All doctors who administered Covid vaccines after the introduction of vaccination mandates were knowingly violating the requirement to obtain free and informed consent, irrespective of whether the patient requested the vaccine. Doctors were aware that all patients were subject to economic and social opportunity coercion to get vaccinated, and that most were liable to lose their livelihood if they did not comply. Under these conditions any request to get vaccinated could not be reasonably interpreted as voluntary.
Even if Covid were 100% lethal and vaccines were 100% effective, the requirement of voluntary consent would still apply. Knowing that a percentage of people die from Covid vaccines (officially, 14 people died in Australia, 59 in the UK) any continuation of the mandates amounts to knowingly killing a minority for an alleged benefit of the majority. I do not know why these organisations are discrediting themselves like this.
If people only made an effort to comprehend what a mandate is by using a law dictionary, then anyone who had reservations about getting the jab, could have found at least two ways to avoid being coerced to maintain their employment.
The best way would have been to demand to see evidence that the employer's insurance policy provided full coverage in the event that there was an adverse reaction to participating in a medical experiment using a provisionally approved 'vaccine.'
There is not an insurance provider in the world that would have provided such coverage.
If the medical 'profession' had refused to vaccinate people under pressure, coercion, manipulation and MANDATES, this would have been stopped in its tracks.
But they didn't, despite me writing many emails pleading with them to uphold voluntary informed consent.
AHPRA responded to me in September 2021, confirming, "Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved."
But so what, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Australian Medical Association took no notice...and neither did AHPRA!
As for the insurers, here's one of the emails I sent - to Avant, asking them to clarify the indemnity position of health practitioners who inject patients knowing the 'patient' is subject to a Covid jab mandate.
This is the letter I received from the Department of Health and Aged Care that confirms they don't have indemnity, and also confirms that: "Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations."
1. An order from an appellate court directing a lower court to take specified action.
2. A judicial command directed to an officer of the court to enforce a court order.
3. In politics, the electorate’s overwhelming show of approval for a given political candidate or platform.
4. Roman & civil law. A written command given by a principal to an agent; specif.,a commission or contract by which one person ( the mandator ) requests someone ( the mandatary ) to perform some service gratuitously , the commission becoming effective when the mandatary agrees.
In this type of contract, no liability is created until the service requested has begun. The mandatary is bound to use reasonable care in performance, while the mandator is bound to indemnify against loss incurred in performing the service. A contract by which one person, the principal, confers authority on another person, the mandatary, to transact one or more affairs for the principal.
The contract of mandate may be either onerous or gratuitous. It is gratuitous if the parties do not state otherwise.
So a mandate is not something compulsory given the use of the words “requests” and “agrees”.
There needs to be a meeting of minds.
When an employer mandates the workers to be “vaccinated”, then it is a request to alter the terms of a contract/arrangement given that there has been a change of circumstances, which may or may not be agreed upon.
The worker is obliged to enter into negotiation in good faith as the employer deems the change of circumstances as requiring action, as is the employer given that a renegotiation of the employment contract/arrangement has been instigated by the employer.
The reason employees are sacked, is because they do not respond to the renegotiation in an honourable and meaningful way, and by being silent they in effect have acquiesced to the change of the terms of their employment contract/arrangement, and when they don’t perform their added duty (to be jabbed), then they breach the modified terms of their employment contract which they agreed to!
An honourable way of negotiating the proposed change of terms is to do what is called a Conditional Acceptance, wherein the proposed change of terms is accepted upon the answering of specified and particular uncertainties so that there may be a meeting of minds.
The employer has to substantiate their claims as to why it has become a necessary added duty.
Given the disparity between the unfolding science of Covid and the less than truthful claims made by health officials, pharmaceutical corporations and employers, they can’t provide the evidence they rely on.
And did anyone put a price on fulfilling the mandate ?
The rot set in with the coercive/incentivised No Jab, No Pay law for children’s vaccination which was enacted in January 2016, and got rid of the conscientious objector provision. The medical profession shouldn’t have gone along with it then, they should have said ‘no, we can’t do that, it violates voluntary informed consent’. But they didn’t…
Ahmad Malik, the surgeon in the UK challenging the narrative, caught on to this straight away during our podcast discussion, see:
We start off talking about pet vax, but go into human vaccination, about aluminium adjuvants for instance.
In regard to No Jab, No Pay, here’s a transcript of part of our discussion:
Elizabeth Hart: There were things being put in place to shut down people who were questioning vaccination, that they really wanted it locked in, that people would be compliant to vaccination. So in Australia there used to be, this is before 2016, that parents would get allowances for their children, and it was sort of tied to vaccination. But you could be a conscientious objector. So what they were trying to get rid of was this conscientious objector...
Ahmad Malik: Yes
Elizabeth Hart: And parents would get these tax benefits, but you'd have to get the vaccinations for your children. And then it progressed to get childcare that...governments started bringing in No Jab, No Play laws. But the whole aim of this...
Ahmad Malik: Hold on one sec. That's incentivising, and disincentivising, punitive punishment. That's not informed consent!
