Speaking of fear and the pandemic, please let us have your views on this very interesting and informed warning to the world by one of the supremos of the pharmacological world, a doctorate in immunology and virology, and former CEO of Pfizer, explaining how misinformation has reigned in all the official and corporate tenets of covid policy including the naure of the diease, the rates of infection and death, masking, lockdowns, the unreliability of all numbers, and on and on it goes.

In short, malfeasance and criminality at the highest levels.

We are literally at a Nuremberg-type situation in terms of the culpability of what has been and is being done. And I am a human rights and constitutional lawyer. These people belong on the gallows.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yl9H2qrpMMHr/

Sounds like the pharmaceutical bosses are competing with the human rights lawyers for whatever money can possibly be made !

Cumberland,

Thanks for the link to an anti-vax channel, and the interview with a noted anti-vaxer, the retired Dr Michael Yeadon who incidentally has been 10 years out of the industry, but still he does make some valid points. The whole vaccination argument comes down to whether you accept the world is subjected to an emergency through the pandemic or not. The invoking of a Nuremberg-type situation, linking to NAZI doctors and their human experiments in terms of the culpability of what has been and is being done, is a bit over the top. It might be trendy and a bit out there to be anti-vax, having oneself presented as fighting the tide of tyranny etc, but at the end of the day it comes down to does the evidence support vaccination, and for me the answer is yes.

"Late last year, a semi-retired British scientist (Yeadon) co-authored a petition to Europe’s medicines regulator. The petitioners made a bold demand: Halt COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Even bolder was their argument for doing so: They speculated, without providing evidence, that the vaccines could cause infertility in women."

Elsewhere on the forum, and without a rebuttal, you rubbished me for claiming multinational pharmaceutical companies were profit gouging from the production and distribution of vaccines at the expense of human lives, I still hold with that assertion, what about you?

In any of you possess a brain, you might think about seeing that all the executives of the vaccine manufacturing industry take their shots first right?
Wouldn't that be sensible, and if they're not taking it, you shouldn't either.

It is said that, in the US, over 9000 people have developed WuFlu AFTER they've received their second jab. And of those 132 have died of the WuFlu

Get your shots or not, and ignore the lies and media bullshite. 99.9% of you don't have to worry, and those who do are ready to die anyway. You will be OK.

We're told that there could be side effects with the
vaccine. It depends on the circumstances of various
people, age groups, allergies, and so on. We're also told
that these side effects are rare - and the risks are
minimal. Whereas COVID is a danger. Most of the elderly in
nursing homes have opted for the vaccine. They're willing to
take the risks involved.

Our family has had their flu shots - but we're going to wait
a bit for the vaccine. It's early days yet.

Side effects?

I'm told that the Pfizer vaccine has problems.
And apparently this is what they themselves are saying in their own documents:

If a man who was not vaccinated touches a vaccinated woman, or breathes any of the air she breathes, and he then has sex with his wife - his wife can have an adverse event and she should avoid having children.

If a woman who was never vaccinated gets exposed to a woman who was vaccinated
- she can miscarry, spontaneously abort, poison her baby via her breast milk or have babies that have cognitive difficulties.

They're also talking about vaccines that spread to others just like a virus does forcing everyone to be exposed to whatever they create.
It's a sick world we're living in, these scientists have gone too far in my opinion.

With the media focusing on the negative it's no
wonder that people have become increasingly concerned
that the vaccine won't work.

However data from vaccine clinical trials and real
world evidence shows that even in the face of variants
the corona virus can drastically cut the risk of
severe disease.

There's more at the following link:

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-are-still-effective-amid-rising-number-of-variants

Only appropriately qualified people can address the medical and technical aspects of the China virus and vaccination, including the dangers and the efficacy of the latter. We might be able to have some influence on the political aspects of the pandemic - the loss of freedoms imposed by politicians via lockdowns, tracking, surveillance, and so on. But, in particular, the rumours of the possible requirement for a 'covid passport', even within our own country.

If vaccination is not made compulsory, 'passports' cannot be made compulsory. Fair enough you might say; but, what about the people who are vaccinated and happy to be so, but who find the idea of a pass of any kind to be produced in their own country an anathema? We still have people alive in this country who have come from other countries where passes were demanded by authorities on the streets, and by businesses and non-governmental organisations obliged to demand them also.

