Pandemic policies review, part 1: The ethical primacy of valid consent
I see the Government has decided that under 30’s should not get the bio weapon a fourth time because they didn’t know that it caused myocarditis until 5 months after the roll out - how is it then that me and 40,000 other protestors at Perth marches knew about all this myocarditis and other adverse events including death from the jabs before ATAGI and the TGA ?
The answer is of course, we read parts or all of the trial data that Pfizer supplied including a high % more heart attacks and deaths on the vaccine side of the study than the placebo side.
The fact that the TGA is funded around 94% by big pharma has nothing to do with it!!!, they just rubber stamped this poison that kills and maims people and the ones left become infertile due to high % of the jab (20%) heading to the ovaries which was also in the trial data and easy to find IF YOU BOTHERED TO LOOK —-TGA!
Seriously - bring on NUREMBERG.
Vaccines* are “safe and effective” the NSW Premier kept telling us in 2021. Well if the vaccines were so effective, how come a booster shot was recommended, or in some cases made mandatory? If the vaccines were so effective, how come they made no difference to the rate of transmission? Did or did not the pharmaceutical companies know that vaccines would lose their efficacy? If they DID know, then we have been lied to. And if they did not, if the loss of efficacy took them by surprise, how could they have possibly foreseen any long term effects?
* Experimental gene therapies.
“We don’t need to look at our own data to know the vaccines are effective “ - NSW woman of the year
One thing drives me mad is:
If you google -> smh green light temporary emergency approval
The 2nd search result is an smh article with the text "25 Jan 2021 — The green light, essentially temporary emergency approval, is for..."
But if you click on the smh link, the article says "Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday morning that the green light was a formal approval under the normal processes of the TGA and not an emergency measure.."
bold face liers
While content of this post can’t be faulted, I notice that as time goes on the authors begin to post longer and longerrrr posts. This has led me unsubscribe from them (Robert Malone’s being the worst offender). Seriously if you can’t get your point across before your reader has reached saturation point and jumped ship, then perhaps you need to get a good editor on board. This isn’t meant to be a criticism and I do understand writers fall in love with their own words, but please have some thought for the readers who have to wade through copious repetitative material. Please don’t lose us.
unethical move n. 1: to call these things "vaccines"
They all lied through their teeth. I won't be around I am sure, when the young of today decide they want children later on in life, guess what, oh dear infertile.
Another ‘sudden death’ - we know that to play football you needed to be jabbed up most likely 3 times - the Government, the media and the AFL are responsible
These people just have no conscience
TGA Guidance on applying the Advertising Code rules states that "Claims that a good is 'safe' or have 'no side effects' are specifically prohibited."
"Safe and proper use
Advertising must support the safe and proper use of therapeutic goods. The way a good is presented must be:
consistent with the directions or instructions for use for the good
not exaggerate the good's efficacy or performance
not be likely to lead to consumers using the good inappropriately or excessively.
Claiming therapeutic goods are 'safe' or have 'no side effects' could influence consumer choices, be misleading or result in inappropriate use. All therapeutic goods can have side-effects and no therapeutic goods are universally 'safe'.
Claims that a good is 'safe' or have 'no side effects' are specifically prohibited.
This is true for specific patient populations or particular dosages even if you think there is evidence to substantiate such a claim.
Your advertisement must not:
suggest consumers delay seeking medical attention or use treatment prescribed by a medical practitioner in favour of using the advertised product.
encourage consumers to use therapeutic goods inappropriately or excessively for the intended purpose.
suggest a product is effective in all cases, offer any certain benefit from using it or imply a negative outcome if the product is not used."
I’ve had many arguments with dimwits (or bad actors) on Twitter about the experimental question. All the usual strategies are rolled out – smear, ridicule, “how many clinical trials have you run?”
You only have to take a look at the headline on this press release to see how brazen they are with deceptive use of language: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine