POPULAR RATIONALISM IS ON YOUR SIDE. ALWAYS. WE CONTINUE THE FIGHT. INFORMED CONSENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT, AND IT HAS BEEN ALL BUT UTTERLY DISMANTLED. THIS MUST CHANGE.
Anyone that has had an infant inoculated in the 1990's know that this is a complete joke. It may still be by accounts that I have read.
The only statute that doctors cared about was the immunity from liability they enjoyed while serving up dose after dose of toxins in the childhood schedule.
When those who would be obtaining informed consent are mere brainwashed minions of whomever, there is no informed consent no matter the law. You can't leave it to those who are financially compromised/captured to obtain informed consent.
In my practice, if I felt it was really necessary for someone to be on a risky drug, I would create a written informed consent myself and have them sign it, so that exactly what they were told was documented and they signed off on it.
For example, Ribavirin, can cause aplastic anemia in some regardless of the dose or how long one is on it. It is an important drug, but it has risks. This is where I would use the written IC.
Nurnberg Codes forbid all medical interventions without informed consent with maximum info & comprehension, become higher rank law in states signing N Codes. Forbid also interventions with death or innecessary6 suffering as possible outcome.
Reinforced by European Court.
Countries require written consent if dangerous procedure.
Blatantly ignored. No consent, no demand for consent, no (zero) info.
I said at the time that someone fired from a government job (military, school teacher, etc.) for not taking a COVID shot should sue the U.S. government in the Hague for violation of the Nuremberg Codes. How is Dr Fauci different from Dr Mengele? Both performed coerced medical procedures on uninformed subjects.
Hmmm. Obamacare, as administered in many states including my state of California, compels individuals not otherwise covered by an employer group plan to purchase ridiculously priced insurance policies (e.g. $1800 per month, catastrophic plan, husband and wife, $7500 deductible EACH) on the “market exchange” under threat of a tax penalty. Likewise, employers are required to insure their employees if they have more than fifty employees, also under threat of substantial tax penalties. Now, aren’t these examples of medical coercion? Think about it. Is not the young and/or healthy individual who is coerced to buy overpriced health insurance on the market exchange, or otherwise forced to accept a large percentage of their employer’s compensation in the form of group health insurance in lieu of a larger paycheck being robbed of their informed consent? Isn’t one possible consequence of informed consent that an individual may decide it’s in their best interest to not only forego a specific treatment, but to forego comprehensive access to medical care altogether? If a person is under the persuasion to avoid all specific medical treatments in particular, wouldn’t they therefore equally be under the persuasion to avoid a relationship with the medical profession more generally? Yet, the deeply socialistic medical profession doesn’t really care whether such a person has made such a strategic decision for himself based upon informed judgment and consent. They want everyone to submit to their treatment plan, even if that plan never amounts to anything more than sitting home, never setting foot in a doctor’s office, and just paying their monthly premium on time for the benefit of everyone else in the insurance pool who themselves may or may not be acting upon their own free and informed consent. So please spare me the lectures about the noble medical profession and their Hippocratic oath and commitment to informed consent.
As I recall (not going to look it up because it doesn’t affect me), ObamaCare was sued as being a coerced purchase. The court ruled that the mandate is a tax. The government doesn’t need your consent to tax you, and it doesn’t matter if you never use the service you’re paying for. My property tax includes an amount for the county’s schools, but I have no kids or grandkids.
That outline is correct, yes. It was Roberts who used the improbable “tax” argument as a hook in which to hang his hat. Later, the Republican Congress eliminated the tax penalty on the federal level, after which the states adopted that strategy (i.e. penalize individuals for not being insured) on the state level and that’s where it’s at today.
This is as important as citizens knowing their rights when interacting with law enforcement. The public probably needs to be educated so they have a solid understanding of what they are entitled to and what is required by law.
I was just discussing (earlier today) the importance of “informed consent” with a friend. This post was written clearly and will be helpful in the future to support my stance. Appreciate your explicit clarification.
Laws are only as good as they are followed and actually relate to the situation. A glaring flaw in this is the absence of medical knowledge or alternatives. Doctors generally are quite ignorant of alternatives. Further they are taught to deny any or to disparage them as nonsense or there is no study to support them. Clinical experience is denied validity even when there are 1000's of such cases documented.
Further, many people think if a medical person smiles sweetly at them they are getting real information and care when in fact that is just a tactice to gain trust and compliance. This is one of the major failures of this concept of ethical treatment of patients.
Until the entire system looked at from Root Causes; ie, how this medical industry is just part of the capitalist business model where resources are used for profit. In this business patients are the resource with profit to be extracted from them; ie sickness is process to be used to market product and control of the population. The medical system with all its wealth controls politicians and, as Kennedy rightly states, all our regulatory agencies are Captured by the industry. It is a closed circle loop. A few laws at described in this article are meaningless when actual intimidation of patients is just part of the process.
When people in the industry do speak out they are censored in many ways. Their license is threatened and we have seen this with Covid where doctors did lose their license when they talked about the harm, lack of real science, and even alternatives. Drs like Paul Thomas, Meryl Nass and Andrew Wakefield are a very few examples. History has a long list of such people some of whom were outright disappeared or murdered! The system is arrogant and self-entitled. It is not unique to our economic and social system.
Anyone that has had an infant inoculated in the 1990's know that this is a complete joke. It may still be by accounts that I have read.
The only statute that doctors cared about was the immunity from liability they enjoyed while serving up dose after dose of toxins in the childhood schedule.
Don't even get me started on the Covid era.
When those who would be obtaining informed consent are mere brainwashed minions of whomever, there is no informed consent no matter the law. You can't leave it to those who are financially compromised/captured to obtain informed consent.
