The prominent and influential institutions have been filled with compromised individuals who are bad actors, they do not serve and protect the populations but do protect themselves and the organisations or people who have placed them within the institutions. It has all been completed away from the public gaze and the creep of vaccine tyranny has slowly been progressing with them in place. We were all duped into accepting the unacceptable, "infection control" has become a tool to introduce control and surveillance into our personal lives. The covid farce accelerated all of this and clearly showed that rules and laws set out to protect us can easily be swept away when they announce the words "emergency". Doctors have been completely captured by their compromised institutions and no longer work independently, they are trained to follow the orders and keep to the medical protocols with no one questioning if the orders or the protocols are safe. All I could see in the UK was nearly all doctors following their orders with no questions asked, 100,000 health workers refused the covid vaccine mandate if this had not been reversed then the remaining compliant health care staff would cheerfully have injected the resistant workers because they had been told to. Ethics/morality or informed consent did not exist nor the fact that they knew nothing of what was being injected into people. It is to me terrifying that this could be repeated again because nothing has changed.
As you say Amat, "We were all duped into accepting the unacceptable, "infection control" has become a tool to introduce control and surveillance into our personal lives."
And now here we are with the ever-increasing lucrative 'womb to tomb' vaccination schedule which is steeped in conflicts of interest, along with the theft of autonomy and privacy.
Way past time to shine the spotlight on this exploitation and abuse of the population.
The subordination of the medical profession during the pandemic had something to do with the facts (1) many government institutions have regulatory power so extensive, that independent clinics could be harassed into closure; and (2) more and more medical professionals, including MD's, are now salaried jobs. In states like Texas, they can be fired without any reason or warning. An MD still needing to pay off his student loans will not be very strong against the CDC, the hospital administrators, or the insurance companies.
I acknowledge that the medical profession was under duress to comply with the 'Covid' narrative, and apparently didn't have the fortitude to call it out.
The fact remains...vaccinating practitioners have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to obtain valid consent for vaccination. They MUST NOT vaccinate people who have not given voluntary informed consent, i.e. people who are under threat of penalty if they refuse to comply. But they DID inject people they knew were under duress - coercion and mandates.
It would appear to me that RFK Jr. has the power now and the authority now to require a statement that the CDC opposes mandatory vaccines because that violates the Constitutional requirement of fully informed medical consent and that the CDC recommendations/suggestions are prohibited from being interpreted by any individual as a mandate because that would illegally violate the US Constitution's intent of medical consent and choice given to each individual by their Creator. I would think such a statement could be put either at the front or the end of that document with the CDC's recommendation. Then RFK Jr. should ask the President to make this an executive order and to ask Congress to clarify this in the Rules and Regulations that federal employees are required to file. I'm not certain if that's Section 7 Rules of Conduct?
And questions have to be asked as to how the medical doctors on the CDC ACIP have gone along for years with their 'recommendations' being translated into vaccine mandates in the states. Why didn't these medical doctors speak out and warn that mandates violate valid voluntary informed consent, i.e. that medical products must not be mandated and pressed upon people/guardians who do not want them, under threat of penalties.
I would think that RFK Jr. would want to avoid challenging the States, except in passing.
He needs to shrink the government from 13 agencies to likely one agency, and he needs to figure out his priorities and focus on them and he needs to do all of this within 2 years. I like the suggestion asking if RFK JR will challenge the way the US States interpret vaccines as mandatory, but see my earlier statement of a way to do that more effectively without dealing with a hornet's nest that will distract him.
I have issues with the assumptions of fully informed consent. Can anybody inform me if prescribing doctors actually have access to pharmaceutical drug inserts, if they don't have drug samples in house, if they don't have a pharmacy in-house? I don't think they have such access, yet everywhere I turn, pharmacists and other people keep repeating that prescribing doctors have responsibility of fully informed consent, but I don't think they have the tools--the physical paper drug insert--to do this. I positively know that the physical paper drug insert is the only legal accurate and complete data about any pharmaceutical drug, and that without providing the patient with that information, it would be impossible to provide fully informed consent. What does the law say about who is responsible for fully informed consent? Do we need to revisit that to make the drug manufacturer provide those physical paper legal publications where this is the only place a patient can get "accurate and complete" data about their prescription drug? and do we need to make the pharmacist responsible to providing it to the prescription-holder with the drug? The patient isn't getting fully informed medical consent from anybody, but that is the legal information that the patient needs to know but I feel the drug companies and the big-chain-pharmacies are colluding to not provide that insert to the patient in a covert agreement to not provide patients with the facts they need to go back and talk to their doctor about the horrible symptoms that their drug--like the example given on this page of statins--because statin takers are so certain that if the symptoms I see in them were caused by their statin, that their doctor would tell them, and their doctor didn't tell them, so I'm wrong because they don't have that legal publication that was intended to travel with the drug and likely their doctor hasn't seen it either, and won't see it because they don't bring that insert they don't have into the doctor for a consult about it.
What we need is open discussion on these matters, it's been suppressed for years.
My goal is simple - that people are not coerced and mandated to have medical products they don't want, that they are free to refuse medical interventions without penalty.
At the moment, I think vaccination is the only medical intervention that is mandatory for many people?
How the heck could that happen...with the collaboration of vaccinating practitioners who have no clue what they're doing?
I saw a video a couple of years ago, where an American lady asked a pharmacist if she could see the drug insert in the box with the “covid” vax, and when the pharmacist got it out and unfolded it, to his surprise there was absolutely nothing written on either side of it. I think the pharmacist cursed and threw it in the bin, then the video ended.
