Informed consent is the cornerstone of medical ethics, yet I doubt whether the bulk of the British population is being properly informed before consenting to have the covid ‘vaccine’, be it the Pfizer version or the now questionable Oxford-AstraZeneca one.
Not only are the workings of these novel ‘vaccines’ hard to grasp, but their efficacy and safety are more implied than factual.
Without being fully informed, people are in effect, giving consent on a foundation of blind faith. Faith that it works, faith that it’s safe, faith that those in charge are being honest about it, faith in the manufacturer’s sense of ethics and responsibility, faith that it’s even a vaccine. That’s a big leap of faith right there.
Informed consent is not the same as blind acceptance or consent by coercion. Let’s drill down into what informed consent means; officially it is the consent given by someone to undergo a medical procedure or to participate in a clinical trial after receiving all material information regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives. This is the very cornerstone of medical ethics because it allows us, the patient, to make our own decisions about treatment. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of healthcare providers.
The current ‘vaccines’ on offer are complicated to understand, most of us get lost trying to grapple with what a spike protein is or the difference between RNA and DNA which makes it difficult to become properly informed especially if those administering it do not fully understand it either. I don’t imagine everyone injecting ‘vaccines’ at drive-in centres have an A-level in biology and I doubt that many octogenarians and nonagenarians can really understand a complex ‘vaccine’ which makes it much easier for misinformation to be presented as truth and to hide risks behind innocuous phrases such as ‘it’s just a jab’. No, it isn’t just a jab, whatever it is, it isn’t that harmless. We are being misguided and misled on a monumental scale.
Propagandised fear of an over-hyped disease has blinded and deafened people to accept an injection we know little about.
The biggest misconception is that it is indeed a vaccine. It is not a vaccine. There’s a surprise already. We’re making decisions whether to have it or not, based on the assumption that it is a vaccine. A vaccine, by definition, provides measurable immunity to a specific disease. It is still not known whether this ‘what-ever-it-is’ will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, what it does apparently do is to reduce your risk of becoming severely ill if you become infected with covid. This makes it more akin to a chemotherapy-type medical treatment. So why doesn’t the government call it that? It’s a prophylactic drug treatment. It’s new. We don’t know anything yet about the long-term effects, but hey, let’s roll it out anyway and keep our fingers crossed.
For those under 80 years of age without immune compromise or comorbidities, stop right there and think. Ask yourself why would you even need a prophylactic treatment? You are already in minuscule danger from Covid and the ‘vaccine’ that isn’t a vaccine isn’t protecting granny from you or you from granny because it doesn’t give that kind of protection. You can still get it and be a carrier even if ‘vaccinated’. Maybe save yourself from toxic overload and potential side effects and instead focus on supporting your God-given innate immune system and continue living.
Another reason why calling it a vaccine is misleading is because the word vaccine has assumptions attached to it. Apart from the assumption that it confers immunity which in this case it doesn’t, calling it a vaccine implies a certain level of safety testing in people’s minds. It suggests that this product has gone through the same rigorous safety and efficacy trials as other vaccines because there’s a generally accepted belief that all vaccines are safe. You may not know this, but vaccines don’t go through double-blind inert placebo trials.
What is called the placebo is not inert, it is simply implied because a true placebo is generally understood to be a sugar pill or saline injection. One of the most important questions to ask about this experimental new ‘vaccine’ is why it was not compared to a true placebo, in the trials; but instead, compared to a meningitis vaccine. That’s a whole can of worms right there, but for now remember, this isn’t a vaccine. It’s just being called one by the drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and the mainstream media who are universally referring to this as a ‘vaccine’ with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Calling it a ‘jab’ further softens it to imply it is harmless. None of this seems like a sound basis on which to make informed consent.
Government-backed adverts running on TV say that the ‘vaccine’ has gone through the same safety checks as all other vaccines. Pardon! This ‘vaccine’, that’s not a vaccine, has most certainly not and was rushed through under emergency legislation use ONLY. Just last week, in an interview with a Mexican comedian, America’s chief medical advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that the covid ‘vaccines’ have NOT yet received official FDA (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approval. Informed consent means weighing up the risks and benefits but I don’t think we’re getting the right information on which to weigh up our decision.
Not only have the ‘vaccines’ not had official approval, but the long-term effects are yet unknown. Those who promote them cannot possibly know the long-term outcomes, because the trials don’t officially finish until 2023. They may speculate that they are safe, but this is misinforming the public on a grand scale while coercion by British Airways and P&O Cruises demanding their customers need to have the ‘vaccine’ is reaching a new level of recklessness.
If you are still on board with taking the ‘vaccine’, know this, since it might not be on the info sheet you get. The pharmaceutical companies have no liability if anything goes wrong and cannot be sued. The same goes for the politicians who are enthusiastically pushing this treatment. It’s hard to trust a product when the people responsible for it have no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong.
For those who will listen, understand the bad news about this ‘vaccine’. There is no detoxing or undoing from an mRNA ‘vaccine’. Once ‘vaccinated’, that’s it, no turning back. Whatever alterations to your immune system which follow, they are irreversible. The effects of this new gene therapy will be with you for life. These new ‘vaccines’ are a totally different bag of potatoes from a standard vaccine. The extent of the long-term effects is simply not known at this time.
Returning to informed consent and its importance as the cornerstone of medical ethics; the rock upon which the weight of the entire structure rests. Our faith and trust in the medical and pharmaceutical industry rests on us trusting them. If this fails, there’s going to be an almighty backlash ahead and the whole medical edifice will come crumbling down.
We have been misled on a scale that is more awful than most can face. It is like having swallowed a time bomb and told it was just a harmless prophylactic. Just a ‘jab’.
“The British government states that the effects on fertility of ‘the jab’ are UNKNOWN, yet SAGE/GOVT are telling UK festivals a vaccination will be required for festival entry!”