23 Comments

Governments are completely stepping out of their jurisdiction when they threaten punitive measures on anyone who refuses to have a substance put into their body. It is the same in some parts of America where they make it mandatory to have a substance injected unless the person can prove there is religious or medical reasons not to, calling it a vaccine does not give them an excuse to use coercion. A person has the right to refuse anything they do not want put into their body, it doe not matter how effective or safe the substance is if you do not want it then we all have a right to say no and get on with our lives free of recriminations. This has been a mission creep of governments becoming increasingly more authoritarian where they advance into controlling our personal freedom and are now breaching our right for self determination. It has to be stopped before it becomes physical force or they starve us into submission. The fake pandemic of 2020 was a clear warning of how coercion and force can be easily used by them to subdue and make compliant a population.

Expand full comment

Great comment Amat.

Yes indeed, "Governments are completely stepping out of their jurisdiction when they threaten punitive measures on anyone who refuses to have a substance put into their body."

Expand full comment

Elizabeth, I read a report a long time ago (I think it was Pfizer) regarding a vaccine group and placebo control. What caught my eye was how many injuries there was in the placebo group. (which incidentally made the numbers look good in the vaccine group). Correct me if I am wrong and if you are familiar with it, but it stated that the placebo group was given aluminium salts because it caused immune responses and those in this group were tricked into believing they got the real "vaccine". At least that was the justification, but to me it sounds like fraud.

Expand full comment

There's much to be exposed in that area Peter...

Also, here's an interesting article from Maryanne Demasi today: Court Documents Reveal “Undisclosed” Adjuvant in Gardasil vaccine. Merck’s Gardasil vaccine contains an unapproved immune booster—kept secret from the public. A lawsuit is exposing the cover-up: https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/court-documents-reveal-undisclosed

Expand full comment

Thank you for the link Elizabeth. How can we not consider the possibility that these deliberately deceptive and harmful practices are anything other than genocide or crimes against humanity?

Expand full comment

When money rules your life - humanity and morality are thrown out the window.

Expand full comment

All goes back to the root: There is a reason why the love of money is considered to be the root of all evil and it’s not just what people are willing to do to for it, but also the control it grants to the person giving it over the person getting it. Because incentive equals outcome, and when money speaks the truth is silent.

What the Hippocratic Oath has devolved into: First do no harm to my mortgage, career, license & registration, salary, holidays, private schooling for my kids, my reputation, and my yacht.

300,000 UK doctors all believed the nonsense government COVID narrative, and now think that kids having strokes is perfectly normal? Not a chance. But 300,000 of them went - and are going - along with it. God is watching the massive harm being caused by their shut wide eyes and fat pocketbooks.

There is a bunch more on this subject here, and if there's any article everyone needs to read, I think this may be it: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/children-having-heart-attacks-the

Expand full comment

Ethics are just so last century.

Expand full comment

So is holding public servants accountable when it's perfectly obvious that they have deceived, tricked and manipulated the masses to take a toxic jab, in other words treason.

Expand full comment

Yes, treason, that sums it up perfectly...

'Public servants', politicians and others have committed treason against the people, by misleading/disinforming them about disease threats, and coercing and even MANDATING under threats to make people to submit to vaccine products, administered by vaccinating practitioners who are not obtaining valid consent.

Expand full comment
2dEdited

We appear to have a completely different understanding of the meaning of treason then the crown would argue.

I'd argue that f.e. the Cambridge[1] definition of treason describes it perfectly well however the Australian law describes treason completely differently.

1 Cambridge - Treason - (the crime of) showing no loyalty to your country, especially by helping its enemies or trying to defeat its government: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/treason

High treason appears better suited - ''the committing of a crime that seriously threatens the safety of your country'' however there's nothing about that in the link below

There are references to assisting the enemy in their own laws - here https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/pjcis/securityleg/report/chapter4

Then we must identify the enemy but they only ever refer to assisting an armed militia - The willful incompetence of politici is never mentioned instead this is carefully avoided - there are no references to the health and safety of the citizens even when these appear to have been deliberately placed in harms way.

Even when the enemy is identified it's easy to see what their counterargument shall be based on.

We're no better of now then when they tested nuclear devices in the South Australian desert.

In the end and as you know they do not pledge allegiance to the people but to the King and all that crap which is while I agree 100% that what has occurred constitutes a form of treason I also understand that the system that's in use won't allow itself to be held accountable which is why I'm rather reluctant to validate that system using their legal system - We need a new system that does have the best interest of humanity in mind - O wait now I've just committed a form of treason (^^,)

Expand full comment

I presume you and I have the same interpretation of 'treason' Finn?

A simple definition: "the action of betraying someone or something".

The people who have been firmly in my sights for some considerable time are the vaccinating practitioners, those following orders... https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/just-following-orders

However, it's complicated...

How have the vaccinating practitioners been drawn into violating their obligation to obtain valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination?

This is what I am working on bringing to the fore.

Expand full comment

We're on the same page as to what we believe constitutes treason so I've provided a couple of examples to be clear.

Expand full comment

And this is interesting isn't it...?

"...they do not pledge allegiance to the people but to the King..."

What are we doing exactly...when we vote? For these people who we purportedly elect to represent us? Are we voting for our own demise?

When we engage in the 'compulsory' voting process, i.e. we have to turn up and register at the voting booth.

But it's coercion to vote - that doesn't seem legitimate to me.

And what have we got to choose from...the uni party?

Looks like this system has been captured and we are being abused - we're not giving our valid voluntary informed consent to this system.

Is it legitimate? I don't think so...

Expand full comment

Ethics is gone from the equation. Informed consent? No, it's not.

Expand full comment

.

My favorite parts of Covid:

#85

Frenzy.

Humans

Whipped

Into A Frenzy.

.

Expand full comment

Morrison proposed violating the Nuremberg accords in 2015, and the outcry was small. Democide followed in 2021. Will there be trials and punishments in 2026?

Expand full comment

Re Morrison and National Cabinet, there's much evidence recorded here: Misfeasance in Public Office? The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent for Vaccination: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/misfeasance-in-public-office-the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed-consent-for-vaccination.pdf

Expand full comment

Great link. I hope it is used in the upcoming trial.

Expand full comment

In the USSA, they justified mandates by referring to the Jacobson case. But that case just said that he could be fined, not excluded from work and school!

Why? Because it was a civil fine, not a criminal exclusion from society.

However the lawyers on our side are not addressing this.

They fight over technicalities like whether the shot stops spread. They're all full of shit as long as they don't point out that Jacobson was just a civil fine.

How exactly did they justify mandates in Australia? Was it originally a civil fine or was it firmly established as criminal?

Expand full comment

Rob, re Jacobson v. Massachusetts, I'm pursuing angles on this which you've probably seen. Also I'll be investigating if this is where 'exemptions' for vaccination came from...because 'exemptions' for vaccination should not exist, as people should be free to accept or decline the medical intervention as they so choose, it's not within a vaccinating practitioner's personal gift to grant an 'exemption'.

Expand full comment

Exactly!

Any medical procedure has benefits and risks.

One has the right to decide whether to do it or not without penalty.

My body, my choice... Just like abortion etc.

Human rights are hard for politicians to think about because they're mostly grifters who are in it for the money and fame. It was hilarious that Bernie Sanders took big pharma money because in his 2020 primary campaign he was calling out big pharma! 😂

I feel like they're doing it on purpose to make the point. 🤡

Expand full comment