It is one thing to produce proof for international comings and goings, but in your own country? This cannot be allowed to happen! If it does, it will be the end of the democracy Australians have fought and died to preserve.

Gone are the days when we could believe our politicians were all 'fair dinkum Aussies'. And remember, they are allowing their strings to be pulled by unelected bureaucrats and activist Big Business types.

Our freedoms have already been impinged upon quite enough.

Come on Foxy, get real sweetie. At least up here we have interviews on the TV news every night, every station, [well I don't know about the ABC}, with political or medical "experts" telling the vaccine is much safer than the virus. The media is right on side of the government in this.

Then we see on alternate channels that at least "9,245 Americans Tested Positive for COVID-19 After Vaccination, & 132 have died". That was a couple of days ago, how many now. Don't bury your head in the sand Foxy, these things have not been adequately tested, or even trialed.

If you can still catch the virus after vaccination, & still pass it on, there is no herd immunity generated by it. It is about as useful as tits on a bull, & by the looks of it, even more dangerous.

Morrison wants the migrant flow, along with the tourist, & university students back at full bore, & will push this very doubtful stuff at us to achieve these results.

Elsewhere the whole thing has been disastrously managed by governments, & they are trying to use vaccination to cover their tracks. Governments realise they went overboard injecting fear into the population, & now want to tone it down, by injecting unproven chemicals into every one.

No thanks!

I told you all ages ago, I don't have any problem with the idea of innoculation, but I do have a problem with unsafe vaccines,
- And then you all derided me as an rabid antivaxxer anyway.

Think about that.
Think about how you've all been trained to think and respond to things.

You have any concerns about the safety of these COVID vaccines
- Then you might be an antivaxxer too.

And think about what I said above.
What happens if the vaccinated make the unvaccinated lose their unborn children?
Then the scared and fearful do-gooders will be the end of all of us.

Do any of you ask the question what is this shite they are trying to inject into our bloodstreams?

"If a man who was not vaccinated touches a vaccinated woman, or breathes any of the air she breathes, and he then has sex with his wife - his wife can have an adverse event and she should avoid having children."

So I should stop having sex with my wife?

ahem....what about my girlfriend?

Paul1405

Yes it's very interesting.

'Profit gouging' only begs the question how to know, and by what reason, the distinction between the market rate of profit, and the alleged gouging price.)

I agree with you that the big pharma corporations are making enormous profits deriving from legal corruption and legal criminality on a vast scale. The problem is however, distinguishing the market price from the alleged better price, by any method of reason. This very question was the origin of economics, when the late Renaissance church scholars studied what is the just rate of interest because canon law banned usury. They realisation that what you are *assuming* to be true, is not true. There is no rational basis of establishing that knowledge, because prices originate in actions of supply and demand, which refer to man's *subjective* values, which can't be measured, consist of comparing, and are changing all the time in all individuals. It only begs the question what are the economic issues, and how anyone could know anything. It goes to questions of knowledge.

However it's a Nuremberg situation because they Nazi doctors were hanged for doing medical experiments without consent, which means informed consent.

Since the so-called vaccines - the jabs - have not passed through their clinical trials yet, no-one is in a position to say they are safe or effective. That's the whole point of clinical trials.

To appeal to an alleged emergency is to beg all the knowledge questions, namely, how they knew a coercive reasponse would be better than a voluntary one, which they never considered, and are therefore constitutionally liable to the gallows. This cannot be denied by any state organ for the following reasons.

As I understand it, the public are not being informed when they get the jab, that it is two years away from completing its clinical trials to decide whether it's safe.

The Nuremberg principles, as I understand it, require all government officers to make sure, on pain of their neck, that they are not part of a government that is forcing or coercing people into paying for, receiving, or administering a medical experiment without informed consent.

"I was just following orders" is no defence. They hanged.

This criminalises the policy of administering the jabs on the basis that they are safe, when the fact is, no-one knows yet, because the drugs have not finished their testing yet.

This fixes capital criminal liability on the highest officers of the state, and those subordinate to them cannot be in any better position.

Foxy, either the state has legitimacy to regulate medicines, or it does not.

If it does not, then the state is in no position to tell anyone else that the jab is safe; and covid policy is criminal under the Nuremberg principles, and common law takes judicial notice of the Nuremberg crimes.