In my practice, if I felt it was really necessary for someone to be on a risky drug, I would create a written informed consent myself and have them sign it, so that exactly what they were told was documented and they signed off on it.
For example, Ribavirin, can cause aplastic anemia in some regardless of the dose or how long one is on it. It is an important drug, but it has risks. This is where I would use the written IC.
Yes. This is what we reaped from years of agency capture and a lobby that write the rules.
Im . 65 .. had 6 vaccines total.
Geez.
Now its 74..
Dr Stanley Ploktin Godfather oF the VACCINE
2018 depo sworn under oath tells the story.
The Godfather oF the VACCINE
Dr Stanley Ploktin..
Go I gle his 2018 sworn depo
How about 1950s? Just toxins (antigens, squalene, etc.? How about toxicant like aluminum, PEG nanoparticles, etc.?
Nurnberg Codes forbid all medical interventions without informed consent with maximum info & comprehension, become higher rank law in states signing N Codes. Forbid also interventions with death or innecessary6 suffering as possible outcome.
Reinforced by European Court.
Countries require written consent if dangerous procedure.
Blatantly ignored. No consent, no demand for consent, no (zero) info.
I said at the time that someone fired from a government job (military, school teacher, etc.) for not taking a COVID shot should sue the U.S. government in the Hague for violation of the Nuremberg Codes. How is Dr Fauci different from Dr Mengele? Both performed coerced medical procedures on uninformed subjects.
Hmmm. Obamacare, as administered in many states including my state of California, compels individuals not otherwise covered by an employer group plan to purchase ridiculously priced insurance policies (e.g. $1800 per month, catastrophic plan, husband and wife, $7500 deductible EACH) on the “market exchange” under threat of a tax penalty. Likewise, employers are required to insure their employees if they have more than fifty employees, also under threat of substantial tax penalties. Now, aren’t these examples of medical coercion? Think about it. Is not the young and/or healthy individual who is coerced to buy overpriced health insurance on the market exchange, or otherwise forced to accept a large percentage of their employer’s compensation in the form of group health insurance in lieu of a larger paycheck being robbed of their informed consent? Isn’t one possible consequence of informed consent that an individual may decide it’s in their best interest to not only forego a specific treatment, but to forego comprehensive access to medical care altogether? If a person is under the persuasion to avoid all specific medical treatments in particular, wouldn’t they therefore equally be under the persuasion to avoid a relationship with the medical profession more generally? Yet, the deeply socialistic medical profession doesn’t really care whether such a person has made such a strategic decision for himself based upon informed judgment and consent. They want everyone to submit to their treatment plan, even if that plan never amounts to anything more than sitting home, never setting foot in a doctor’s office, and just paying their monthly premium on time for the benefit of everyone else in the insurance pool who themselves may or may not be acting upon their own free and informed consent. So please spare me the lectures about the noble medical profession and their Hippocratic oath and commitment to informed consent.
Beware the PharmA INDUSTRIAL complex
As I recall (not going to look it up because it doesn’t affect me), ObamaCare was sued as being a coerced purchase. The court ruled that the mandate is a tax. The government doesn’t need your consent to tax you, and it doesn’t matter if you never use the service you’re paying for. My property tax includes an amount for the county’s schools, but I have no kids or grandkids.
That outline is correct, yes. It was Roberts who used the improbable “tax” argument as a hook in which to hang his hat. Later, the Republican Congress eliminated the tax penalty on the federal level, after which the states adopted that strategy (i.e. penalize individuals for not being insured) on the state level and that’s where it’s at today.
This is as important as citizens knowing their rights when interacting with law enforcement. The public probably needs to be educated so they have a solid understanding of what they are entitled to and what is required by law.
Disgusting disguised diabolical..
Hiding in plane 9-11" sight
Shhhh
If you dont ask.the right questions..
You get ..same ole Stanley Ploktin Godfather oF the VACCINE INGREDIENTS CONTAINED IN...
Shhhh
Nothing to see here..
Its all legit.
No questions allowed..
Weasels ... making a killing RACKET.
Big Pharma racketeering and fraudulent ways business model jibber jabber lying bribery extortion pay to.play schemes
I was just discussing (earlier today) the importance of “informed consent” with a friend. This post was written clearly and will be helpful in the future to support my stance. Appreciate your explicit clarification.
Topic greatly overlooked, thank you .
Laws are only as good as they are followed and actually relate to the situation. A glaring flaw in this is the absence of medical knowledge or alternatives. Doctors generally are quite ignorant of alternatives. Further they are taught to deny any or to disparage them as nonsense or there is no study to support them. Clinical experience is denied validity even when there are 1000's of such cases documented.
Further, many people think if a medical person smiles sweetly at them they are getting real information and care when in fact that is just a tactice to gain trust and compliance. This is one of the major failures of this concept of ethical treatment of patients.
Until the entire system looked at from Root Causes; ie, how this medical industry is just part of the capitalist business model where resources are used for profit. In this business patients are the resource with profit to be extracted from them; ie sickness is process to be used to market product and control of the population. The medical system with all its wealth controls politicians and, as Kennedy rightly states, all our regulatory agencies are Captured by the industry. It is a closed circle loop. A few laws at described in this article are meaningless when actual intimidation of patients is just part of the process.
When people in the industry do speak out they are censored in many ways. Their license is threatened and we have seen this with Covid where doctors did lose their license when they talked about the harm, lack of real science, and even alternatives. Drs like Paul Thomas, Meryl Nass and Andrew Wakefield are a very few examples. History has a long list of such people some of whom were outright disappeared or murdered! The system is arrogant and self-entitled. It is not unique to our economic and social system.