Elizabeth Hart: I know. This is where the rot set in! The doctors...
Ahmad Malik: What the frack?!
Elizabeth Hart: The doctors shouldn't have gone along with this...
Ahmad Malik: Hundred percent!
Elizabeth Hart: And it's not just doctors, yeah, they should have said at that time, they should have said "we can't go along with this...it's not informed consent..."
Ahmad Malik: It's bullshit.
Elizabeth Hart: Yeah. But the organisations here, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, these organisations are just terrible.
Ahmad Malik: Well they're the same over here.
Elizabeth Hart: The leadership of these organisations is dire. Well at least the ones in England, I don't think they went along with mandatory vaccination. But here...they're appalling.
Ahmad Malik: Well they weren't really speaking that out against it, honestly. Honestly, don't hold these guys up here too highly. No-one was out on the street marching...
Elizabeth Hart: I wouldn't do that!
Ahmad Malik: They're all scum... Honestly, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but most of these high people, where were they? They weren't on TV crying out this goes against medical ethics...
Like myself , many on the sidelines of this , the biggest medical fraud in world history , were , and remain astounded at the pure absence of informed consent ...
I had x 2 AZ C V vaccinations in 2021 and requested to see the documents containing my ability to give “ full informed consent “....
The nursing staff that were installed and on duty to administer the CV vaxes in my GP ‘s practice building DID NOT KNOW what I was talking about !.... hmmmm , do you get the picture !
I took them to task ! .... they didn’t know what to do - after a further chat , they informed me to ...
* check & conduct my query on line , and find out that way ,,, ? .... w t f , they were administering a vaccine !
And ,,, wait for it -
* perhaps I should contact Craig Kelly, politician ; !! And find out from him ....
These details , along with a crude, consent to have a vaccine form used in the practice that day , were requested by a barrister in a legal case in 2022. ( ref , Gillespie , & the mandates case ) .... there has never been an outcome in this case.
Seems that many of the GP practices placed ‘ between a rock & a hard place ‘ when ‘ charged with getting jabs into arms , adopted a sub set of their ‘ normal legal requirement ‘ to obtain ‘ full and correct informed consent !
By this , I thought at the time , this half way house ‘, whereby the GP ‘s clinic can escape the application of what would be their normal legal obligations to many legal issues - not the least being ‘ vaccine injury, death , and the obvious informed consent , re litigation, complaints & the GP’s legal obligations & liability.
Having chatted with numerous politicians, other medical professionals , & AMPS ... it seems this ‘ avoidance practice was widespread.
Several of those Qld elected politicians claim that this ‘ bent legislation was pushed thru the Queensland parliament, as being the only one in Australia WITHOUT a house of review ‘, i.e , a senate ,, which was then foisted upon ALL OTHER jurisdictions in our country ! .... another extremely dubious and devious practice, as was this ‘ National cabinet
Elizabeth... this issue, alone , of informed consent being knowingly denied , is sufficient reason for an RC into CV !
It’s OBVIOUS -
yet we know that the same fraudulent liars who permitted this to take place are the road blocks to getting it done !
Les, very sorry that you were pressured into getting the jabs...
Re: "The nursing staff that were installed and on duty to administer the CV vaxes in my GP ‘s practice building DID NOT KNOW what I was talking about !.... hmmmm , do you get the picture !"
These nursing staff administering the jabs - were they qualified to administer the jabs? What is their expertise in 'Covid', and the Covid injections...I would suggest zero...
Thank you, Elizabeth. Evenings like this one at the NSW Vaccination Centre at Sydney Olympic Park back in July 2021 must never be repeated (2 minutes):
It’s my contention that anyone who submitted to the jab did so without authentic voluntary informed consent, because no-one was properly informed about ‘Covid’ or the injections, and everyone was pressured, coerced and manipulated, although not everyone complied.
It was the people who were mandated to keep their jobs and to participate in civil society who were treated most egregiously. How could the medical ‘profession’ collaborate with the destruction of voluntary informed consent for vaccination and participate in mandated medical interventions?!
Also see my email to Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General:
Are health practitioners in effect being conscripted to participate in the Australian government's Covid-19 vaccination rollout, in contravention of the Australian Constitution?
I wrote my law thesis last year on informed consent and how it was undermined by the implementation of lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Elizabeth, you may remember an email or two that we exchanged after also discussing it with Julian Gillespie. My findings were, that there was no informed consent to the covid vaccines, as, among other things such as an absence of information, external factors were present that amounted to coercion, and thus an absence of voluntariness.
It always amazed me why voluntariness, being an integral aspect of informed consent, was not the topic of much more rigorous debate (at least) or anger in society. It's a foundational value across the globe and integral to our democracy and practice of medicine. Why was there not so much more uproar over it and why did medical practitioners collectively ignore it? I did try to answer that last question in my thesis.
Sophie, re no informed consent to the covid vaccines - "Why was there not so much more uproar over it and why did medical practitioners collectively ignore it?"
I'd be interested to see how you tried to answer this in your thesis.