Probably other people have seen it. I don’t see how that pharmacist could inform the patient to get their consent to have that one!
I'm nervous of centralised control. Shrinking the agencies to one would lead to room for abuses of power. We don't know who will have control in future.
In my 20 years as an Australian RN/RM, I don't believe I ever witnessed proper informed consent for any: procedure, medication, investigation. I sometimes saw lies and deliberate omission of information. There is research showing medical professionals sometimes deliberately lie to patients because they want the patient to do what the medical professional thinks is best. The problem is of course that medical professionals generally believe that what they are taught, standards of care, protocols and guidelines, are based on evidence, which they rarely are. Also not taken into account is that we are all individuals and we react differently to any treatment etc. So what may be appropriate to many is not always appropriate to all.
Usually I called this out which got me into a lot of trouble sometimes, but my role as patient advocate was important.
We know that a large percentage of medical practitioners in this great country profess a faith in God. If this is the case, why do they not follow His handbook? For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandments, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:9-10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 We all lead busy lives, perhaps those in the medical profession need to take time to reflect and reaffirm the Blessings they have received in helping others in the quest for health. Be....in the Word.
At this point does there remain any good reason - a reason which benefits anyone other than those who profit from the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products of dubious health benefit - to continue the unquestioned use of all vaccines? It certainly seems that there is sufficiently compelling evidence calling into question the entire scientific basis for the usefulness and efficacy of vaccinations, as well as their potential harms, that further approvals should be halted and every existing vaccine should be carefully re-examined and scrutinized. That should apply to every human vaccine as well as animal vaccines - chickens, cattle, dogs, everything. It is not inconceivable that the entire vaccine industry may be exposed as nothing more than a giant, harmful, dangerous money-making scheme. Perhaps not, but the possibility seems increasingly likely. Stop the potential poisoning of people and food until an honest, proper, unbiased scientific investigation shows whether each and every vaccine can be proven safe and beneficial to people other than vaccine manufacturers.
If the essential facts of the contents of the vaccines were widely known the framework for the discussion would be forever altered. This is precisely why they keep this essential reality from being discussed.
If you are going to get a vaccine be sure you ask your doctor a few questions:
Hey doc can you tell me a bit about the vaccine substrate and how it’s grown?
What about the antigen itself? What are all the excipients, stabilizers, adjuvants, etc. in this product?
Does your pediatrician/doctor not bring these questions up? Does your doctor/pediatrician go over the ingredients that are involved in these mass inoculation programs? Of course they don't.
Here is a list, not comprehensive, of many of the ingredients found in this health product:
Not to mention the various metal contaminants identified in many vaccines including platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, tungsten, antimony, bismuth and cerium.
How many people would allow these synthetic substances to be injected into their children's body if they knew what was in those poisoned needles?
I agree, look at all that extraneous crap practitioners are expected to inject. Those inoculating the population under mandated orders are setting themselves up to injure someone. Providing Information to gain consent for 'vaccines' containing these toxins is fraught with danger.
Medical professionals should not administer interventions without the fully informed, unforced, free, consent of the patient, or their guardian.
All laws which require anything to the contrary are wrong, in principle - and these are very important principles, Such laws should be judged to be invalid according to applicable case law and/or the constitution.
However, there are several practical concerns which make everything more messy.
Firstly, the patient may be unconscious or too ill to understand any presentation of the risks and likely benefits of the proposed intervention, let alone a comprehensive presentation.
Secondly, due to language barriers, lack of time (a full presentation of the best medical knowledge, which constitutes multiple ongoing debates among leading researchers and clinicians, may take days or weeks), lack of knowledge on the part of the clinician, limits on the ability of the patient to understand all the questions which arise, even if they were fully presented (which can't be done verbally, since it involves reading research articles, scrutinising graphs and tables etc.), the patient or their guardian cannot understand all the information which describes risks and potential benefits.
Thirdly, even if a clinician somehow fully understood the field, with its debates, they would have a view of these debates which would likely differ from the view of another clinician - and this would affect how the present the material to the patient or guardian.
Fourthly, many people, as patients or guardians, don't want to be dragged into debates or to be required to think about anything complex at all. They want and expect the clinician - usually a doctor, but perhaps a physician assistant or nurse - to make a good decision for them, personally, in all their circumstances, based on his or her judgement as informed, correctly and fully, by all the pertinent research and the clinical experience of this clinician and his or her colleagues.
I doubt that it would be practical or desirable to legally mandate the conduct of clinician - patient relations to ensure the ideal outcome in such decisions, which in principle involves the patient or their guardian being fully informed about a sometimes very large, highly disputed, set of debates and disagreements.
However, it should be possible to prohibit the most obvious failures in recent years, including any kind of legal mandate regarding enforced treatment, except in clearly defined circumstances, such as involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital, being subdued and constrained physically and/or with drugs to ensure this occurs as safely as possible, and perhaps in previously defined circumstances involving behaviour which involves a suitably high risk of infecting or otherwise harming other people. For instance, though I guess it is a contrived scenario, if a person was infected by rabies and was running around biting people, then it would be reasonable to have laws which allow for forcible interventions to stop this behavior, at least. It would be a separate question as to whether this should extend to treating the disease, once the dangerous behaviour has been prevented.
There are arguments for quarantine arrangements to reduce or prevent the spread of infectious diseases. In an environment of a genuinely dangerous and practically untreatable disease, in the absence of any practically applicable test for infection, and where people are infectious before symptoms develop, there are arguments for actual lockdowns to "slow or stop the spread".
