In health corruption injures and kills people that is why rules need to be in place to prevent corruption. But when the people in charge of setting the rules are corrupt themselves then we stand no chance, it is systemic in government and institutions.
Democide is policy. Not a flaw. By design. We’re just living through one of our generation’s mass global casualty events, with all the deviant bells and whistles of 21st century modernity.
When we were discussing this week in my work bubble of people who could and should question, the full narrative rules ok "Too many jabs on the market and incredibly rare events". I was able to get them to acknowledge the validity of more general points such as universal jabbing without a risk vs benefit assessment and subsequent injury in people at no risk from the disease is a problem and that informed consent is also important, but there all curiosity stopped; an uncomfortable silence followed to allow us to move on to more comfortable topics like Bridgeton. I do wonder if there is anything at all that will make the general population query the last four years. From optimistically believing the dam will burst, I now think it is going to need a TV series in about 20 years.
Re the Patient Information Leaflets.....each recipient of a medical product, 'the jab' or 'a jab' should be asked to read it in the presence of the person ( nurse, 'trained injector') giving the 'covid' jabs, or, any other jabs, eg for 'flu or pneumonia, or the recently much promoted, "Let's Get Shingles Ready" jabs.
There is much tightly typed info on said leaflets but there could be a summary section to include contraindications and most serious possible side effects. If each vaccinee had to read and understand that then more questions might have been raised earlier, but, of course there was a big rush to get the jabbed numbers up before realisation and adverse reactions (fatalities too) came to the fore.
The argument against would be that it ( reading a leaflet prior to the jab) would be time consuming, and, lessen profits for the 'pushers'.
Thus, it would seem a case of 'tough luck' you didn't take the time to read the leaflet and question its contents and whether it was suitable.
It seems that Patient Info leaflets are a superfluity when they should be be given due prominence before a prescribed drug is given. Might not be possible with every thing but should be centre stage for novel therapeutics.
"A truly informed consent requires full disclosure of all relevant information by the doctor, competence of the patient to appreciate what the information signifies, understanding of the facts and issues by the patient and a voluntary non‐coerced choice by the patient leading to an autonomous authorisation for treatment ..."
In this context, because AZ adding text to a leaflet regarding potential risk of blood clots is not a demonstration of the " ...understanding of the facts and issues by the patient" the existence of the printed passage should not be used a basis for rejection.
In health corruption injures and kills people that is why rules need to be in place to prevent corruption. But when the people in charge of setting the rules are corrupt themselves then we stand no chance, it is systemic in government and institutions.
Democide is policy. Not a flaw. By design. We’re just living through one of our generation’s mass global casualty events, with all the deviant bells and whistles of 21st century modernity.
When we were discussing this week in my work bubble of people who could and should question, the full narrative rules ok "Too many jabs on the market and incredibly rare events". I was able to get them to acknowledge the validity of more general points such as universal jabbing without a risk vs benefit assessment and subsequent injury in people at no risk from the disease is a problem and that informed consent is also important, but there all curiosity stopped; an uncomfortable silence followed to allow us to move on to more comfortable topics like Bridgeton. I do wonder if there is anything at all that will make the general population query the last four years. From optimistically believing the dam will burst, I now think it is going to need a TV series in about 20 years.
Re the Patient Information Leaflets.....each recipient of a medical product, 'the jab' or 'a jab' should be asked to read it in the presence of the person ( nurse, 'trained injector') giving the 'covid' jabs, or, any other jabs, eg for 'flu or pneumonia, or the recently much promoted, "Let's Get Shingles Ready" jabs.
There is much tightly typed info on said leaflets but there could be a summary section to include contraindications and most serious possible side effects. If each vaccinee had to read and understand that then more questions might have been raised earlier, but, of course there was a big rush to get the jabbed numbers up before realisation and adverse reactions (fatalities too) came to the fore.
The argument against would be that it ( reading a leaflet prior to the jab) would be time consuming, and, lessen profits for the 'pushers'.
Thus, it would seem a case of 'tough luck' you didn't take the time to read the leaflet and question its contents and whether it was suitable.
It seems that Patient Info leaflets are a superfluity when they should be be given due prominence before a prescribed drug is given. Might not be possible with every thing but should be centre stage for novel therapeutics.
So the lying scientists who developed this lethal injection will get off with no damage to their reputations?
According to the U.S. NIH
"A truly informed consent requires full disclosure of all relevant information by the doctor, competence of the patient to appreciate what the information signifies, understanding of the facts and issues by the patient and a voluntary non‐coerced choice by the patient leading to an autonomous authorisation for treatment ..."
In this context, because AZ adding text to a leaflet regarding potential risk of blood clots is not a demonstration of the " ...understanding of the facts and issues by the patient" the existence of the printed passage should not be used a basis for rejection.
Inability to work is all down to porn and gaming according to Mel Stride
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/23/porn-and-gaming-blame-surge-jobless-young-men-mel-stride/
He actually makes some good points but I can’t help but be cynical.
https://open.substack.com/pub/docmalik/p/177-part-2-why-the-astrazeneca-vaccine?r=1f4bua&utm_medium=ios