OF QUOTE
This is important - unlike the claims being made for the US PREP Act, the Australian Government is confirming that practitioners should obtain informed consent for vaccination, and they do not have specific liability protection for administering the COVID-19 vaccinations.
This is a complicated situation, because while the Morrison Government confirmed this, at the very same time, vaccine mandates were in place across the country due to the actions of National Cabinet and the AHPPC led by the Chief Medical Officer.
When the government changed after the 2022 election, I followed up requesting confirmation of the arrangements, and received a similar response from the Albanese Government.
Again, this is important Mike. In my opinion, there is no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, for the 72 million injections administered according to the government.
The population has been lied to about this debacle, and coerced and even mandated to submit to the injections.
Therefore there is no valid consent.
I'd say this is a pretty serious situation, including for the treacherous medical profession that didn't uphold voluntary informed consent.
Mike, in a letter dated 21 December 2021, an officer of the Australian Government advised my colleague Emma McArthur: “I can advise that informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.”[1]
In a letter dated 17 November 2022, an officer of the Australian Government advised me: “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.”[2]
Is this not clear and unambiguous?
As for your reference to the terminology ‘vaccine’ - what exactly is a vaccine?
I can't understand the point of refusing to engage with someone just because of a difference of opinion. Both sides of this debate can be simultaneously correct. Yes, the multiple layers of emergency 'biosecurity' laws that have amassed in supposed democracies need repealing. They are terrible. Yes, they create an illusion of legitimacy and suggest that consent no longer exists because technically people are being forced to consent in order to live as a fully functioning member of society. However, as far as I know, these laws cannot, and do not, legally compel a health professional to administer a medical intervention. As Elizabeth has pointed out, when I asked the Australian Government about this in 2021, they said that informed consent must be obtained by the medical professional in the same way as for any other vaccination, and they directed me to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for a definition of consent. Therefore, these emergency laws have power because we, the people, go along with them. I suggest that has always been the case. I am not judging anyone for complying, we are all sinners in one way or another, but the fact remains that the people with the needle in their hand did have the power to say no but, like those being injected, they were coerced into going along with it through fear of loss of livelihood etc. If both sides of the equation - the injected and the injectors joined hands and refused to comply with the mandates, it would have caused a big mess. In the UK the mandates seemed to fall over precisely because so many health workers objected.
As you say Emma "these laws cannot, and do not, legally compel a health professional to administer a medical intervention..."
But they do it anyway.
In most cases I don't think this is malicious on their part, it seems they are genuinely clueless about their obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination, as they themselves are subject to vaccination mandates from when they enrol for medical studies.
Vaccination is a subject which is difficult to discuss freely, although this is opening up now since 'Covid'.
The community has generally gone along with the Government's National Immunisation Program Schedule. The medical profession has gone along with this largely without question, particularly as their regulator Ahpra has made it clear practitioners who question vaccination- i.e. present as 'anti-vaxxers' - will be punished.
Somehow the lid has to be blown off the Church of Vaccination, there must be open discussion on this taxpayer-funded medical intervention.
Both the Medical and nursing professions abrogated their ethical responsibilities during the pandemic. What appeared to be a temporary deviation is in fact evidence of the politicisation of health care. The principal of treating patients irrespective of race ,creed or political views is gone.
I'm sure the worst culprits are those running these organisations and the rank and file still have a moral compass.
After I wrote the article about Australia's murder of minority political dissidents in hospitals outside the Emergency, and no one cared to challenge it in court, I knew we had crossed the Rubicon. Basically, they desperately want us to hate and kill each other over political and racial differences so we do not turn our focus on 'them.' And unfortunately, people are all to happy to oblige.
