Vaccines saved lives? Which ones? “It is attempted manslaughter to continue pushing these gene-based injections on people.” ~ US pathologist Dr Ryan Cole (2023)
Yep, agreed... but say it in the way I've say suggested. It backs them into a corner. If you state the positive and they state the positive is a stalemate. If you want to knock of their 'king,' use the negative averment.
Unfortunately, most dont speak legalese, and very much confuse it with law. Which frankly, is partially how we got here, in that people didn't understand the lawful definition of "mandate"- being an offer of contract. Which is why Sco Mo said he would not mandate them, and left it to the individual businesses to do the job for him. He knew that it fell under Employment relations.😐 Realistically, he made every single business vulnerable to being sued in the future, for enacting these mandate contracts, which unfortunately, if it happens will also kill the economy (further), which means that the government would need to declare emergency....aaaaand voila! WEF future here we come.🤨
Personally, while I know a good many individual lawyers who objected, some even publically, I do find it interesting that the profession as a global whole, has stayed rather quiet on such matters.🤔😐😉🤐🤐🤐
Great insight! And as far as I'm concerned, spot on! Regarding the legal profession's silence, it's driven by the love of money and their failure to foresee or believe in the looming crisis ahead. This is the baggage that comes from 79 years of relative peace—a warped context (since WWII). It's not surprising that this is happening now, when most of those who experienced "hard times" are no longer with us, and with "bread and circuses" at their peak. AI, developments with have multitudes of people surplus to requirements.
"The problem we face in the 21st century is unprecedented and complex. Unlike previous economic disruptions that led to unemployment, we are now confronted with the emergence of a new kind of 'useless class.' These are individuals who are not just temporarily out of work or between jobs, but are fundamentally unemployable due to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and biotechnology. As machines and algorithms become capable of performing a vast array of tasks more efficiently than humans, many people will find themselves unable to compete in the job market. This 'useless class' will consist of those who are left behind by technological progress, struggling not only to make a living but also to find purpose and meaning in a world where their labor is no longer needed. Addressing the needs and challenges of this growing class will require innovative policies, social safety nets, and a reimagining of how we define work, value, and human dignity." —Yuval Noah Harari
He is also quoted as saying “Mental health issues could become more prevalent as people struggle to cope with a loss of status, purpose, and economic security. This will require a greater focus on mental health services and support.”
It seems Aldous Huxley may have been around the mark; "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." (1962)
For those not familiar with Huxley; he was an eminent writer and intellectual, was deeply engaged with both influential thinkers and members of the elite during his lifetime. His work, particularly the dystopian novel Brave New World, reflects his critical perspective on the potential misuse of technology and power. Huxley's intellectual circle included notable figures such as his brother Julian Huxley, biologist and first Director-General of UNESCO; writer and futurist H.G. Wells; novelist D.H. Lawrence; philosopher Bertrand Russell; philosopher and historian Gerald Heard; and Indian spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti. He also interacted with the Bloomsbury Group and the Esalen Institute. Huxley's connections extended to the super-rich, including the Rockefeller family, with whom his brother Julian had significant ties through the Rockefeller Foundation; the Mellon family, known for their patronage of the arts; media mogul Henry Luce; members of the Round Table Groups; and influential journalist Walter Lippmann. These relationships provided Huxley with diverse insights into the societal and global issues of his time, enriching his critical and philosophical works.
If only more people had your insight "Barefoothealer"!
I don’t disagree that that approach can at times be the better one. However, in this instance, those complicit are in great numbers and they have been defending their stance with outright lies and absurdities in their responses. Affirmations in the positive, from experts, can establish truths in the immediate, particularly in the setting of a formal trial.
David, you have misinterpreted the meaning. If you make a statement, use the negative averment style. If they make a statement, use a conditional acceptance, ie "Yeah, I'll accept what you say, provided you demonstrate or prove that what you are saying is materially factual!" It works in court and with dickheads with big mouths! Cheers
Hi Gaz. I do understand. Our good senators in Australia pose questions about Covid and the vaccines in parliament - but the answers they receive are nothing short of drivel. In court, both approaches could be adopted.
I often see the negative affirmation approach being used in astrophysics. You can ask cosmologists how a black hole, a finite mass, can possess infinite properties and you’ll get nothing but nonsense in return. Instead, when you tell them that a black hole cannot possibly have infinite density, as it is claimed to have, they’ll have no answer. The same can be said when you positively show them how poor a mathematician Einstein was and then argue that his name has been used as a cash cow for funding for decades. If we could only get cosmologists into a court room…
No problem, Gaz. I’ve been attacking them on their respective Facebook pages for years now. They never respond, but thousands of their followers will possibly see the evidence I post. All the best
Vaccines only saved lives by concocted assumptions in mathematical models. The continued push of these known harmful products on the masses would indicate genocide, something more sinister than manslaughter.