Unfortunately, laws which allow for these extreme, coercive, interventions can be abused egregiously by authorities and by clinicians, including at the corrupt behest of pharmaceutical companies, and this is especially so in a situation of panic, in which some, many or all of the public and the various professions has become highly alarmed. It might be OK if that state of alarm was well-informed, but it is far too easy for panic to develop - and especially for it to be encouraged - when a new pathogen starts spreading, when there is little solid knowledge of its transmissibility and severity.
Genuinely concerned government officials and/or practitioners may take it upon themselves to save the population from harm (in their idealised view) by deliberately fomenting fear and panic, including beyond that which is fully justified by the available information. This lead most of the problems of the COVID-19 response worldwide, especially the mandating and overly favourable promotion of the vaccines and so-called vaccines.
The whole field is a mess.
However, there can and should be robust legal protections against actions by governments or members of any profession or industry which have the effect of suppressing communication and debate about matters concerning human health, or any matters at all.
Even now, 5 years after the man-made SARS-CoV-2 virus generated a pandemic which was far worse than it would have been with proper early treatment, and with the interventions of lockdowns, masking, social distancing and especially the dangerous drugs (Remdesivir) and injections, there is no consensus on the origins of the virus or how it should be treated.
There should be consensus, since the arguments are clear and the evidence was there at the beginning and has grown continually.
I don't think anything, including the best laws, can make millions of people, subject to unreasonable fears, groupthink, corruption etc. act as if they were fully informed, highly intelligent and morally principled and wise.
However, it would be a good start to prohibit mandated medical interventions except perhaps in very narrowly defined and carefully considered circumstances.
Ideally,fully informed consent could be required by the patient or guardian before any medical intervention was undertaken, but I can't imagine how most of the population could really be fully informed, or understand all the most important arguments.
It is reasonable for patients to expect medical professionals to make the best, well-informed, decisions for them, without the patient or their guardian to have to delve into contentious medical debates. I don't know how this could be reliably achieved by legislation.
A step towards it would be explicit goverment and professional regulatory body support for a wide diversity of debate and research, with care not to sideline any such line of discussion or research because it doesn't fit with the current consensus. Then there is the problem of genuinely ineffective and/or dangerous interventions which are believed by some to be beneficial, such as homeopathy for any serious medical condition. Opinions vary on what these are, and there is probably no legislative way of defining them without suppressing much-needed research about interventions which are at odds with the current consensus, but which do have real value.
It's about challenging vaccine mandates in the US...
Do you know that people are being coerced into having very questionable vaccine products? COVID-19 injections for example...they've even been mandated!
Do you support mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
Or any mandatory vaccination for that matter?
If you support mandatory vaccinations, can you please identify which specific vaccines, vaccine combinations, and revaccinations you support?
Hi Elizabeth, Of course I don't support mandatory vaccinations. I support informed, unpressured, consent.
I was exploring the practical limitations of what fully informed consent would involve in contentious medical matters, of which there are many. For instance, statins. There is a controversy about this. Dopamine antagonists for Restless Legs Syndrome - this was the consensus approach a year or so ago, but not now. Researchers have had decades to understand the etiology of RLS / Periodic Limb Movement Disorder - and it is still officially not known at all. For a perfectly good explanation: https://aminotheory.com/rlsd/briefsumm.
Paracetamol/acetaminophen is widely accepted, but it is a major cause of death and liver failure due to suicide attempts, causes emotional dulling and has been warned about for years as raising the risk of autism: Avella-Carcia et al." 2016 "Acetaminophen use in pregnancy and neurodevelopment: attention function and autism spectrum symptoms" https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/6/1987/2617189; Bauer et al. 2021 "Paracetamol use during pregnancy — a call for precautionary action" https:// www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00553-7.
I don't think there is a legal or any other way this can be achieved, but it would be a good start to have broad laws against mandatory medical interventions of any kind, with any exceptions very clearly defined, such as for patients who have no representative or guardian and who are unable to consent in an emergency situation or due to being insufficiently conscious or suffering a serious mental illness.
The way informed consent has been replaced by people accepting the COVID-19 injections out of fear for their freedom and employment, unrealistic fear of the disease and/or unrealistic confidence about their safety has been a horror.
Blockchain Bobby has got his real agenda, and the biodigital convergence along with getting everyone om the social credit score slavery system is where his caricature is needed to get the dissidents on board. I would say the incremental democide continues unabated, but the blockchained ledger- operative word 'chained' - and AI healthcare and the AI governance are the panopticon these supposed saviours are nudging the flock into while pretending to give them what they want.
Judas goats absolutely.
How easy we are to manipulate.
Look at the king of warpspeed getting all the love too ffs..
In the article I’ve laid out that vaccinating practitioners have been violating valid voluntary informed consent for years by collaborating with US state vaccine mandates.
If RFK Jr is what he claims to be, he should use this opportunity to challenge why CDC ACIP vaccine ‘recommendations’ are being used to impose vaccine mandates in the US states, and to question why the medical doctors on the ACIP have not raised the alarm about their 'recommendations' being turned into mandates in the states.
Because as you rightly point out, for that old chestnut- ' the greater good', all manner of atrocity and holocaust 'for your safety' will continue with weaponised inversion of healthcare. For the 'health' of Gaia, the communitarians can justify everything they've done.