Just a quick aside on 'impartial treatment' by nurses. I was badly injured in a car accident. I was a passenger, but because the other adults were 1) a front seat passenger and 2) disabled having lost the use of one arm, the medical team assumed I was the driver. The accident was due to very bad driving by the one armed driver (the car was adapted for him) and I was left alone in a room for 6 hours, then minimal attention, left again, then looked at again when I told a nurse that I hadn't been turned over. I had severe gravel rash down my hip and thigh and several lacerations. The nurse stated 'Normally we would use a general anaesthetic to clean this, but in your case we won't bother.' She proceeded to clean my wounds with hydrogen peroxide and a scrubbing brush, then told me I would not be admitted, even though I had damaged my neck and back. I sat on a chair overnight and was told to take a taxi 200 miles home. I didn't realise until afterwards the reason for my treatment was punishment due to the assumption that I had caused the accident. I have had ongoing treatment for the damage to my spine over the 40 years since. If this can happen to a young girl then...what will happen to people when standards are officially changed?
This verbatim from the Australian Health Practioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in March 2021 to its hundreds in f thousands of members:
“COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population
health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.
Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and
subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the
regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising
that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra.”
It goes on, and was never updated as best I can ascertain. The subtle and overt threat here is dissent and critical thinking is verboten, you will comply or you will stop practicing. The head of AHPRA was just announced as resigning at the end of 2024 … and he’s an ex WHO stooge, likely to be replaced with another WHO stooge aligned with the agenda.
Forget hollowed out … they’re parasitical at this point, completely antithetical to their purported goals.
"All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state" Benito Mussolini, I remember seeing my first red flag of this mindset when it was being discussed how damaging it was to allow criticism of government especially in times of emergency to seep through, we must have unity. That gave me pause, then during covid came the dreaded messaging, "no one is safe until we are all safe", that should strike fear in everyone but it didn't. The messaging is still with us, lurking and threatening and it can be applied to any situation.
Aren't doctors and nurses obligated to treat known criminals - for example if a murderer or rapist was injured while in jail, or while being brought into custody before a trial? Murdering someone seems quite discriminatory, can they and should they refuse to treat such criminals? Or is murder not quite as bad as using naughty language?
It’s astonishing - personal autonomy, bodily integrity, free speech - these fundamental freedoms have been grossly violated by the medical profession and legal system ‘following orders’ without question.
As you say Jonathan, “This is consistent with the complete lack of debate permitted anywhere by any major government around the safety of the Covid “vaccines”…”
This is what we’re experiencing, with unaccountable governments becoming tyrannies - as we’re seeing ourselves in countries such as the UK, Australia and the US.
Mattias Desmet has just published a post which provides food for thought on the rise of totalitarianism:
QUOTE
That rising beast is, of course, not merely an American affair. It is a global phenomenon. The social dynamics set in motion by the riots in Great Britain illustrate this abundantly, for example. What is happening in Great Britain is socially so important that I will dedicate a separate article to it, but I will already touch on it here.
The totalitarian censorship there entered the next stage. People who articulated a dissident opinion on social media are now being imprisoned almost arbitrarily. In some cases, the posts indeed incite violence to some extent; but in other cases, it's hard to detect anything in the post that could be legally sanctionable. And ultimately, this is exactly what the legislator announces: the post doesn't have to be illegal to be forced to censor it.
In this way, the totalitarian system achieves something typical: it cancels every law (see, for example, Solzhenitsyn’s "there is no law") and replaces it with a system of ad hoc rules that whirls around and ultimately descends into radical absurdity. In that sense, totalitarian systems are variants and outgrowths of the bureaucratization of society:
"In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant." (Hannah Arendt, On Violence).
Ultimately, in such a bureaucratic-totalitarian system, every psychological anchor that the law normally provides is lost. In place of the law is a completely irrational and inconsistent rule system. In this way, our rationalist culture culminates in exactly the opposite of what it sought to achieve.
The absurd, suffocating networks of rules first turn against those who do not want to go along with the system. But those who do engage with the system also fall prey to it, narrowly escaping, if at all, the machine they themselves built.