At common law, any given government decision-maker has a duty to consider whether action infringes common law rights.

In smaller cases, these can be over-ridden by statute.

But in gross and enormous cases of high crimes - blood, treasure, corruption, cruelty, oppression, humiliation, on a vast scale caused by government -the failure to perform that duty is criminal. How do we know? Because the Constitution and Nuremberg tell us so. l

ALL covid deaths in Australia were caused by government because they knowingly let covid in. This facts ends all their legitimacy and authority on covid whatseover.

Therefore no reasonable officer, if he had considered the question, would conclude that the state has a superior competence to decide any, let alone every, question of covid.

Therefore their actions are unlawful under the Constitution at common law, for the same reason that Charles I lost his head, and the fascist doctors hanged at Nuremberg.

Cumberland,

Its not that trials of vaccines have not been carried out, they have, maybe not to everyone's satisfaction, but to the best of ability in the time allowed. From those trials government authorities have deemed the vaccines "safe", nothing is 100% safe. The argument I hear is on balance the benefits of vaccination outweigh the consequences of no vaccination by a mile, I accept that.

There is a big difference between the 'Nuremberg Doctors' and todays events. The victims of Nazi experiments had no choice as to participation, they were forced into it. There was no regard to the health and safety of the victims, often their ultimate death was part of the "experiment", with no regard at all. With todays trials people volunteered, their health was monitored during the trials and if unacceptable problems were encountered then the trial was curtailed. So to compare so called Nazi medical experiments with todays vaccine trials is erroneous in the extreme.

As for vaccination, people at least in Australia, are given a free choice to vaxx or not to vaxx. The pro and anti arguments are out there, and side effects such as blood clotting are well documented by the media. I believe people being vaccinated do so with a free choice. As for government taking a stance in favour of vaccination, I believe is done so with the public good in mind. Similar to the governments anti-smoking campaigns of years past, the evidence of harm from smoking was overwhelming, and governments were duty bound in the interest of public good to inform the population of the harmful effects of smoking. Even today despite all the evidence some people (mostly smokers) will argue nonsense in favour of the disgusting pastime. Unfortunately Cumberland there is always going to be the "Flat Earthers" in society and we just can't argue with them, they defy logic.

I totally agree with Paul. The government is backing
vaccination for what they believe is the public good.
So far the bad effects have been miniscule. And some
have not been proven to be related to the vaccine.
People do have a choice. We shall wait a while - but
in about six months we'll get the vaccine.

I'm just a tad concerned at the moment because I have
been diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. And I did
have blood clots on my lungs and still suffer from AF.
So I'm a bit cautious.

Paul1405

You need to understand that you've been brainwashed.

The fact you're calling it a vaccine means you have been brainwashed, okay? It's not.

A vaccine is a protein, usually of a dead pathogen, that causes an immune response.

The jabs are an irreversible genetic modification, of live pathogen material, that is capable of spreading from those who accepted the jab (whout informed consent) to those who didn't, causing death and injury. Fact.

Your saying "authorities" "deemed" it "safe" only begs all the questions. It only makes sense if you assume totalitarian premises.

That was the entire defence that was tried and condemned at Nuremberg, get a clue, fascist.

The Nuremberg *medical* principles require informed consent from those participating in medical experimentation.

To the extent they have not given informed consent - and they clearly haven't - the Nuremberg principles apply. Your opinion in favour of human rights abuses changes nothing, and only proves itself.

You need to understand that your ideology that "on balance" some people need to be killed by policy without their informed consent, for a better society, is abusive. It is exactly the ideology that our ancestors fought the Nazis to defeat. You are the flat-earther anti-intellectual you are talking about.

You, and the government, have not considered a voluntary dispensation, and this invalidates your entire line of reasoning.

People all over the world are being pressured into accepting it, including by being sacked, or Australians prevented from leaving. You are lying.

People are not a herd of cattle belonging to the clever superior people in government. That's precisely what Nuremberg stands for.

*Think* of what you're saying. You have NO IDEA what conditions are going to be attached to the vacciner passport, now or in the future.

Yeadon is not "anti-vaxxer", don't be absurd.

You've got a brain. Use it!

As things stand, anyone participating in administering the covid vaccine belongs on the gallows, and the only reason you can give against this conclusion is the reasons that the Nazis gave at Nuremberg.