Denis Rancourt echoed your valid concern -
"My understanding from a social sciences perspective is there was a military goal here which was to inject everyone, and the way that the vaccine is a weapon is that if a government or a regime can inject anything they want, whenever they want into everyone's body, then that's the weapon right there' It doesn't matter what's in there if you have that ability, then you have a weapon, a very powerful weapon"
I've read too much into the intentions for civil depopulation to get caught up in the details. I'm sorry
The order followers, useful idiots and cannon fodder that make atrocity possible and are also oblivious to social engineers, they are going to need more trauma to snap them out of this hypnosis it would seem, although I do appreciate your tenacious focus on this aspect, as it is a foot in the door to supposedly rational discussion in this propagandised existence. It brings up a related question- what good is democracy when everyone has had multi-generational social engineers goading and caressing them into submission to the pervasive govCo love? We are arguing with the TV whilst the trauma based coercion still has its grip.
The subversive and now overt but incremental normalisation of everything they are doing in the rapid march on towards these agendas is also another weapon that seems set to render the mass destruction 'acceptable', and as the heavily scripted theatre presents and enamours Trump characters and dictatorship for the greater good, this is ridiculous considering he's an actor and not autonomous at all -for the uninitiated- neither is Rfk or Musk or anyone on the world stage . ALL IN THIS TOGETHER is a reminder and a warning to the players and they will soon know about it if they step out of line. These all be it 'Enightened' players are as groomed in their position as the audience.
All sorts of absurdity have extended the parameters of the Overton window, and as Yuri Bezmenov said, you cannot reason with the demoralised- no matter how much information, how many facts and figures you present to them. From my own direct experience, when the fear was excessive I knew something wasn't right and I starting reading the data including the insistence to medical staff that EVERYTHING was the SUPER DEADLY Covids, and then the Dr Gates / Eugenics implying everyone needed an injection to save the world from this scourge, was when the hair on the neck of my neck actually stood up. That was enough trauma to commence my journey that was into the spoon fed counter narrative initially and all the spoon fed heroes the perception managers had waiting in the wings
To those that wish to avoid the trauma of this assault and remain in the safety of the herd mentality, and the immunity it provides from realities like civil depopulation / incremental democide, the lullaby will continue to maintain their slumber, but self preservation has till managed to break some out of their reality tunnels.
I appreciate your efforts Elizabeth as much as it legitimises these captured entities to attempt to make an argument.
As you say Sonny, my "tenacious focus on this aspect...is a foot in the door to supposedly rational discussion..."
My focus is on seeking accountability for the destruction of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
It's direct action that people can take, there's no use at all in just weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...
Why not DO something?! Imagine if more people actually DID something, rather than just sit on the sidelines pouring cold water on other people's efforts...
Like work on getting that foot in the door...
Seriously, this is a solid argument.
The vaccinating practitioners are in the frame for this, for not getting valid voluntary informed consent.
And even in this crazy world we're living in, it seems they DO actually have an obligation for obtaining valid voluntary informed consent...
It seems this was forgotten by those planning this massive crime against humanity.
In Australia, the Government now admits: "Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccination."
Both those letters also confirm that the vaccinating practitioners DO NOT have specific liability protection for administering the COVID-19 shots...this might be a surprise to the practitioners, as they were led to believe they DO HAVE protection by the previous Morrison Government...but they were lied to.
So we're in a very interesting situation now, as much of the Australian population has been vaccinated in a climate of fear-mongering lies and coercion and mandates...this means there is NO VALID CONSENT. I am seeking accountability for this.
Challenge the coercion and mandates, and they cannot pull off another 'plandemic'. And bring to account the evildoers who orchestrated this fiasco.
See bailiwicknews.substack.com. We are still under a state of emergency for all sorts of viruses for the next few years as imposed by Biden’s HHS. Perhaps this can be terminated now. Does the Prep Act confer immunity to the injectors?
I have not been shown the evidence that supports the idea the Prep Act confers immunity to the injectors, i.e. that it protects injectors who inject people who are under duress to comply (i.e. coercion and mandates), so without valid voluntary informed consent for the intervention.
It seems to me vaccinating practitioners have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to obtain valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination, and to ensure people are free to accept or decline medical interventions, e.g. vaccination, as they choose.
Now waiting to see how this plays out under the new administration.
I don't trust anyone anymore, least of all those that are on the stage, but I do think the perception managers want at least a few to know something close to the truth.
Revelation of the method, predictive programming, the alchemical processing of humanity / freeze and thaw - all good reasons why the truth is never completely hidden.
I still find it strange that the majority of practitioners, whether nurses or doctors complied to the narrative. Having nursed from a 17yr old til 64yr old, so 47yrs there was no way I could abandon my duty of care, informed consent policies, evidence based practice or 'vaccine' policies re no vaxx in pregnancy. Our institutions and regulatory authorities expected us to ignore everything we learned over the years. They gagged us, deregistered and mandated mass inoculation of the population with experimental, unknown gene altering concoction for a respiratory infection that could be treated with simple meds, symptomatic relief, rest, vitamins, ivermectin etc.
Needless to say, I did not comply. I lost everything, my beloved job, rental accommodation, finances, ultimately my independence. I still do not understand how any practitioner could work with inappropriate 'health' orders without being and feeling completely compromised by the covid narrative.
Competing interests: Richard Smith was editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.
RFK came to Oregon and prevented a bill for mandatory vaccinations. Hoping he addresses this issue to all States. Infuses Confirmed consent before he unravels the insane 72 shots plus the now additional mRNA shots.