In a totalitarian system, no one is safe; everything and everyone can fall under the rules that are rewritten daily on the walls of Animal Farm by the pigs in charge. This gives us a glimpse of what the coming years will mainly bring: unimaginable chaos and psychological dislocation. And the only anchor will be precisely what our rationalist Enlightenment society pushed to the background: loyalty to ethical principles even if it means losing whatever you possess in the world of appearances.
END OF QUOTE
But this anchor of “loyalty to ethical principles” has and is being smashed in the medical and legal professions, where the ethical principle of informed consent for medical interventions, such as vaccination, has been destroyed. I provide the example of Australia in my detailed article Misfeasance in Public Office? The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent for Vaccination: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/misfeasance-in-public-office-the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed-consent-for-vaccination.pdf
Throughout the ‘Covid’ debacle I’ve repeatedly challenged the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Australian Medical Association to protect voluntary informed consent for vaccination but they have blatantly ignored me. In fact the RACGP and AMA explicitly called for vaccine mandates!
What has happened to the medical ‘profession’, how could it collaborate with coercive and mandated medical interventions?
Likewise how could the legal system defend mandatory medical interventions in supposedly ‘free countries’?
*See Mattias Desmet’s substack article: The democratic party coup against Biden: https://open.substack.com/pub/mattiasdesmet/p/the-democratic-party-coup-against
The West has shown its true colors. The democratic facade has been pierced to reveal a corrupt authoritarian oligarchical elite running the show and pulling all of the strings. They say they are against dictatorship (like Putin) and for freedom, but their actual actions reveal that the opposite is true. It is very sad that we have been living a lie for all of these years.
On the subject of mandatory medical interventions, why do some people think the legal and ethical obligation for voluntary informed consent is brushed aside by renaming a medical intervention a ‘countermeasure’?
This has come up recently on an Arkmedic article*, where, in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, Mike Yeadon says in a comment, “They’re legally “countermeasures” to a public health emergency, which never happened. Countermeasures don’t require consent obviously…”
How can he say “Countermeasures don’t require consent obviously…”?!
* Actuaries Inc™ https://www.arkmedic.info/p/actuaries-inc
I assume that what he meant was that under their rubric / laws they classed them as countermeasures so that (in their eyes) consent wasn’t needed.
He’s not saying that that is a justifiable position!
Exactly.
Whatever they’re called somebody has to administer them.
It’s that individual wielding the needle who is ultimately responsible, even if they are ‘just following orders’.
And this isn’t just about ‘the law’ - this is an ethical and moral issue, which the medical ‘profession’ has failed dreadfully by collaborating with mis/disinformation, coercion and mandates.
Elizabeth,
In pointing out the truth, that there’s not been a pandemic, though the public has been thoroughly brainwashed into believing there had been, I’m showing that these injections are not even medicinal products (see Substack articles by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova).
You’re absolutely right about informed consent and I back you to the hilt.
Unfortunately these injections are literally not vaccines.
They’re classified in exactly the same way as is police tape or a clearance order & “reading the riot Act” to crowds are. They’re imposed when those in charge in their sole discretion choose to deploy them. Surely this distinction is more than subtle and must be made clear to the public?
THIS is the reason why they’ve set aside informed consent. Government lawyers will no doubt have advised politicians of the real status of the injections.
Perhaps you’d get greater traction in your very important campaign if you chose to feature what I’ve just outlined?
What’s happening is truly horrifying. I cannot interpret this as other than deliberately chosen mass harm and murder.
Respectfully, if your focus is solely on informed consent to these injections, you’re inadvertently reinforcing to most readers that they are vaccines, albeit rushed ones (and of course some will say “Didn’t you realise they were operating under emergency circumstances…mistakes were made etc?”).
You might of course pursue both “legs” in parallel: these injections purport to be vaccines & informed consent may never be waived, no matter the circumstances; and by the way, we’ve all been artfully misled about the nature of the alleged public health emergency & the “countermeasures”?
I hope this is helpful. If not, I will not comment further. There are way too many “fronts” on which to battle.