Also, undertaking your thesis on what is now such a controversial subject, did you have any opposition? E.g. like Judy Wilyman: University of Wollongong criticised over thesis by anti vaccination activist, 13 January 2016: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-13/wilyman-phd/7086346
It's really been a shocking experience Sophie, hasn't it...
The RACGP, RACP and AMA, wow! They've completely trashed voluntary informed consent! Along with AHPRA. And CMO Paul Kelly and the AHPPC. It's breath-taking. And the practitioners don't have indemnity cover. What is going to happen when the penny drops?
Please accept my sincere apologies, Elizabeth, for neglecting to reply to your response.
In answer to your question, I covered a little bit about AHPRA and the National Boards' joint statement that gagged health professionals by threatening investigation and possible regulatory action. I think this is the main reason practitioners held back on providing informed consent, along with, honestly, a group-think mentality that was created with huge amounts of propaganda. Though I didn't mention this latter point in my thesis.
A very interesting response I had from my markers- I received an excellent mark from one marker whose area is human rights, and a not-so-very excellent mark from the other marker whose area is Public Health/regulations. There was such a discrepancy between the two that it had to go to an arbiter. I actually made a formal complaint against the not-so-very-excellent mark marker, as her reasons were fundamentally flawed- based on statements that were provably false.
It was clear I felt quite strongly about the issue, and I look back now and think perhaps I should have toned it down a bit for the sake of submitting it to my university.
Judy Wilyman is such a knowledgeable woman. She is amazing to listen to and I have such empathy for what she went through. I haven't attempted to publish mine, as it doesn't currently fit the guidelines, however, I would love to neaten it up, reduce the word count, and make it a little more palatable for a journal. It would be quite task to take on, but I think it would be worth it, and perhaps even accepted a little more now than two years ago.
Wow Sophie, so you got a "not-so-very excellent mark from the other marker whose area is Public Health/regulations".
That's very interesting - were reasons given for the mark?
It's very concerning to think about thought and discussion in universities being reined in and controlled. Resulting in effective censorship, and also self-censorship for people who won't even dare to raise controversial subjects.
It's a very grim situation. And how do we get exposure for it in the mainstream when this is controlled too?
So you didn't actually end up submitting your thesis?
She gave reasons, some I understood and agreed with, others, like I said, were fundamentally flawed and provably false.
I did submit it to the university, yes, however it is not automatically published, just kept in the university's archives, which I don't think are accessible to the public.
There is definitely effective censorship within the universities. Especially on this topic, after all, they also implemented the mandates. A notice actually went around after our cohort finished, that they were considering restricting the next years' Honours students to pre-selected topics for their theses. Terrible, and the complete antithesis to what universities are meant to be about.
I think slowly chipping away, as we continue to do, is the current answer to getting information mainstream. I don't think there is a predictive answer, only hope that a few of those chips will be "significant enough" and reach the right avenues to bring mainstream attention. They've had control of the censorship long before any of this began for the general public.
"A notice actually went around after our cohort finished, that they were considering restricting the next years' Honours students to pre-selected topics for their theses."
The system crashes that's what happens. Drs will be sued, healthcare sector will be trashed, no one will want to work in it and then the new crop of indoctrinated medical students will graduate and it will be telemedicine by the numbers, using AI and extreme government regulations, as devised and set by the WHO.
People will retaliate by drifting towards traditional medicines and practitioners, which since the WHO has now included them as a SDGS for 2023-2033, these too will fall under corpratised regulatory, AKA regulatory capture. That's, the trajectory we are currently on.😐😐🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
The Barefoot Healer, yes, we need the solids to hit the air conditioning big time, there’s so much the public doesn’t know about this debacle because we have no mainstream media working in our best interests.
Unfortunately, there was a concerted effort by the ‘ legal establishment ‘, including a tag team of H C judges determined to stymie Julian , and his balanced efforts from the outset ....
Like Elizabeth H, I thought the entire process of informed consent was ‘ captured , ( shackled ) , and hijacked
The average citizen in the street deserved more, much much more pure honesty from our health administration
Yes, absolutely correct. Practitioners are not indemnified, they have broken trust and committed malpractice. When you look at the "lockstep" behaviour of this In EVERY country, along with the incentivised hospital protecols enacted during 2020, why it's almost as if there was an intent to crash/destroy the public medical systems (which were already in shambles).😐🤔🤔🤐🤐
I am a herbalist and have not used any pharmaceuticals for the past 40 years & in my view there is no such thing as a good vaccination. Also as an experienced horse woman, many had to go through the horror of forced vaccinations on their horses for the so called Hendra virus which in fact was developed by the CSIRO in Geelong with the American military and in retrospect was an expedition for Covid. There was a significant death and disablement rate on the horses and a class action saw Zoetis (subsidiary of Pfizer) acquitted - no surprises there. Further havoc was caused by vets refusing to attend horses which were not vaccinated, with many agonizing deaths as a result (mares with difficulty foaling, horses with broken legs for eg). Even now many vets will not attend if the horse is not vaccinated (annually) but if they come and give it the shot they will consult immediately which shows what a farce it is. Hendra virus does not exist just the same as SARS-Cov-2 does not exist. But I am a bit too radical for many people.