The prominent and influential institutions have been filled with compromised individuals who are bad actors, they do not serve and protect the populations but do protect themselves and the organisations or people who have placed them within the institutions. It has all been completed away from the public gaze and the creep of vaccine tyranny has slowly been progressing with them in place. We were all duped into accepting the unacceptable, "infection control" has become a tool to introduce control and surveillance into our personal lives. The covid farce accelerated all of this and clearly showed that rules and laws set out to protect us can easily be swept away when they announce the words "emergency". Doctors have been completely captured by their compromised institutions and no longer work independently, they are trained to follow the orders and keep to the medical protocols with no one questioning if the orders or the protocols are safe. All I could see in the UK was nearly all doctors following their orders with no questions asked, 100,000 health workers refused the covid vaccine mandate if this had not been reversed then the remaining compliant health care staff would cheerfully have injected the resistant workers because they had been told to. Ethics/morality or informed consent did not exist nor the fact that they knew nothing of what was being injected into people. It is to me terrifying that this could be repeated again because nothing has changed.
As you say Amat, "We were all duped into accepting the unacceptable, "infection control" has become a tool to introduce control and surveillance into our personal lives."
And now here we are with the ever-increasing lucrative 'womb to tomb' vaccination schedule which is steeped in conflicts of interest, along with the theft of autonomy and privacy.
Way past time to shine the spotlight on this exploitation and abuse of the population.
The subordination of the medical profession during the pandemic had something to do with the facts (1) many government institutions have regulatory power so extensive, that independent clinics could be harassed into closure; and (2) more and more medical professionals, including MD's, are now salaried jobs. In states like Texas, they can be fired without any reason or warning. An MD still needing to pay off his student loans will not be very strong against the CDC, the hospital administrators, or the insurance companies.
I acknowledge that the medical profession was under duress to comply with the 'Covid' narrative, and apparently didn't have the fortitude to call it out.
The fact remains...vaccinating practitioners have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to obtain valid consent for vaccination. They MUST NOT vaccinate people who have not given voluntary informed consent, i.e. people who are under threat of penalty if they refuse to comply. But they DID inject people they knew were under duress - coercion and mandates.
So who is going to be held accountable?
There is NO VALID CONSENT.
100 percent true.
It would appear to me that RFK Jr. has the power now and the authority now to require a statement that the CDC opposes mandatory vaccines because that violates the Constitutional requirement of fully informed medical consent and that the CDC recommendations/suggestions are prohibited from being interpreted by any individual as a mandate because that would illegally violate the US Constitution's intent of medical consent and choice given to each individual by their Creator. I would think such a statement could be put either at the front or the end of that document with the CDC's recommendation. Then RFK Jr. should ask the President to make this an executive order and to ask Congress to clarify this in the Rules and Regulations that federal employees are required to file. I'm not certain if that's Section 7 Rules of Conduct?
And questions have to be asked as to how the medical doctors on the CDC ACIP have gone along for years with their 'recommendations' being translated into vaccine mandates in the states. Why didn't these medical doctors speak out and warn that mandates violate valid voluntary informed consent, i.e. that medical products must not be mandated and pressed upon people/guardians who do not want them, under threat of penalties.
We need to get this talked about.
I would think that RFK Jr. would want to avoid challenging the States, except in passing.
He needs to shrink the government from 13 agencies to likely one agency, and he needs to figure out his priorities and focus on them and he needs to do all of this within 2 years. I like the suggestion asking if RFK JR will challenge the way the US States interpret vaccines as mandatory, but see my earlier statement of a way to do that more effectively without dealing with a hornet's nest that will distract him.
I have issues with the assumptions of fully informed consent. Can anybody inform me if prescribing doctors actually have access to pharmaceutical drug inserts, if they don't have drug samples in house, if they don't have a pharmacy in-house? I don't think they have such access, yet everywhere I turn, pharmacists and other people keep repeating that prescribing doctors have responsibility of fully informed consent, but I don't think they have the tools--the physical paper drug insert--to do this. I positively know that the physical paper drug insert is the only legal accurate and complete data about any pharmaceutical drug, and that without providing the patient with that information, it would be impossible to provide fully informed consent. What does the law say about who is responsible for fully informed consent? Do we need to revisit that to make the drug manufacturer provide those physical paper legal publications where this is the only place a patient can get "accurate and complete" data about their prescription drug? and do we need to make the pharmacist responsible to providing it to the prescription-holder with the drug? The patient isn't getting fully informed medical consent from anybody, but that is the legal information that the patient needs to know but I feel the drug companies and the big-chain-pharmacies are colluding to not provide that insert to the patient in a covert agreement to not provide patients with the facts they need to go back and talk to their doctor about the horrible symptoms that their drug--like the example given on this page of statins--because statin takers are so certain that if the symptoms I see in them were caused by their statin, that their doctor would tell them, and their doctor didn't tell them, so I'm wrong because they don't have that legal publication that was intended to travel with the drug and likely their doctor hasn't seen it either, and won't see it because they don't bring that insert they don't have into the doctor for a consult about it.
Interesting thoughts Susan...
What we need is open discussion on these matters, it's been suppressed for years.
My goal is simple - that people are not coerced and mandated to have medical products they don't want, that they are free to refuse medical interventions without penalty.
At the moment, I think vaccination is the only medical intervention that is mandatory for many people?
How the heck could that happen...with the collaboration of vaccinating practitioners who have no clue what they're doing?
Anyway, let's try and start the conversation...
I saw a video a couple of years ago, where an American lady asked a pharmacist if she could see the drug insert in the box with the “covid” vax, and when the pharmacist got it out and unfolded it, to his surprise there was absolutely nothing written on either side of it. I think the pharmacist cursed and threw it in the bin, then the video ended.