Not much of a recommendation, is it :-

Cumberland,

If you can only act the moron and carry on the raving nincompoop act, then discussion ended. At the close of play the vast majority will be vaccinated with no ill effect, and peace and harmony will return.

Paul1405

As proved by nothing?

As proved by you descending to schoolyard name-calling?

And most people will be safe except those whom it kills or injures, like the 15 year old who died of a heart attack after the jab, and the breast-feeding baby who died after its mother got the jab?

Yes? That"s what you're saying?

You're saying that committing acts defined by law as crimes against humanity is okay because a right is whatever the government says it is, the government is above the law, law and just following orders is a defence?

Yes? Correct?

You DON'T KNOW whether or not people will be safe - NOBODY KNOWS, you fool.

How could they know? They've never done it before. The process usualy takes 10 to 15 years. The clinical trials don't finish for at least a year.They discontinued the animal trials because it was killing too many animals.

You don't understand what you're talking about - and you don't even care LOL! You're like the perfect brainwashed sheep - just content to run with the herd and bleat your brainwashed slogans. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hi Foxy,

There is a degree of danger with any medication, from the mild to the extreme, indeed for all of us danger is everywhere, a short walk to the shops has inherent dangers, road traffic, psychopaths leaking in the bushes, old folks in golf carts on the footpath etc. Given the benefits of shopping substantially outweigh the inherent dangers, we freely choose to "make that trip" two or three times a week, I'll be undertaking such a perilous journey this morning, wish me luck!

In a way having the jab is no different than making that trip to the shops, there are inherent dangers in both, but there is also benefits. Given the evidence one has to decide if the positives outweigh the negatives, and with the vaccine I believe that to be true.

Recently my son had a passenger die of a heart attack on the bus he was driving, some would argue without evidence that riding on buses causes heart attacks. Similarly without evidence some will relate post vaccination death, with the vaccine. The truth is 100% of those vaccinated will die, with such high numbers of vaccinations its like for some death will be very soon, maybe that day. Where possible anti vaxxers will try and link as many deaths as possible to the vaccine.

What might be of interest is Britain, a country that has been very successful with its rollout and uptake of their vaccination program. A comparison with pre-vaccination deaths and infections with now shows a marked decline in both. This could be coincidental but on the balance of probability its most likely down to the high levels of vaccination in the country.

Paul1405

You're talking about it *as if* it's a question of people voluntarily taking the vaccine without harming others, or not.

But you're ignoring the fact of enormous corrupt corporate interests which you yourself have claimed to care about; of corrupt governmental interests which your docility hasn't noticed, and the fact that it is not a vaccine, and is neither safe nor effective, that people have not given informed consent to be guinear pigs, and that it spreads to other non-consenting people. This completely invalidates your jumbled confused line of reasoning.

Over half the cases presenting in NYC have now had TWO jabs.

So it doesn't stop you getting the virus, doesn't stop you getting sick and doesn't stop you infecting others. And it's not a vaccine.

And there is no significant rise in mortality, which means it's not a pandemic, as follows.

Since the PCR tests have a 97% false positive test, and were never designed for diagnosis, and since they can't distinguish between a pawpaw, a pheasant, a coca-cola, and coronavirus, what makes you think they can distinbuish between flu and covid?

The entire 'pandemic' is a statistical artefect that consists of lumping all the flu cases, and the 93% deaths from co-morbidities (CDC), into the covid "cases" column and - voila! - pandemic for credulous morons to panic about. (Never in the history of medicine has a "case" been defined as one who is not sick.)

Here's a recent picture of Paul1405:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NCOLEfTwLbxx/

It's now at the stage where business and schools are refusing to take VACCINATED persons..

Hi again Foxy,

I didn't post anything to support my claim that the UK vaccination program has impacted the infection and death rates in that country. From the ABC;

"According to researchers at University College London, that’s when so-called herd immunity could be achieved in the U.K. Almost three-quarters of the population will have antibodies against the virus, either through vaccination or past infection, they estimate."

"Britain has already seen a plunge in new cases and deaths, and the government will relax restrictions, including on outdoor dining, on Monday. Those developments have fueled hopes that the nation will soon shake off its Covid shackles."