They are all being disingenuous, mandates of any medical intervention has always been wrong. It was done with malevolent intent knowing people would be injured or killed from this experiment but that was irrelevant, I do not know if it was greed, control, pure experimentation, a display of power or all of them but it was malevolent on the government and public health part. They brought this down on our children without knowing how it would affect their health in the future, it disgusts and sickens me. I consider even one child being injected with this sludge as a crime against humanity, but the authorities call it a vaccine so they think they can get away with it, all of this from 2020 onwards would have sat well in 1930s Germany and not looked out of place.
Isn’t it magic mst of the perpetrators have made bed onto greener pastures usually well rewarded for their heinous crimes against humanity. The world did one dishes up a grain of truth on their way out the door knowing their will be no accountability or consequence- how noble
No, vaccines saved no lives. Certainly not among the people most susceptible to covid (those in aged care). In Victorian studies, among the residents who SURVIVED the vaccines (a proportion not evaluated in the studies) there was no benefit from the vaccines against covid death (within 28 days), compared to their fellow residents who had NOT been vaccinated.
👏👏👏🎩🎩😉💯 And there in lies the problem. They were enforced (illegally) as they fell under Employment relations.
I think you'll find that any case that actually made it to a judge, was argued from a personal freedom/liberty perspective, which allowed the judges to use the "novel pathogen/situation" and dismiss it under "pandemic" precedents. But if they argued it from a legal right of an employee to reject an offer of contract from their employer, without discrimination or consequences, then it would not have been as easy to dismiss, and would have garnered attention.
We might think the mandates were wrong in principle. But no Premier or PM is going down that path. They think imposing mandates of all kinds is their prerogative, because (a) they have the power and (b) what is the use of being in charge if you don't order people around and (c) that (in their view) is what 'public health' is all about.
They were - and still are - wrong about public health, wrong about the nature of epidemic diseases, wrong about the way to control and treat viral infections, and wrong about the basic approach that should be adopted by government - which has been well-known for centuries and basically amounts to "do nothing and if you can't manage that at least do as litle as possible". Otherwise you are likely to make yourself look stupid, which is exactly what the Australian PM and Premiers did ad nauseam during 'Covid'.
But above all, they are completely wrong in thinking they have the right to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. They were all wrong when they said, in unison, like a row of parrots on a perch, "This is not about human rights". It is about human rights.
When Gladys Berejiklian was in power, Perrottet said she was wrong about lockdowns etc, then when he came into power, he was even worse than her. THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL !!! EVIL MAN
Another thing that's wrong is that absolutely no one not one single entity such as the manufacturers have faced criminal charges.
Or politicians for that matter.....
Clearly they didn't think this one through when they granted immunity to the manufacturers so if they're not going to hold them accountable then it's the politici who should be be held accountable.
Should send this back to Dominic and ask him he’s happy to commit genocide and fraud as we know it was all orchestrated with Gates and Jane Halton the WEF WHO
LOOK AT THE HORRIFIC DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION/DANGEROUS AND DEADLY ‘EFFECTS’ OF THE COVID INJECTIONS/JABS/VAXXINES THAT CONTINUES, ALLEGEDLY, TO BE HIDDEN FROM THE PEOPLE !
2. Pfizer* doc Feb 2021:
2. Pfizer* doc Feb 2021:
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
See pages 30-38 APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST >
"if the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as it is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom" may as well be saying "no room for respect of freedom is A-OK if impact of vaccines on transmission was not limited at best". This (non) "admission" is actually reinforcing the narrative.
Vaccines saved lives? Which ones? “It is attempted manslaughter to continue pushing these gene-based injections on people.” ~ US pathologist Dr Ryan Cole (2023)
A better way to say it is "Is it not attempted manslaughter to continue pushing these gene-based injections on people.”
By stating it in the negative averment style (which is what I've done), its the one that disagrees that is obliged to prove the statement is wrong.
If its a positive averment, (as said by Dr Ryan) the speaker has the obligation to prove it.
Learn to use this legal style of speak to turn it back on them.
No question needed! Enough with kid gloves! It’s time to declare what we all know to be true now.
Yep, agreed... but say it in the way I've say suggested. It backs them into a corner. If you state the positive and they state the positive is a stalemate. If you want to knock of their 'king,' use the negative averment.