Probably other people have seen it. I don’t see how that pharmacist could inform the patient to get their consent to have that one!
I'm nervous of centralised control. Shrinking the agencies to one would lead to room for abuses of power. We don't know who will have control in future.
In my 20 years as an Australian RN/RM, I don't believe I ever witnessed proper informed consent for any: procedure, medication, investigation. I sometimes saw lies and deliberate omission of information. There is research showing medical professionals sometimes deliberately lie to patients because they want the patient to do what the medical professional thinks is best. The problem is of course that medical professionals generally believe that what they are taught, standards of care, protocols and guidelines, are based on evidence, which they rarely are. Also not taken into account is that we are all individuals and we react differently to any treatment etc. So what may be appropriate to many is not always appropriate to all.
Usually I called this out which got me into a lot of trouble sometimes, but my role as patient advocate was important.
We know that a large percentage of medical practitioners in this great country profess a faith in God. If this is the case, why do they not follow His handbook? For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandments, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:9-10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 We all lead busy lives, perhaps those in the medical profession need to take time to reflect and reaffirm the Blessings they have received in helping others in the quest for health. Be....in the Word.
At this point does there remain any good reason - a reason which benefits anyone other than those who profit from the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products of dubious health benefit - to continue the unquestioned use of all vaccines? It certainly seems that there is sufficiently compelling evidence calling into question the entire scientific basis for the usefulness and efficacy of vaccinations, as well as their potential harms, that further approvals should be halted and every existing vaccine should be carefully re-examined and scrutinized. That should apply to every human vaccine as well as animal vaccines - chickens, cattle, dogs, everything. It is not inconceivable that the entire vaccine industry may be exposed as nothing more than a giant, harmful, dangerous money-making scheme. Perhaps not, but the possibility seems increasingly likely. Stop the potential poisoning of people and food until an honest, proper, unbiased scientific investigation shows whether each and every vaccine can be proven safe and beneficial to people other than vaccine manufacturers.
If the essential facts of the contents of the vaccines were widely known the framework for the discussion would be forever altered. This is precisely why they keep this essential reality from being discussed.
If you are going to get a vaccine be sure you ask your doctor a few questions:
Hey doc can you tell me a bit about the vaccine substrate and how it’s grown?
What about the antigen itself? What are all the excipients, stabilizers, adjuvants, etc. in this product?
Does your pediatrician/doctor not bring these questions up? Does your doctor/pediatrician go over the ingredients that are involved in these mass inoculation programs? Of course they don't.
Here is a list, not comprehensive, of many of the ingredients found in this health product:
formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, sodium chloride, polysorbate 80, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, yeast protein, calf serum, lactalbumin hydrolysate, formaldehyde, glutaraldhyde, yeast protein, aluminum phosphate, bovine serum albumin, glutaraldehyde, MRC-5 cellular protein, polymyxin B sulfate, 2-phenoxyethanol, Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, amino acids, dextrose, hemin chloride, mineral salts, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, potassium aluminum sulfate, sodium borate, soy peptone, yeast protein, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, non-viral protein, DNA, bovine albumin, sodium borate, monobasic potassium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium, taurodeoxycholate, ovalbumin, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, betapropiolactone, hydrocortisone, thimerosal, sodium chloride, monobasic sodium phosphate, dibasic sodium phosphate, polysorbate 20, baculovirus, Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins, baculovirus and cellular DNA, Triton X-100, Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein, phosphate buffered saline, MDCK cell DNA, cetyltrimethlyammonium bromide, β-propiolactone, ovalbumin, dextran, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium potassium, magnesium sulfate, ferric (III) nitrate, sodium pyruvate, D-glucose, concentrated vitamin solution, L-cystine, L-tyrosine, amino acids, L-glutamine, calcium chloride, sodium hydrogenocarbonate, and phenol red, sorbitol, Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1) and more....
Not to mention the various metal contaminants identified in many vaccines including platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, tungsten, antimony, bismuth and cerium.
How many people would allow these synthetic substances to be injected into their children's body if they knew what was in those poisoned needles?
I agree, look at all that extraneous crap practitioners are expected to inject. Those inoculating the population under mandated orders are setting themselves up to injure someone. Providing Information to gain consent for 'vaccines' containing these toxins is fraught with danger.
In principle, this is all correct.
Medical professionals should not administer interventions without the fully informed, unforced, free, consent of the patient, or their guardian.
All laws which require anything to the contrary are wrong, in principle - and these are very important principles, Such laws should be judged to be invalid according to applicable case law and/or the constitution.
However, there are several practical concerns which make everything more messy.
Firstly, the patient may be unconscious or too ill to understand any presentation of the risks and likely benefits of the proposed intervention, let alone a comprehensive presentation.
Secondly, due to language barriers, lack of time (a full presentation of the best medical knowledge, which constitutes multiple ongoing debates among leading researchers and clinicians, may take days or weeks), lack of knowledge on the part of the clinician, limits on the ability of the patient to understand all the questions which arise, even if they were fully presented (which can't be done verbally, since it involves reading research articles, scrutinising graphs and tables etc.), the patient or their guardian cannot understand all the information which describes risks and potential benefits.
Thirdly, even if a clinician somehow fully understood the field, with its debates, they would have a view of these debates which would likely differ from the view of another clinician - and this would affect how the present the material to the patient or guardian.