I don't profess to be a "Covid Genius" like some anti vaxxes will claim they are, posting all sorts of dubious nonsense without any actual supporting evidence.

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful content.

There is such a wide variety of differences in people that there is almost no medicine, vaccine etc that someone somewhere won't have an adverse reaction. So vaccinations are a numbers game.

For example, if you vaccinate every person in Aus you may see 100 adverse reactions of which possibly 25 people will die. Vaccinating no one and without economy wrecking lockdowns you could easily see 100 000 dead. The choice is simple.

SM, PEANUTS!

Paul1405

You re-run the Nazis' Nuremberg defence arguments and accuse me of being far right for proving you wrong pfffffffft?!

The facts are in the public domain. Use your brain, not your herd-bleat.

SM

The fact that vaccines are a numbers game and some may die, and in this case are dying, is why voluntary consent is required by the Nuremberg pronciples and common decency.

If the vaccines work, no-one need be concerned to inquire about the immune or vaccination status of anyone else, and therefore lockdowns and vaccination passports are completely unjustified.

If the vaccines don't work then obviously vaccine policy is not justified, and there are huge questions of civil and criminal liability.

The lockdowns are based on the unproven premise that healthy carriers can infect healthy non-carriers.

Prove it.

If the the lockdowns do work, how come covid mortality dropped radically in the states that abandoned them, and remains high in those retaining them?

All
The knowledge problems involved cannot be solved by gluing yourself to the MSM. You have to use your brains and do your own research.

The part that worries me, is the vaccinating of young people of fertile age.
There are a lot of reports of women having bleeds for 5 straight weeks after having the vaccine.

And other women have had major clotting of their blood during the menstrual cycle.
Given that Australia has some space with not so much Covid, there is time to take a hard look at this before they go ahead and vaccinate all the young people.

Very few young people get Covid seriously or are even hospitalized with it
Maybe new strains will affect young people more, but this present vaccination doesn’t protect from new strains anyway.

I told you all in an earlier comment:

Watch this video - Go to 16 minutes 25 seconds
http://youtu.be/B3oLKsBSIhQ

He talks about Pfizers own documents:

He says:
"If a man who was not vaccinated touches a vaccinated woman, or breathes any of the air she breathes, and he then has sex with his wife - his wife can have an adverse event and she should avoid having children.

If a woman who was never vaccinated gets exposed to a woman who was vaccinated
- she can miscarry, spontaneously abort, poison her baby via her breast milk or have babies that have cognitive difficulties."

Now why is he reporting that?
Is he wrong or are there things they aren't telling us?
It can only be one of the two.

I also said they want vaccines to spread like viruses;
here's a link here:
Self-Spreading Vaccines, Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines & COVID Vaccine Menstrual Disruption
http://youtu.be/B7nFeeq34sc

See that there: 'Menstrual Disruption'
Why is CHERFUL saying it?

These vaccines aren't safe.
They are just pushing the line that it's in the greater good.
But what if it's not?

Also heard somewhere that your life insurance (should you have it) is instantly null and void if you take any experimental COVID vaccine, that has not passed regular trial process.
I suppose you can't spend the money if your dead anyway, right?

I also heard that there's some study that showed only about 1% of the adverse events from these vaccines are actually being reported back to the CDC and the people responsible for overseeing vaccine regulation,
- Or something like that, I didn't catch all the exact details.

- I think it was on Wednesday's episode of What Really Happened.
http://www.youtube.com/user/hard2startyubetube/videos

To those out there questioning the vaccines, think of the following:

1. If you mop the floor in your bathroom you may slip over.
2. If you go outside you may trip over and hurt yourself.
3. If you cross a road, you may get hit by a bus.
4. If you eat out at a restaurant, you may get food poisoning.
5. If you use a knife in the kitchen, you may cut your finger.
6. If you eat something for dinner, you might choke on some food.
7. If you drive in your car, you may die in a car accident.

Now, to all of you so "concerned" about get a vaccination, I hope you live a very sheltered life, so nothing bad ever happens to you!

AC I also heard, people hear things and make things up all the time, especially on unidentified forums Did you hear this one?

I know a bloke, who knows a bloke, who knows a bloke, who said; "If you get the jab you get herd immunity, yep a herd of pink elephants will invade your house and give you herd immunity." Great stuff, think I'll get the "Jumbo Jab", just in case its true.