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.