Unfortunately, most dont speak legalese, and very much confuse it with law. Which frankly, is partially how we got here, in that people didn't understand the lawful definition of "mandate"- being an offer of contract. Which is why Sco Mo said he would not mandate them, and left it to the individual businesses to do the job for him. He knew that it fell under Employment relations.😐 Realistically, he made every single business vulnerable to being sued in the future, for enacting these mandate contracts, which unfortunately, if it happens will also kill the economy (further), which means that the government would need to declare emergency....aaaaand voila! WEF future here we come.🤨
Personally, while I know a good many individual lawyers who objected, some even publically, I do find it interesting that the profession as a global whole, has stayed rather quiet on such matters.🤔😐😉🤐🤐🤐
Great insight! And as far as I'm concerned, spot on! Regarding the legal profession's silence, it's driven by the love of money and their failure to foresee or believe in the looming crisis ahead. This is the baggage that comes from 79 years of relative peace—a warped context (since WWII). It's not surprising that this is happening now, when most of those who experienced "hard times" are no longer with us, and with "bread and circuses" at their peak. AI, developments with have multitudes of people surplus to requirements.
"The problem we face in the 21st century is unprecedented and complex. Unlike previous economic disruptions that led to unemployment, we are now confronted with the emergence of a new kind of 'useless class.' These are individuals who are not just temporarily out of work or between jobs, but are fundamentally unemployable due to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and biotechnology. As machines and algorithms become capable of performing a vast array of tasks more efficiently than humans, many people will find themselves unable to compete in the job market. This 'useless class' will consist of those who are left behind by technological progress, struggling not only to make a living but also to find purpose and meaning in a world where their labor is no longer needed. Addressing the needs and challenges of this growing class will require innovative policies, social safety nets, and a reimagining of how we define work, value, and human dignity." —Yuval Noah Harari
He is also quoted as saying “Mental health issues could become more prevalent as people struggle to cope with a loss of status, purpose, and economic security. This will require a greater focus on mental health services and support.”
It seems Aldous Huxley may have been around the mark; "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." (1962)
For those not familiar with Huxley; he was an eminent writer and intellectual, was deeply engaged with both influential thinkers and members of the elite during his lifetime. His work, particularly the dystopian novel Brave New World, reflects his critical perspective on the potential misuse of technology and power. Huxley's intellectual circle included notable figures such as his brother Julian Huxley, biologist and first Director-General of UNESCO; writer and futurist H.G. Wells; novelist D.H. Lawrence; philosopher Bertrand Russell; philosopher and historian Gerald Heard; and Indian spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti. He also interacted with the Bloomsbury Group and the Esalen Institute. Huxley's connections extended to the super-rich, including the Rockefeller family, with whom his brother Julian had significant ties through the Rockefeller Foundation; the Mellon family, known for their patronage of the arts; media mogul Henry Luce; members of the Round Table Groups; and influential journalist Walter Lippmann. These relationships provided Huxley with diverse insights into the societal and global issues of his time, enriching his critical and philosophical works.
If only more people had your insight "Barefoothealer"!
Go all the way, Is it not attempted genocide?
Good onya Finn. Spot on!
Thank you.
There's something very suspicious about it all - It's in the sequence of events [nothing happens by accident it was planned that way]
You might recall that not all that long ago the retirement age was raised [globally] because people were allegedly living longer lives.
This is no longer the case while the financial elite have been bailed out once again and then there's the digital agenda.
I don’t disagree that that approach can at times be the better one. However, in this instance, those complicit are in great numbers and they have been defending their stance with outright lies and absurdities in their responses. Affirmations in the positive, from experts, can establish truths in the immediate, particularly in the setting of a formal trial.
David, you have misinterpreted the meaning. If you make a statement, use the negative averment style. If they make a statement, use a conditional acceptance, ie "Yeah, I'll accept what you say, provided you demonstrate or prove that what you are saying is materially factual!" It works in court and with dickheads with big mouths! Cheers
Hi Gaz. I do understand. Our good senators in Australia pose questions about Covid and the vaccines in parliament - but the answers they receive are nothing short of drivel. In court, both approaches could be adopted.
I often see the negative affirmation approach being used in astrophysics. You can ask cosmologists how a black hole, a finite mass, can possess infinite properties and you’ll get nothing but nonsense in return. Instead, when you tell them that a black hole cannot possibly have infinite density, as it is claimed to have, they’ll have no answer. The same can be said when you positively show them how poor a mathematician Einstein was and then argue that his name has been used as a cash cow for funding for decades. If we could only get cosmologists into a court room…
Sorry for preaching David. Just trying to help. Give them hell, when you get the chance!
No problem, Gaz. I’ve been attacking them on their respective Facebook pages for years now. They never respond, but thousands of their followers will possibly see the evidence I post. All the best
Oz Dave
Vaccines only saved lives by concocted assumptions in mathematical models. The continued push of these known harmful products on the masses would indicate genocide, something more sinister than manslaughter.
"Got more right than wrong"
"Vaccines saved lives"
Give me a break!
This is GASLIGHTING!!