Best wishes and thank you,
Mike
Dr Y, I do my best to educate people about Emergency powers, but there are some people who just cannot believe that they are real, and it has been nearly 5 years now.
I think it is an involuntary protective mechanism. If they allow themselves to understand that under the Emergency, there are things such as legal warrantless searches, kidnap, quarantine, and forced injection, they will lose hope.
Unfortunately these people are holding us back from actually removing the laws. I do not engage with them anymore.
How does the WA Emergency Act overrule the legal and ethical obligation of people administering COVID-19 vaccines, or any vaccines, to obtain voluntary informed consent?
Mike, you say "I will not comment further. There are way too many "fronts" on which to battle."
But I suggest 'informed consent' is THE major battle front. Without voluntary informed consent we have nothing, we are under tyranny.
If the medical profession had done their duty, and refused to inject people who were under mis/disinformation, coercion and mandates, we wouldn't be in this mess.
In regard to my previous comments, I provide more information for context.
The reason why Emma McArthur and I have the letters from the Australian Government confirming informed consent should be obtained for vaccination is because we initiated the correspondence to seek clarity on the practitioners' liability position.
The background is that in early 2021 there was concern about the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, and this had rattled the practitioners - they wanted assurance they had liability protection for giving the injections.
In July/August 2021, the then Morrison Government gave the practitioners the impression they had protection. Emma and I wondered about this, and in November 2021 Emma sent an email to the then Health Minister Greg Hunt, asking:
QUOTE
Please could you advise to what extent the Commonwealth COVID-19 vaccine
claims scheme provides insurance and indemnity for the civil and criminal
liability that would arise where battery and clinical negligence occur due to a
failure to obtain valid informed consent?
END OF QUOTE
The response Emma received from the then Morrison Government confirmed that the practitioners DO NOT have specific liability protection after all, only a vaccine claims scheme for the vaccine injured was put in place, i.e.
QUOTE
The Scheme does not provide an indemnity for practitioners or insurers, it does
however provide patients who have suffered one of the eligible clinical conditions
or an administration injury as a direct result of a COVID-19 vaccine, with faster
access to compensation rather than a costly and complex court process.
END OF QUOTE
The letter from the government also noted:
QUOTE
I can advise that informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19
vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.
END OF QUOTE
This is important - unlike the claims being made for the US PREP Act, the Australian Government is confirming that practitioners should obtain informed consent for vaccination, and they do not have specific liability protection for administering the COVID-19 vaccinations.
This is a complicated situation, because while the Morrison Government confirmed this, at the very same time, vaccine mandates were in place across the country due to the actions of National Cabinet and the AHPPC led by the Chief Medical Officer.
When the government changed after the 2022 election, I followed up requesting confirmation of the arrangements, and received a similar response from the Albanese Government.
I have this written up in my 'Misfeasance' paper, see Section VI. Liability Protection for Manufacturers but not for Practitioners: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/misfeasance-in-public-office-the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed-consent-for-vaccination.pdf
Again, this is important Mike. In my opinion, there is no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination in Australia, for the 72 million injections administered according to the government.
The population has been lied to about this debacle, and coerced and even mandated to submit to the injections.
Therefore there is no valid consent.
I'd say this is a pretty serious situation, including for the treacherous medical profession that didn't uphold voluntary informed consent.
Mike, in a letter dated 21 December 2021, an officer of the Australian Government advised my colleague Emma McArthur: “I can advise that informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.”[1]
In a letter dated 17 November 2022, an officer of the Australian Government advised me: “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.”[2]
Is this not clear and unambiguous?
As for your reference to the terminology ‘vaccine’ - what exactly is a vaccine?
