rigorousintuition.ca

"Getting that shot ... really was an amazing feeling! It it it hits you!"

@EthicalSkeptic
·
Apr 2

"In consultation with the legal community, indications are that 'failure to [early/timely] treat' will now be considered 'wanton disregard.' As such, any perceived statutory immunity will be rendered invalid."

We are winning in legal circles.

Denial of Early Covid-19 Treatment – A Crime Against Humanity

Posted on December 30, 2021 by The Ethical Skeptic

American citizens were recently coerced into being part of the test or control groups of a medical experiment, without adequate knowledge and without their consent. Hundreds of thousands of Americans likely died from the resulting denial of timely and adequate treatment of Covid-19 and more importantly, its preventable secondary conditions.
This was an egregious violation of The Nuremberg Code on human rights. The time has come for jurisprudence and restitution to those harmed.
We as humans never, never, never possess a moral, financial, social, critical, risk, scientific, nor philosophical basis to argue that any and all treatment for a malady should be denied research or application. This is an absolute human right.

Update: As one can clearly observe here, we are winning this legal argument. Congratulations Folleagues!

“In consultation with the legal community, indications are that ‘failure to [early/timely] treat’ will now be considered ‘wanton disregard.’ As such, any perceived statutory immunity will be rendered invalid.”

~ Senator Mark B. Steffen, M.D., 31 Mar 2022

The EUA Mandate – A Pandemic of the Untreated

During my initial diagnosis with the Delta variant of Covid-19 back in August 2021, I reasonably inquired of the attending physician as to any candidate or approved therapies and treatments for the condition. In his response, the diagnosing clinician admonished me with the following well-rehearsed quip:

There is no treatment. Go home and sleep it off. You should have gotten the vaccine.

- Diagnosing Physician at Clinic, Aug 18 2021

As it turned out, this was absolutely the worst advice I have ever received in my life, and from a medical professional no less. This apothegm is what I call a Höchste Mechanism, a fraudulent notion arrogantly passed off as official science – a notion that has become so important to protect, that ignorance is now mandated in defense of its ‘truth’. This misinformation was spun by the clinician as if it were ‘the standard of care’ (both a medical and legal definition)1 for Covid-19, when in fact this was far from the truth. What I have found in researching this ‘there are no treatments’ false claim, can be framed inside the legal provisions surrounding issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Specifically,2

(C) The Secretary may issue an [EUA] authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if …the Secretary concludes—

(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

~ 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies

Since the EUA cannot sustain if an ‘alternative for treating’ Covid-19 exists, then there is no alternative treatment for Covid-19, quod erat demonstrandum. This is how modern science works, circular imperative (the Höchste), or the answer you bring to the problem in the first place, before solving for it. This mandate to not allow for any treatment use, development, or research, presented an ethical quandary to public health leaders, who in the end opted to serve monetary-power advantage rather than ethics. However, it gets worse. Once this bifurcation is established, between the vaccinated and ‘no treatment (allowed)’ cohorts, one has introduced a controlled experiment or what is known under The Nuremberg Code of 1947 as ‘medical experimentation’. This is the point at which an unethical choice transitions into a full-blown crime against humanity.

1. Covid-19 treatment research, testing, evaluation, authorization, promulgation, conditions of use, timely employment, and advisement, were not only blocked by the US FDA and medical authorities, but communications regarding effective treatment were censored by US media (just as this article is being censored by those same media now).
2. These illegal/unconstitutional restraints to trade were enacted to protect the Covid-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization, which could not legally exist without them.
3. These illegal/unconstitutional restraints to trade were further employed to establish control/test cohorts inside a mandatory experiment on the entire US population; an immoral experiment which resulted in the majority of US Covid-19 related deaths (see Exhibit 1 below).

New Zealand High Court ENDS Jacinda Ardern’s Vaccine Mandate: “It’s a Gross Violation of Human Rights”
Fact checked

THIS LANDMARK CASE WILL BE USED TO OVERTHROW ALL OF ARDERN'S ILLEGAL MANDATES IN NEW ZEALAND.

Justice Francis Cooke ruled that ordering frontline police officers and Defence staff to be vaccinated or face losing their job was not a “reasonably justified” breach of the Bill of Rights.