The Hendra virus vaccine, are they still giving that to horses every six months?
From a Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry brochure*:
“Research has shown that the vaccine protects horses from Hendra virus for up to six months following an initial course of two vaccinations. Vaccinated horses demonstrated no clinical signs of Hendra virus. Research is continuing to determine the duration of immunity from the vaccine.”
What do you think about that paragraph! The mind boggles!
I really wonder why these injections are still referred to as "vaccinations" OR "gene therapy" (certainly not a therapy) when they were knowingly designed to kill & maim as part of the world genocide program. And most awake people now know this.
For a while I used the terms jabs, injections and shots.
But I’ve now returned to using the term vaccination.
What is a ‘vaccination’ exactly? The Covid debacle is helping to open that can of worms.
To say that the Covid injections aren’t vaccinations seems to imply that vaccinations are a good thing.
But my views have very much evolved to questioning all vaccine products now, we need an urgent investigation into all the vaccine products and revaccinations on the vaccination schedule, which is mired in conflicts of interest.
In particular bringing to account the wretched Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, and others, including AHPRA of course.
I’ve pleaded with these groups to uphold voluntary informed consent, see for example my email in June 2021: Coercive covid-19 injections in Australia - email to the Medical Board of Australia, AHPRA, RACGP, RACP, AMA
The G P that recommended AZ vaxes to me , ( let’s call him Tony T ), did so under the following pretexts ...
( January 2021)
I should take them, as a last alternative , and under scrutiny , if I was to contract CV19 -
His main logic , ( without providing me informed consent ), was because they were of ‘ Non Mrna ‘ .... and would not contain the potentially risky contents of the unknown !
10 days later Tony T had left this practice ......
Sure AZ sure had some issues ... however, at the end of the day , the MRNA stuff has proven to be the killer
...oh I see your comment - I’m not bitter about it
We all Know that Informed consent , if it were provided , could NEVER include the key ingredients of Trial results , in depth test information and results ...
See for example my email to Andrew Pollard, the Chief Investigator on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials. He's also the Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation...that's a conflict of interest...
🇦🇺 “We have just learnt that Senator Katy Gallagher, Finance Minister, is introducing the Digital ID Bill 2023 tomorrow.” ~ Senator Malcolm Roberts, 29 November 2023 (this evening)
Yep. All perfectly on schedule to have digital id tied to vaccination status, in a social credit format, by the 2025 (was 2030 deadline, but they sped up the timetable🤔🤨).
All doctors who administered Covid vaccines after the introduction of vaccination mandates were knowingly violating the requirement to obtain free and informed consent, irrespective of whether the patient requested the vaccine. Doctors were aware that all patients were subject to economic and social opportunity coercion to get vaccinated, and that most were liable to lose their livelihood if they did not comply. Under these conditions any request to get vaccinated could not be reasonably interpreted as voluntary.
It is MIND-BLOWING Michael!
I cannot understand how the Colleges and the AMA could blatantly refuse to engage on the topic of voluntary informed consent.
See for example this email I sent in June 2021, also note the cc list: Coercive covid-19 injections in Australia - email to the Medical Board of Australia, AHPRA, RACGP, RACP, AMA: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/coercive-covid-19-injections-in-australia-medical-board-of-australia-ahpra-racgp-racp-ama.pdf
Even if Covid were 100% lethal and vaccines were 100% effective, the requirement of voluntary consent would still apply. Knowing that a percentage of people die from Covid vaccines (officially, 14 people died in Australia, 59 in the UK) any continuation of the mandates amounts to knowingly killing a minority for an alleged benefit of the majority. I do not know why these organisations are discrediting themselves like this.
Exactly Michael.
Voluntary informed consent is sacrosanct.
Without personal autonomy and bodily integrity we have nothing.
But with ‘Covid’, the state commandeered people’s bodies for the benefit of vested interests. It’s a gross act of treachery against the people.
And now there must be accountability.
If people only made an effort to comprehend what a mandate is by using a law dictionary, then anyone who had reservations about getting the jab, could have found at least two ways to avoid being coerced to maintain their employment.
The best way would have been to demand to see evidence that the employer's insurance policy provided full coverage in the event that there was an adverse reaction to participating in a medical experiment using a provisionally approved 'vaccine.'
There is not an insurance provider in the world that would have provided such coverage.
If the medical 'profession' had refused to vaccinate people under pressure, coercion, manipulation and MANDATES, this would have been stopped in its tracks.
But they didn't, despite me writing many emails pleading with them to uphold voluntary informed consent.
AHPRA responded to me in September 2021, confirming, "Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved."
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/response-from-ahpra-re-informed-consent.pdf
But so what, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Australian Medical Association took no notice...and neither did AHPRA!
As for the insurers, here's one of the emails I sent - to Avant, asking them to clarify the indemnity position of health practitioners who inject patients knowing the 'patient' is subject to a Covid jab mandate.
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/failure-to-obtain-informed-consent-for-covid-jabs-what-is-the-indemnity-insurance-position-of-health-practitioners_.pdf
They didn't respond, none of the insurers I wrote to would respond. I question if this is gross negligence.