1. https://humanityattheprecipice.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/doh-reply-21-12-2021.pdf
2.https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
I can't understand the point of refusing to engage with someone just because of a difference of opinion. Both sides of this debate can be simultaneously correct. Yes, the multiple layers of emergency 'biosecurity' laws that have amassed in supposed democracies need repealing. They are terrible. Yes, they create an illusion of legitimacy and suggest that consent no longer exists because technically people are being forced to consent in order to live as a fully functioning member of society. However, as far as I know, these laws cannot, and do not, legally compel a health professional to administer a medical intervention. As Elizabeth has pointed out, when I asked the Australian Government about this in 2021, they said that informed consent must be obtained by the medical professional in the same way as for any other vaccination, and they directed me to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for a definition of consent. Therefore, these emergency laws have power because we, the people, go along with them. I suggest that has always been the case. I am not judging anyone for complying, we are all sinners in one way or another, but the fact remains that the people with the needle in their hand did have the power to say no but, like those being injected, they were coerced into going along with it through fear of loss of livelihood etc. If both sides of the equation - the injected and the injectors joined hands and refused to comply with the mandates, it would have caused a big mess. In the UK the mandates seemed to fall over precisely because so many health workers objected.
As you say Emma "these laws cannot, and do not, legally compel a health professional to administer a medical intervention..."
But they do it anyway.
In most cases I don't think this is malicious on their part, it seems they are genuinely clueless about their obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination, as they themselves are subject to vaccination mandates from when they enrol for medical studies.
Vaccination is a subject which is difficult to discuss freely, although this is opening up now since 'Covid'.
The community has generally gone along with the Government's National Immunisation Program Schedule. The medical profession has gone along with this largely without question, particularly as their regulator Ahpra has made it clear practitioners who question vaccination- i.e. present as 'anti-vaxxers' - will be punished.
Somehow the lid has to be blown off the Church of Vaccination, there must be open discussion on this taxpayer-funded medical intervention.
Jonathan
Both the Medical and nursing professions abrogated their ethical responsibilities during the pandemic. What appeared to be a temporary deviation is in fact evidence of the politicisation of health care. The principal of treating patients irrespective of race ,creed or political views is gone.
I'm sure the worst culprits are those running these organisations and the rank and file still have a moral compass.
After I wrote the article about Australia's murder of minority political dissidents in hospitals outside the Emergency, and no one cared to challenge it in court, I knew we had crossed the Rubicon. Basically, they desperately want us to hate and kill each other over political and racial differences so we do not turn our focus on 'them.' And unfortunately, people are all to happy to oblige.
Thanks for this.
Just a quick aside on 'impartial treatment' by nurses. I was badly injured in a car accident. I was a passenger, but because the other adults were 1) a front seat passenger and 2) disabled having lost the use of one arm, the medical team assumed I was the driver. The accident was due to very bad driving by the one armed driver (the car was adapted for him) and I was left alone in a room for 6 hours, then minimal attention, left again, then looked at again when I told a nurse that I hadn't been turned over. I had severe gravel rash down my hip and thigh and several lacerations. The nurse stated 'Normally we would use a general anaesthetic to clean this, but in your case we won't bother.' She proceeded to clean my wounds with hydrogen peroxide and a scrubbing brush, then told me I would not be admitted, even though I had damaged my neck and back. I sat on a chair overnight and was told to take a taxi 200 miles home. I didn't realise until afterwards the reason for my treatment was punishment due to the assumption that I had caused the accident. I have had ongoing treatment for the damage to my spine over the 40 years since. If this can happen to a young girl then...what will happen to people when standards are officially changed?
This verbatim from the Australian Health Practioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in March 2021 to its hundreds in f thousands of members:
“COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population
health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.
Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and
subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the
regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising
that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra.”
It goes on, and was never updated as best I can ascertain. The subtle and overt threat here is dissent and critical thinking is verboten, you will comply or you will stop practicing. The head of AHPRA was just announced as resigning at the end of 2024 … and he’s an ex WHO stooge, likely to be replaced with another WHO stooge aligned with the agenda.
Forget hollowed out … they’re parasitical at this point, completely antithetical to their purported goals.