Nzherald.co.nz reports: The lawyer for the police and Defence staff at the centre of the claim is now calling for the suspended workers to return to their jobs immediately, saying many have given decades of service to their community and are still committed to their jobs.

The challenge, put forward by a group of Defence force and police employees, questioned the legality of making an order under the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act to require vaccination for frontline employees.

The challenge was supported by a group of 37 employees affected by the mandate, who submitted written affidavits to the court.

Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Wood, Deputy Police Commissioner Tania Kura and NZDF Chief People Officer Brigadier Matthew Weston filed affidavits defending the mandate.

As it stands, 164 of the overall police workforce of nearly 15,700 were affected by the mandate after choosing not to be vaccinated. For NZDF, the mandate affected 115 of its 15,500 staff.

The group relied on two aspects of the Bill of Rights – the right to decline a medical procedure and the right to religious freedom.

On the religious freedom argument, a number of those who made submissions referred to their fundamental objection to taking the Pfizer vaccine, given that it was tested on the cells that were derived from a human foetus.

Justice Cooke agreed with the claim, saying that “an obligation to receive the vaccine which a person objects to because it has been tested on cells derived from a human foetus, potentially an aborted foetus, does involve a limitation on the manifestation of a religious belief.”

However, Justice Cooke disagreed with the claimants’ broader claims that requiring vaccination is inconsistent with holding religious beliefs more generally.

“I do not accept that a belief in an individual’s bodily integrity and personal autonomy is a religious belief or practice. Rather it seems to me, in the circumstances of this case, to be a belief in the secular concept referred to in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

Justice Cooke also agreed with the claim that the mandate impinged on the right to decline a medical procedure.

The judge said that while it’s clear the government isn’t forcing Police and NZDF employees to get vaccinated against their will and they still have the right to refuse vaccination, the mandate presents an element of pressure.

“The associated pressure to surrender employment involves a limit on the right to retain that employment, which the above principles suggest can be thought of as an important right or interest recognised not only in domestic law, but in the international instruments,” Justice Cooke stated.

But in considering the two claims, Justice Cooke also considered whether or not the mandate fell within the definitions laid out in the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act.

The court accepted that vaccination has a significant beneficial effect in limiting serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, including with the Omicron variant. However, it was less effective in reducing infection and transmission of Omicron than had been the case with other variants of Covid-19.

“In essence, the order mandating vaccinations for police and NZDF staff was imposed to ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services, rather than to stop the spread of Covid-19. Indeed health advice provided to the government was that further mandates were not required to restrict the spread of Covid-19. I am not satisfied that continuity of these services is materially advanced by the order,” the Judge said.

“Covid-19 clearly involves a threat to the continuity of police and NZDF services. That is because the Omicron variant in particular is so transmissible. But that threat exists for both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff. I am not satisfied that the order makes a material difference, including because of the expert evidence before the court on the effects of vaccination on Covid-19 including the Delta and Omicron variants.”

An additional claim that the mandate would disproportionately affect Māori was dismissed by Justice Cooke.

stickdog99 » 08 Apr 2022 04:32 wrote:https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/07/australia-record-breaking-wave-deaths-4-in-5-vaccinated/

stickdog99 » 08 Apr 2022 16:07 wrote:And?

First, you are taking supposed vaccination rates at face value. Every territory in Australia has every reason to inflate its supposed vaccination rate.

Now, consider that:

1. The supposed vaxxed vs. unvaxxed populations used for these denominators is strongly skewed toward the vaxxed.

2. Every single important social determinant of health (SES, race, immigration status, education level, and parents' education level) favors the vaxxed, hence the well accepted "healthy vaccinee" effect.

3. Vaccines doses are not considered to have been administered until a two week period of known immunosuppression expires.

4. There are absolutely no data presented for vaccine adverse events or even all cause mortality or hospitalization by vaccination status.

The bottom line is that these vaccines somehow now cause people to get COVID-19. The data have now turned so bad that the UK-HSA has refused to release any more data. But every single location still releasing data shows that the vaccinated and even the boosted are more likely to get COVID-19 than are the unvaccinated. So who the fuck is actually at fault for infecting and thus killing the unvaccinated?