Fourthly, many people, as patients or guardians, don't want to be dragged into debates or to be required to think about anything complex at all. They want and expect the clinician - usually a doctor, but perhaps a physician assistant or nurse - to make a good decision for them, personally, in all their circumstances, based on his or her judgement as informed, correctly and fully, by all the pertinent research and the clinical experience of this clinician and his or her colleagues.
I doubt that it would be practical or desirable to legally mandate the conduct of clinician - patient relations to ensure the ideal outcome in such decisions, which in principle involves the patient or their guardian being fully informed about a sometimes very large, highly disputed, set of debates and disagreements.
However, it should be possible to prohibit the most obvious failures in recent years, including any kind of legal mandate regarding enforced treatment, except in clearly defined circumstances, such as involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital, being subdued and constrained physically and/or with drugs to ensure this occurs as safely as possible, and perhaps in previously defined circumstances involving behaviour which involves a suitably high risk of infecting or otherwise harming other people. For instance, though I guess it is a contrived scenario, if a person was infected by rabies and was running around biting people, then it would be reasonable to have laws which allow for forcible interventions to stop this behavior, at least. It would be a separate question as to whether this should extend to treating the disease, once the dangerous behaviour has been prevented.
There are arguments for quarantine arrangements to reduce or prevent the spread of infectious diseases. In an environment of a genuinely dangerous and practically untreatable disease, in the absence of any practically applicable test for infection, and where people are infectious before symptoms develop, there are arguments for actual lockdowns to "slow or stop the spread".
Unfortunately, laws which allow for these extreme, coercive, interventions can be abused egregiously by authorities and by clinicians, including at the corrupt behest of pharmaceutical companies, and this is especially so in a situation of panic, in which some, many or all of the public and the various professions has become highly alarmed. It might be OK if that state of alarm was well-informed, but it is far too easy for panic to develop - and especially for it to be encouraged - when a new pathogen starts spreading, when there is little solid knowledge of its transmissibility and severity.
Genuinely concerned government officials and/or practitioners may take it upon themselves to save the population from harm (in their idealised view) by deliberately fomenting fear and panic, including beyond that which is fully justified by the available information. This lead most of the problems of the COVID-19 response worldwide, especially the mandating and overly favourable promotion of the vaccines and so-called vaccines.
The whole field is a mess.
However, there can and should be robust legal protections against actions by governments or members of any profession or industry which have the effect of suppressing communication and debate about matters concerning human health, or any matters at all.
Even now, 5 years after the man-made SARS-CoV-2 virus generated a pandemic which was far worse than it would have been with proper early treatment, and with the interventions of lockdowns, masking, social distancing and especially the dangerous drugs (Remdesivir) and injections, there is no consensus on the origins of the virus or how it should be treated.
There should be consensus, since the arguments are clear and the evidence was there at the beginning and has grown continually.
I don't think anything, including the best laws, can make millions of people, subject to unreasonable fears, groupthink, corruption etc. act as if they were fully informed, highly intelligent and morally principled and wise.
However, it would be a good start to prohibit mandated medical interventions except perhaps in very narrowly defined and carefully considered circumstances.
Ideally,fully informed consent could be required by the patient or guardian before any medical intervention was undertaken, but I can't imagine how most of the population could really be fully informed, or understand all the most important arguments.
It is reasonable for patients to expect medical professionals to make the best, well-informed, decisions for them, without the patient or their guardian to have to delve into contentious medical debates. I don't know how this could be reliably achieved by legislation.
A step towards it would be explicit goverment and professional regulatory body support for a wide diversity of debate and research, with care not to sideline any such line of discussion or research because it doesn't fit with the current consensus. Then there is the problem of genuinely ineffective and/or dangerous interventions which are believed by some to be beneficial, such as homeopathy for any serious medical condition. Opinions vary on what these are, and there is probably no legislative way of defining them without suppressing much-needed research about interventions which are at odds with the current consensus, but which do have real value.
Crikey Robin, did you read the article?
It's about challenging vaccine mandates in the US...
Do you know that people are being coerced into having very questionable vaccine products? COVID-19 injections for example...they've even been mandated!
Do you support mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
Or any mandatory vaccination for that matter?
If you support mandatory vaccinations, can you please identify which specific vaccines, vaccine combinations, and revaccinations you support?
Hi Elizabeth, Of course I don't support mandatory vaccinations. I support informed, unpressured, consent.
I was exploring the practical limitations of what fully informed consent would involve in contentious medical matters, of which there are many. For instance, statins. There is a controversy about this. Dopamine antagonists for Restless Legs Syndrome - this was the consensus approach a year or so ago, but not now. Researchers have had decades to understand the etiology of RLS / Periodic Limb Movement Disorder - and it is still officially not known at all. For a perfectly good explanation: https://aminotheory.com/rlsd/briefsumm.
Paracetamol/acetaminophen is widely accepted, but it is a major cause of death and liver failure due to suicide attempts, causes emotional dulling and has been warned about for years as raising the risk of autism: Avella-Carcia et al." 2016 "Acetaminophen use in pregnancy and neurodevelopment: attention function and autism spectrum symptoms" https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/6/1987/2617189; Bauer et al. 2021 "Paracetamol use during pregnancy — a call for precautionary action" https:// www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00553-7.
I don't think there is a legal or any other way this can be achieved, but it would be a good start to have broad laws against mandatory medical interventions of any kind, with any exceptions very clearly defined, such as for patients who have no representative or guardian and who are unable to consent in an emergency situation or due to being insufficiently conscious or suffering a serious mental illness.