Obeying wrong mandates was even worse!
We need to understand that mandates were not a mistake but a deliberate effort to murder people.
Here some clues:
Depopulation or extermination of us, the “useless eaters”?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depopulation-or-extermination
Who are The Powers That SHOULDN'T Be ?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/criminal-intent
Weaponization of Justice
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-justice
Depopulation or EXTERMINATION? (finest quotes):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depopulation-or-extermination
Illuminati David Rockefeller, finest quotes:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
Illuminati Attali, finest quotes:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/attali-illuminati-finest-quotes
Confessions of ex illuminati Ronald Bernard:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/confessions-of-illuminati-ronald
They are all being disingenuous, mandates of any medical intervention has always been wrong. It was done with malevolent intent knowing people would be injured or killed from this experiment but that was irrelevant, I do not know if it was greed, control, pure experimentation, a display of power or all of them but it was malevolent on the government and public health part. They brought this down on our children without knowing how it would affect their health in the future, it disgusts and sickens me. I consider even one child being injected with this sludge as a crime against humanity, but the authorities call it a vaccine so they think they can get away with it, all of this from 2020 onwards would have sat well in 1930s Germany and not looked out of place.
Isn’t it magic mst of the perpetrators have made bed onto greener pastures usually well rewarded for their heinous crimes against humanity. The world did one dishes up a grain of truth on their way out the door knowing their will be no accountability or consequence- how noble
Apologies for all the typos.
TGA and the doctors org should all be sacked.
Yes, mandates were wrong. Genius.
No, vaccines saved no lives. Certainly not among the people most susceptible to covid (those in aged care). In Victorian studies, among the residents who SURVIVED the vaccines (a proportion not evaluated in the studies) there was no benefit from the vaccines against covid death (within 28 days), compared to their fellow residents who had NOT been vaccinated.
Vax mandates were unlawful and obviously so. Yet judges enforced them upon legal staff entering their court.
Our judiciary is fundamentally corrupt.
👏👏👏🎩🎩😉💯 And there in lies the problem. They were enforced (illegally) as they fell under Employment relations.
I think you'll find that any case that actually made it to a judge, was argued from a personal freedom/liberty perspective, which allowed the judges to use the "novel pathogen/situation" and dismiss it under "pandemic" precedents. But if they argued it from a legal right of an employee to reject an offer of contract from their employer, without discrimination or consequences, then it would not have been as easy to dismiss, and would have garnered attention.
Don't neglect Human Rights government and Worker Safety government.
We might think the mandates were wrong in principle. But no Premier or PM is going down that path. They think imposing mandates of all kinds is their prerogative, because (a) they have the power and (b) what is the use of being in charge if you don't order people around and (c) that (in their view) is what 'public health' is all about.
They were - and still are - wrong about public health, wrong about the nature of epidemic diseases, wrong about the way to control and treat viral infections, and wrong about the basic approach that should be adopted by government - which has been well-known for centuries and basically amounts to "do nothing and if you can't manage that at least do as litle as possible". Otherwise you are likely to make yourself look stupid, which is exactly what the Australian PM and Premiers did ad nauseam during 'Covid'.
But above all, they are completely wrong in thinking they have the right to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. They were all wrong when they said, in unison, like a row of parrots on a perch, "This is not about human rights". It is about human rights.
The really evil power was situated in the infiltrated Human Rights and Work Safety government departments.
When Gladys Berejiklian was in power, Perrottet said she was wrong about lockdowns etc, then when he came into power, he was even worse than her. THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL !!! EVIL MAN
Another thing that's wrong is that absolutely no one not one single entity such as the manufacturers have faced criminal charges.
Or politicians for that matter.....
Clearly they didn't think this one through when they granted immunity to the manufacturers so if they're not going to hold them accountable then it's the politici who should be be held accountable.
“One thing” they got wrong???? Only one, he says???? Minimising human rights ATROCITIES!!!!!!
Should send this back to Dominic and ask him he’s happy to commit genocide and fraud as we know it was all orchestrated with Gates and Jane Halton the WEF WHO
LOOK AT THE HORRIFIC DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION/DANGEROUS AND DEADLY ‘EFFECTS’ OF THE COVID INJECTIONS/JABS/VAXXINES THAT CONTINUES, ALLEGEDLY, TO BE HIDDEN FROM THE PEOPLE !
2. Pfizer* doc Feb 2021:
2. Pfizer* doc Feb 2021:
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
See pages 30-38 APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST >
phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
After the fact, he should tried with the rest of them.
"if the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as it is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom" may as well be saying "no room for respect of freedom is A-OK if impact of vaccines on transmission was not limited at best". This (non) "admission" is actually reinforcing the narrative.
"Mistakes were made"? No.