And my colleague Emma McArthur and I have investigated and confirmed - the practitioners do not have specific medical indemnity for administering the Covid-19 vaccinations, the Morrison Government lied to them about this. See this email to Health Minister Mark Butler for background: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/response-re_-are-health-practitioners-covered-for-indemnity-insurance-re-the-covid-jabs2.pdf
This is the letter I received from the Department of Health and Aged Care that confirms they don't have indemnity, and also confirms that: "Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations."
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
This is the definition of "mandate"
Mandate Black’s 9th
1. An order from an appellate court directing a lower court to take specified action.
2. A judicial command directed to an officer of the court to enforce a court order.
3. In politics, the electorate’s overwhelming show of approval for a given political candidate or platform.
4. Roman & civil law. A written command given by a principal to an agent; specif.,a commission or contract by which one person ( the mandator ) requests someone ( the mandatary ) to perform some service gratuitously , the commission becoming effective when the mandatary agrees.
In this type of contract, no liability is created until the service requested has begun. The mandatary is bound to use reasonable care in performance, while the mandator is bound to indemnify against loss incurred in performing the service. A contract by which one person, the principal, confers authority on another person, the mandatary, to transact one or more affairs for the principal.
The contract of mandate may be either onerous or gratuitous. It is gratuitous if the parties do not state otherwise.
So a mandate is not something compulsory given the use of the words “requests” and “agrees”.
There needs to be a meeting of minds.
When an employer mandates the workers to be “vaccinated”, then it is a request to alter the terms of a contract/arrangement given that there has been a change of circumstances, which may or may not be agreed upon.
The worker is obliged to enter into negotiation in good faith as the employer deems the change of circumstances as requiring action, as is the employer given that a renegotiation of the employment contract/arrangement has been instigated by the employer.
The reason employees are sacked, is because they do not respond to the renegotiation in an honourable and meaningful way, and by being silent they in effect have acquiesced to the change of the terms of their employment contract/arrangement, and when they don’t perform their added duty (to be jabbed), then they breach the modified terms of their employment contract which they agreed to!
An honourable way of negotiating the proposed change of terms is to do what is called a Conditional Acceptance, wherein the proposed change of terms is accepted upon the answering of specified and particular uncertainties so that there may be a meeting of minds.
The employer has to substantiate their claims as to why it has become a necessary added duty.
Given the disparity between the unfolding science of Covid and the less than truthful claims made by health officials, pharmaceutical corporations and employers, they can’t provide the evidence they rely on.
And did anyone put a price on fulfilling the mandate ?
What price for one's health, life and soul ?
The rot set in with the coercive/incentivised No Jab, No Pay law for children’s vaccination which was enacted in January 2016, and got rid of the conscientious objector provision. The medical profession shouldn’t have gone along with it then, they should have said ‘no, we can’t do that, it violates voluntary informed consent’. But they didn’t…
Ahmad Malik, the surgeon in the UK challenging the narrative, caught on to this straight away during our podcast discussion, see:
https://docmalik.com/elizabeth-hart-talks-about-over-vaccination-of-pets-and-kids/
We start off talking about pet vax, but go into human vaccination, about aluminium adjuvants for instance.
In regard to No Jab, No Pay, here’s a transcript of part of our discussion:
Elizabeth Hart: There were things being put in place to shut down people who were questioning vaccination, that they really wanted it locked in, that people would be compliant to vaccination. So in Australia there used to be, this is before 2016, that parents would get allowances for their children, and it was sort of tied to vaccination. But you could be a conscientious objector. So what they were trying to get rid of was this conscientious objector...
Ahmad Malik: Yes
Elizabeth Hart: And parents would get these tax benefits, but you'd have to get the vaccinations for your children. And then it progressed to get childcare that...governments started bringing in No Jab, No Play laws. But the whole aim of this...
Ahmad Malik: Hold on one sec. That's incentivising, and disincentivising, punitive punishment. That's not informed consent!
Elizabeth Hart: I know. This is where the rot set in! The doctors...
Ahmad Malik: What the frack?!
Elizabeth Hart: The doctors shouldn't have gone along with this...
Ahmad Malik: Hundred percent!
Elizabeth Hart: And it's not just doctors, yeah, they should have said at that time, they should have said "we can't go along with this...it's not informed consent..."
Ahmad Malik: It's bullshit.
Elizabeth Hart: Yeah. But the organisations here, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, these organisations are just terrible.
Ahmad Malik: Well they're the same over here.
Elizabeth Hart: The leadership of these organisations is dire. Well at least the ones in England, I don't think they went along with mandatory vaccination. But here...they're appalling.
Ahmad Malik: Well they weren't really speaking that out against it, honestly. Honestly, don't hold these guys up here too highly. No-one was out on the street marching...
Elizabeth Hart: I wouldn't do that!
Ahmad Malik: They're all scum... Honestly, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but most of these high people, where were they? They weren't on TV crying out this goes against medical ethics...
What was the lawyers’ advice on the cases?
