Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stephen Due's avatar

Coercion aside - how can you have informed consent when the relevant information is hidden? When risk/benefit ratio is unknown? When the product has not been subjected to adequated randomised controlled trials? When the contents of the injection are not fully disclosed? When known falsehoods are propagated by the authorities e.g. the injection stays in the arm, the injection is 'safe' (implies no known adverse effects), the injection is 'effective' (implies prevents infection and transmission), adverse effects are 'mild and 'rare' (when the AE database counts are off the scale)? There is absolutely no way consent can be informed under these circumstances,.

Expand full comment
SL's avatar

It is not very surprising that doctors and others went along with forcing vaccinations on people. Most people do what they are told and will not risk their careers to speak out against something that is wrong. Plus, many of them thought forcing jabs on people was the right things to do for everyone's benefit. I mean all of the important people said the jabs were good and that the people who oppose the jabs are crazed terrorists out to kill people. People of such high caliber would never lie about the jabs. Of course they will help forcibly jab people. When I was much younger, I wondered how all of the regular people in Germany in the 1930s had quietly gone along with the insane plans of a murderous dictator that resulted in 50 million deaths and the destruction of most of Europe. I do not wonder anymore. The true nature of man is to follow the alpha and the pack to secure their status in the pack. Anything that threatens their status and security will be violently opposed. Facts and morality be dammed.

Expand full comment
110 more comments...

No posts