If you require an indemnity from prosecution for a mistake, then that means you have worked out you could be wrong and want to cover your position should it become the truth. Once you have indemnity, you can carry on in any way you like. The risk is no longer an issue.
Healthy meal ideas:
Is the vaccine an experiment and what alternatives are there?
There would be less of a problem if the manufacturers of the vaccine backed their technology with assurances that if it went wrong, the people affected got compensation. But this is not the case.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7521148/coronavirus-vaccine-safety-liability-government-anand-pfizer/
The manufacturers required indemnity against such actions and they got it. Operation Warp Speed (who names something that?!) was so rushed that peoples' rights were signed away. D Trump was never one for people's rights. Consequently, the vaccine was rushed and became the only cure. Because this was the standard set, everyone had to agree with the practice. Even though millions of people were being cured by natural immunity, governments decided (because of science) that only the vaccine was safe. This is the confusion. We have scientists pushing that their experiment is the only way and doctors are ignoring the absence of long-term tests and backing science above nature.
Everyone in the process is indemnified against being wrong except proponents of natural immunity. If you suggest this as a way forward you are labeled as some kind of radical.
Definition of an experiment:
REF: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment
" an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law"
As the long-term effects of the various Covid vaccines are unknown, the vaccination is a medical experiment.
Participants in the vaccine do so at their own risk. Consequently, you have to agree to this indemnity to participate in the vaccine.
Governments would say that they have informed you of the issues and that there is enough public knowledge for you to make an informed decision. This is not true as no one knows the long-term effect.
I think that your personal agreement is considered as signed once you have the injection.
The Law
Science often tries to make people think that it knows best and it has a willingness to use humans as guinea pigs to prove its theories. For example, The Nazi leaders, scientists, and doctors experimented without limit on humans during the second world war:
https://listverse.com/2017/06/26/top-10-horrific-nazi-human-experiments/
Another instance was the experimental use of a drug called Thalidomide. It caused birth defects. I know about this through personal experience in that my Mum was told by her doctor to take it whilst pregnant with me. She wouldn't and lucky for me that she didn't.
Thalidomide was marketed as a wonder drug - an effective tranquiliser and pain killer useful for insomnia, coughs and headaches - and it helped pregnant women with morning sickness!
https://www.tga.gov.au/book/fifty-years-independent-expert-advice-prescription-medicines-02
To avoid human experiments from happening again, International Laws were made: The Nuremberg Code (1947).
I have placed more details on the law below but basically, it would appear that your rights to not participate in the vaccine experiment are protected under this law. You have both the right to say no and you are also protected from being coerced into receiving the experimental vaccines. This should mean that you cannot be forced by your employer (or government) to get the vaccine. I will need to look into this.
Some Theories
There is a very strong probability that science created this virus. Mistakes happen and in all things, it's only a matter of time before an error occurs.
The unvaccinated are more contagious than the vaccinated. This is simply not true. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated can catch, incubate and spread the virus. The asymptomatic condition (not showing signs of the virus but having it) can occur in both vaxxed and unvaxxed so the idea that not letting an unvaccinated person into a premises will protect the vaccinated is without foundation. Besides which; if you are vaccinated, aren't you protected?
The vaccine is the only way to prevent the virus from spreading. Not true. Natural immunity is still the most likely long-term solution to the problem. Natural immunity identifies and eliminates the entire virus and mutations. The vaccine only identifies part of the virus. Booster shots will be required (theoretically forever) to cope with variants.
The Issue Is The Unvaccinated
Although being vaccinated will protect you from the current dominant virus, the real issue is the people with a compromised immune system and this needs to be recognised. By doing so people could correct their habits and become healthier. In reality, the vaccination effectiveness is likely to wear off and new vaccines will be required as well as further shutdowns of society.
Natural Immunity is still the number one best cure as it is your body's own pharmaceutical department.
THE CORE OF YOUR NATURAL IMMUNITY:
What you put in your body feeds a complex system called the Gut Biome.
This includes; food, drinks, medicines, drugs, plus sunlight, environment, and emotions.
Your gut biome is the foundation of your health and immunity.
The three foods that have the largest negative impact on your health are:
- Oil
- Sugar
- Carbohydrates
OIL
There are two main types of oils. Omega 3 and Omega 6.
We need both in our diets but it is common for people to have too much Omega 6 which is not healthy and can lead to cardiovascular disease. In addition, vegetable oils tend to be heat processed which changes the oil into oxidised unhealthy oil. Avoid any oil that is not cold-pressed or oils that have been deodorised. Most takeaways use 'vegetable oil'. Vegetable oil is unhealthy but made even more unhealthy by being reheated many times. The oil is super oxidised which means it 'pollutes' your digestive system.
SUGAR
Sugar used in foods used to be a natural product that even though it is unhealthy, it came with some beneficial nutrients. However, in the 1990s, a chemically processed sugar became popular with food manufacturers because of cost-saving. The 'chemical sugar' is called High Fructose Corn Syrup. This chemical sugar is cheaper, more addictive, and has absolutely no nutritional value. In fact, it completely reduces your health, immunity and energy. It is in many products including cereals, fruit drinks, energy drinks, mac's, breads, sweets, deserts, sodas... and so-called 'energy drinks'. Energy drinks are simply caffeinated sugar fluid. They stimulate a response due to a super spike in insulin and the deployment of high doses of caffeine. Technically they are not an 'energy drink' other than they use known stimulants to establish addiction to the product. The modern-day version of cigarettes.
CARBOHYDRATES
Not all carbs are bad. You need to review the Glycemic Index of different foods.
https://glycemicindex.com/
There is so much disinformation that the narrative on Covid is looking consistently like the only solution is the vaccine. I point out that the vaccine is still an experiment. You may have decided that you are healthy and don't want the vaccine. As best I can tell, your rights are protected under International Law. The Nuremberg Code of 1947 (see below) details your rights. If you don't want the vaccine you must consider that if you are unhealthy, you could be at risk. But if you are healthy, then I hope the information here is helping you work out your stance.
Natural Immunity 7 times more effective than the vaccine
NOTE: I HAVE PUT THE FOLLOWING IN FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
WE HAVE OUR OWN Bill of Rights which I work through on another page of this blog.
REF: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rest upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Comments
Post a Comment