The angle I’m taking is simple and straightforward - practitioners shouldn’t have injected people who were under coercion/mandates…end of story.
It’s a simple story few people seem to want to understand.
But it is what it is. The penny might drop one day.
Like myself , many on the sidelines of this , the biggest medical fraud in world history , were , and remain astounded at the pure absence of informed consent ...
I had x 2 AZ C V vaccinations in 2021 and requested to see the documents containing my ability to give “ full informed consent “....
The nursing staff that were installed and on duty to administer the CV vaxes in my GP ‘s practice building DID NOT KNOW what I was talking about !.... hmmmm , do you get the picture !
I took them to task ! .... they didn’t know what to do - after a further chat , they informed me to ...
* check & conduct my query on line , and find out that way ,,, ? .... w t f , they were administering a vaccine !
And ,,, wait for it -
* perhaps I should contact Craig Kelly, politician ; !! And find out from him ....
These details , along with a crude, consent to have a vaccine form used in the practice that day , were requested by a barrister in a legal case in 2022. ( ref , Gillespie , & the mandates case ) .... there has never been an outcome in this case.
Seems that many of the GP practices placed ‘ between a rock & a hard place ‘ when ‘ charged with getting jabs into arms , adopted a sub set of their ‘ normal legal requirement ‘ to obtain ‘ full and correct informed consent !
By this , I thought at the time , this half way house ‘, whereby the GP ‘s clinic can escape the application of what would be their normal legal obligations to many legal issues - not the least being ‘ vaccine injury, death , and the obvious informed consent , re litigation, complaints & the GP’s legal obligations & liability.
Having chatted with numerous politicians, other medical professionals , & AMPS ... it seems this ‘ avoidance practice was widespread.
Several of those Qld elected politicians claim that this ‘ bent legislation was pushed thru the Queensland parliament, as being the only one in Australia WITHOUT a house of review ‘, i.e , a senate ,, which was then foisted upon ALL OTHER jurisdictions in our country ! .... another extremely dubious and devious practice, as was this ‘ National cabinet
Elizabeth... this issue, alone , of informed consent being knowingly denied , is sufficient reason for an RC into CV !
It’s OBVIOUS -
yet we know that the same fraudulent liars who permitted this to take place are the road blocks to getting it done !
Keep pushing .... it’s working
Les, very sorry that you were pressured into getting the jabs...
Re: "The nursing staff that were installed and on duty to administer the CV vaxes in my GP ‘s practice building DID NOT KNOW what I was talking about !.... hmmmm , do you get the picture !"
These nursing staff administering the jabs - were they qualified to administer the jabs? What is their expertise in 'Covid', and the Covid injections...I would suggest zero...
FYI, see my email to Mark Butler: Informed consent and mass population Covid-19 vaccination - considering Rogers v Whitaker, 5 April 2023: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/informed-consent-and-mass-population-covid-19-vaccination-considering-rogers-v-whitaker.pdf
Brilliant 👏👏 I'm sending this on to a few people, nothing will happen I'm sure, but might stir someone's conscience (one hopes!!)
Amen Elizabeth. 💯
Thank you for your powerful and vital work.
Truth like water will eventually find Its own level.
Thank you, Elizabeth. Evenings like this one at the NSW Vaccination Centre at Sydney Olympic Park back in July 2021 must never be repeated (2 minutes):
https://fb.watch/ozUzX7kwtC/
My doctor gave proper informed consent to all who asked to be jabbed. As a result NONE took the jab from him.
He told me he lost patients but he was only acting correctly unlike the bastards who jabbed people.
My doctor is totally evidence based. Nearly all others are not to be trusted.
It’s my contention that anyone who submitted to the jab did so without authentic voluntary informed consent, because no-one was properly informed about ‘Covid’ or the injections, and everyone was pressured, coerced and manipulated, although not everyone complied.
It was the people who were mandated to keep their jobs and to participate in civil society who were treated most egregiously. How could the medical ‘profession’ collaborate with the destruction of voluntary informed consent for vaccination and participate in mandated medical interventions?!
In this regard, please see my complaint about Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf
Also see my email to Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General:
Are health practitioners in effect being conscripted to participate in the Australian government's Covid-19 vaccination rollout, in contravention of the Australian Constitution?
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/re_-are-health-practitioners-in-effect-being-conscripted-1.pdf
Gosh Chris, you’re lucky with your doctor.
The practitioners were under much pressure to support the Covid-19 vaccination rollout without question, see for example my complaint to AHPRA: Reckless disregard for voluntary informed consent - the AHPRA Position Statement 9 March 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/reckless-disregard-for-voluntary-informed-consent-the-ahpra-position-statement-9-march-2021.pdf
Can you please share this with your doctor?
I wrote my law thesis last year on informed consent and how it was undermined by the implementation of lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Elizabeth, you may remember an email or two that we exchanged after also discussing it with Julian Gillespie. My findings were, that there was no informed consent to the covid vaccines, as, among other things such as an absence of information, external factors were present that amounted to coercion, and thus an absence of voluntariness.
It always amazed me why voluntariness, being an integral aspect of informed consent, was not the topic of much more rigorous debate (at least) or anger in society. It's a foundational value across the globe and integral to our democracy and practice of medicine. Why was there not so much more uproar over it and why did medical practitioners collectively ignore it? I did try to answer that last question in my thesis.
Sophie, re no informed consent to the covid vaccines - "Why was there not so much more uproar over it and why did medical practitioners collectively ignore it?"
I'd be interested to see how you tried to answer this in your thesis.
Also, undertaking your thesis on what is now such a controversial subject, did you have any opposition? E.g. like Judy Wilyman: University of Wollongong criticised over thesis by anti vaccination activist, 13 January 2016: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-13/wilyman-phd/7086346
It's really been a shocking experience Sophie, hasn't it...
The RACGP, RACP and AMA, wow! They've completely trashed voluntary informed consent! Along with AHPRA. And CMO Paul Kelly and the AHPPC. It's breath-taking. And the practitioners don't have indemnity cover. What is going to happen when the penny drops?
Please accept my sincere apologies, Elizabeth, for neglecting to reply to your response.
In answer to your question, I covered a little bit about AHPRA and the National Boards' joint statement that gagged health professionals by threatening investigation and possible regulatory action. I think this is the main reason practitioners held back on providing informed consent, along with, honestly, a group-think mentality that was created with huge amounts of propaganda. Though I didn't mention this latter point in my thesis.
A very interesting response I had from my markers- I received an excellent mark from one marker whose area is human rights, and a not-so-very excellent mark from the other marker whose area is Public Health/regulations. There was such a discrepancy between the two that it had to go to an arbiter. I actually made a formal complaint against the not-so-very-excellent mark marker, as her reasons were fundamentally flawed- based on statements that were provably false.
It was clear I felt quite strongly about the issue, and I look back now and think perhaps I should have toned it down a bit for the sake of submitting it to my university.
Judy Wilyman is such a knowledgeable woman. She is amazing to listen to and I have such empathy for what she went through. I haven't attempted to publish mine, as it doesn't currently fit the guidelines, however, I would love to neaten it up, reduce the word count, and make it a little more palatable for a journal. It would be quite task to take on, but I think it would be worth it, and perhaps even accepted a little more now than two years ago.
Wow Sophie, so you got a "not-so-very excellent mark from the other marker whose area is Public Health/regulations".
That's very interesting - were reasons given for the mark?
It's very concerning to think about thought and discussion in universities being reined in and controlled. Resulting in effective censorship, and also self-censorship for people who won't even dare to raise controversial subjects.
It's a very grim situation. And how do we get exposure for it in the mainstream when this is controlled too?
So you didn't actually end up submitting your thesis?
She gave reasons, some I understood and agreed with, others, like I said, were fundamentally flawed and provably false.
I did submit it to the university, yes, however it is not automatically published, just kept in the university's archives, which I don't think are accessible to the public.
There is definitely effective censorship within the universities. Especially on this topic, after all, they also implemented the mandates. A notice actually went around after our cohort finished, that they were considering restricting the next years' Honours students to pre-selected topics for their theses. Terrible, and the complete antithesis to what universities are meant to be about.
I think slowly chipping away, as we continue to do, is the current answer to getting information mainstream. I don't think there is a predictive answer, only hope that a few of those chips will be "significant enough" and reach the right avenues to bring mainstream attention. They've had control of the censorship long before any of this began for the general public.
"A notice actually went around after our cohort finished, that they were considering restricting the next years' Honours students to pre-selected topics for their theses."
Bloody hell!!! How bad is this?!?!?!
Can you tell me the name of the reviewer?
I'll send you an email with my thesis and a few more details, if you don't mind, I'll send it tomorrow as soon as I can.
The system crashes that's what happens. Drs will be sued, healthcare sector will be trashed, no one will want to work in it and then the new crop of indoctrinated medical students will graduate and it will be telemedicine by the numbers, using AI and extreme government regulations, as devised and set by the WHO.
People will retaliate by drifting towards traditional medicines and practitioners, which since the WHO has now included them as a SDGS for 2023-2033, these too will fall under corpratised regulatory, AKA regulatory capture. That's, the trajectory we are currently on.😐😐🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
The Barefoot Healer, yes, we need the solids to hit the air conditioning big time, there’s so much the public doesn’t know about this debacle because we have no mainstream media working in our best interests.
See for example my notification/complaint to AHPRA about Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly’s violation of voluntary consent: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf
And also my challenge to AHPRA: Reckless disregard for voluntary informed consent - the AHPRA Position Statement 9 March 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/reckless-disregard-for-voluntary-informed-consent-the-ahpra-position-statement-9-march-2021.pdf
More on my website: https://vaccinationispolitical.net
Hopefully the masses of asses will wake from their slumber & give appropriate people the middle finger.
Couldn’t agree more , Sophie ...
I valued greatly, the efforts of Julian G ...
The points you make were key , for me ...
Unfortunately, there was a concerted effort by the ‘ legal establishment ‘, including a tag team of H C judges determined to stymie Julian , and his balanced efforts from the outset ....
Like Elizabeth H, I thought the entire process of informed consent was ‘ captured , ( shackled ) , and hijacked
The average citizen in the street deserved more, much much more pure honesty from our health administration
Question is , will they ever be held to account
Thank you Elizabeth for the courageous & tireless work you do. Our Creator holds you in the Palm of His/Her Hand - blessings always ...
Yes, absolutely correct. Practitioners are not indemnified, they have broken trust and committed malpractice. When you look at the "lockstep" behaviour of this In EVERY country, along with the incentivised hospital protecols enacted during 2020, why it's almost as if there was an intent to crash/destroy the public medical systems (which were already in shambles).😐🤔🤔🤐🤐
#perfectstormmya$$ #mistakeswereNOTmade #wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #getnoisy #getlocalised
I am a herbalist and have not used any pharmaceuticals for the past 40 years & in my view there is no such thing as a good vaccination. Also as an experienced horse woman, many had to go through the horror of forced vaccinations on their horses for the so called Hendra virus which in fact was developed by the CSIRO in Geelong with the American military and in retrospect was an expedition for Covid. There was a significant death and disablement rate on the horses and a class action saw Zoetis (subsidiary of Pfizer) acquitted - no surprises there. Further havoc was caused by vets refusing to attend horses which were not vaccinated, with many agonizing deaths as a result (mares with difficulty foaling, horses with broken legs for eg). Even now many vets will not attend if the horse is not vaccinated (annually) but if they come and give it the shot they will consult immediately which shows what a farce it is. Hendra virus does not exist just the same as SARS-Cov-2 does not exist. But I am a bit too radical for many people.
The Hendra virus vaccine, are they still giving that to horses every six months?
From a Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry brochure*:
“Research has shown that the vaccine protects horses from Hendra virus for up to six months following an initial course of two vaccinations. Vaccinated horses demonstrated no clinical signs of Hendra virus. Research is continuing to determine the duration of immunity from the vaccine.”
What do you think about that paragraph! The mind boggles!
*https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/57218/hendra-virus-info-pack-horse-owners.pdf
I really wonder why these injections are still referred to as "vaccinations" OR "gene therapy" (certainly not a therapy) when they were knowingly designed to kill & maim as part of the world genocide program. And most awake people now know this.
This is an interesting point…
For a while I used the terms jabs, injections and shots.
But I’ve now returned to using the term vaccination.
What is a ‘vaccination’ exactly? The Covid debacle is helping to open that can of worms.
To say that the Covid injections aren’t vaccinations seems to imply that vaccinations are a good thing.
But my views have very much evolved to questioning all vaccine products now, we need an urgent investigation into all the vaccine products and revaccinations on the vaccination schedule, which is mired in conflicts of interest.
Elizabeth will definitely share with my doctor.
Good on you Chris!
We need to stir this up big time!
In particular bringing to account the wretched Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, and others, including AHPRA of course.
I’ve pleaded with these groups to uphold voluntary informed consent, see for example my email in June 2021: Coercive covid-19 injections in Australia - email to the Medical Board of Australia, AHPRA, RACGP, RACP, AMA
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/coercive-covid-19-injections-in-australia-medical-board-of-australia-ahpra-racgp-racp-ama.pdf
Lots more emails here: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/vax-australia/
Thanks Elizabeth shared with my friends on fakebook - you know QLD Health, Anna and of course AHPRA
Wow, all in one place. Sending on.
The G P that recommended AZ vaxes to me , ( let’s call him Tony T ), did so under the following pretexts ...
( January 2021)
I should take them, as a last alternative , and under scrutiny , if I was to contract CV19 -
His main logic , ( without providing me informed consent ), was because they were of ‘ Non Mrna ‘ .... and would not contain the potentially risky contents of the unknown !
10 days later Tony T had left this practice ......
Sure AZ sure had some issues ... however, at the end of the day , the MRNA stuff has proven to be the killer
...oh I see your comment - I’m not bitter about it
We all Know that Informed consent , if it were provided , could NEVER include the key ingredients of Trial results , in depth test information and results ...
Hmmm...re the AstraZeneca vaccine.
See for example my email to Andrew Pollard, the Chief Investigator on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials. He's also the Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation...that's a conflict of interest...
Who initiated the plan to vaccinate the entire global population against SARS-CoV-2? 30 June 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/who-initiated-the-plan-to-vaccinate-the-entire-global-population-against-sars-cov-2.pdf
🇦🇺 “We have just learnt that Senator Katy Gallagher, Finance Minister, is introducing the Digital ID Bill 2023 tomorrow.” ~ Senator Malcolm Roberts, 29 November 2023 (this evening)
https://www.facebook.com/100050536897317/posts/pfbid02wFw2ZF89kJRcxok9BjvcmbLdt8UQnQYcEidb7s33hbErXHEadKJ3MpbNg3usaMhbl/
Yep. All perfectly on schedule to have digital id tied to vaccination status, in a social credit format, by the 2025 (was 2030 deadline, but they sped up the timetable🤔🤨).
Yes, all this, so the elites can enjoy their wealth, while the masses are subjected to a life of digitised compliance.