The way informed consent has been replaced by people accepting the COVID-19 injections out of fear for their freedom and employment, unrealistic fear of the disease and/or unrealistic confidence about their safety has been a horror.
Blockchain Bobby has got his real agenda, and the biodigital convergence along with getting everyone om the social credit score slavery system is where his caricature is needed to get the dissidents on board. I would say the incremental democide continues unabated, but the blockchained ledger- operative word 'chained' - and AI healthcare and the AI governance are the panopticon these supposed saviours are nudging the flock into while pretending to give them what they want.
Judas goats absolutely.
How easy we are to manipulate.
Look at the king of warpspeed getting all the love too ffs..
Unbelievable
In the article I’ve laid out that vaccinating practitioners have been violating valid voluntary informed consent for years by collaborating with US state vaccine mandates.
If RFK Jr is what he claims to be, he should use this opportunity to challenge why CDC ACIP vaccine ‘recommendations’ are being used to impose vaccine mandates in the US states, and to question why the medical doctors on the ACIP have not raised the alarm about their 'recommendations' being turned into mandates in the states.
Because as you rightly point out, for that old chestnut- ' the greater good', all manner of atrocity and holocaust 'for your safety' will continue with weaponised inversion of healthcare. For the 'health' of Gaia, the communitarians can justify everything they've done.
Denis Rancourt echoed your valid concern -
"My understanding from a social sciences perspective is there was a military goal here which was to inject everyone, and the way that the vaccine is a weapon is that if a government or a regime can inject anything they want, whenever they want into everyone's body, then that's the weapon right there' It doesn't matter what's in there if you have that ability, then you have a weapon, a very powerful weapon"
I've read too much into the intentions for civil depopulation to get caught up in the details. I'm sorry
Good summary by Denis Rancourt....the needle is the weapon, 'the deadly virus' is theatre...
But they forgot something...the people doing the injecting have an obligation to obtain valid consent for the intervention...they really do...
And they didn't get it.
So it's time to talk about this...because who is going to be held accountable?
The order followers, useful idiots and cannon fodder that make atrocity possible and are also oblivious to social engineers, they are going to need more trauma to snap them out of this hypnosis it would seem, although I do appreciate your tenacious focus on this aspect, as it is a foot in the door to supposedly rational discussion in this propagandised existence. It brings up a related question- what good is democracy when everyone has had multi-generational social engineers goading and caressing them into submission to the pervasive govCo love? We are arguing with the TV whilst the trauma based coercion still has its grip.
The subversive and now overt but incremental normalisation of everything they are doing in the rapid march on towards these agendas is also another weapon that seems set to render the mass destruction 'acceptable', and as the heavily scripted theatre presents and enamours Trump characters and dictatorship for the greater good, this is ridiculous considering he's an actor and not autonomous at all -for the uninitiated- neither is Rfk or Musk or anyone on the world stage . ALL IN THIS TOGETHER is a reminder and a warning to the players and they will soon know about it if they step out of line. These all be it 'Enightened' players are as groomed in their position as the audience.
All sorts of absurdity have extended the parameters of the Overton window, and as Yuri Bezmenov said, you cannot reason with the demoralised- no matter how much information, how many facts and figures you present to them. From my own direct experience, when the fear was excessive I knew something wasn't right and I starting reading the data including the insistence to medical staff that EVERYTHING was the SUPER DEADLY Covids, and then the Dr Gates / Eugenics implying everyone needed an injection to save the world from this scourge, was when the hair on the neck of my neck actually stood up. That was enough trauma to commence my journey that was into the spoon fed counter narrative initially and all the spoon fed heroes the perception managers had waiting in the wings
To those that wish to avoid the trauma of this assault and remain in the safety of the herd mentality, and the immunity it provides from realities like civil depopulation / incremental democide, the lullaby will continue to maintain their slumber, but self preservation has till managed to break some out of their reality tunnels.
I appreciate your efforts Elizabeth as much as it legitimises these captured entities to attempt to make an argument.
As you say Sonny, my "tenacious focus on this aspect...is a foot in the door to supposedly rational discussion..."
My focus is on seeking accountability for the destruction of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
It's direct action that people can take, there's no use at all in just weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...
Why not DO something?! Imagine if more people actually DID something, rather than just sit on the sidelines pouring cold water on other people's efforts...
Like work on getting that foot in the door...
Seriously, this is a solid argument.
The vaccinating practitioners are in the frame for this, for not getting valid voluntary informed consent.
And even in this crazy world we're living in, it seems they DO actually have an obligation for obtaining valid voluntary informed consent...
It seems this was forgotten by those planning this massive crime against humanity.
In Australia, the Government now admits: "Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccination."
This is recorded in these letters:
- Letter to Emma McArthur, dated 21 December 2021: https://humanityattheprecipice.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/doh-reply-21-12-2021.pdf
- Letter to Elizabeth Hart, dated 17 November 2022: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
Both those letters also confirm that the vaccinating practitioners DO NOT have specific liability protection for administering the COVID-19 shots...this might be a surprise to the practitioners, as they were led to believe they DO HAVE protection by the previous Morrison Government...but they were lied to.
So we're in a very interesting situation now, as much of the Australian population has been vaccinated in a climate of fear-mongering lies and coercion and mandates...this means there is NO VALID CONSENT. I am seeking accountability for this.
Challenge the coercion and mandates, and they cannot pull off another 'plandemic'. And bring to account the evildoers who orchestrated this fiasco.
See bailiwicknews.substack.com. We are still under a state of emergency for all sorts of viruses for the next few years as imposed by Biden’s HHS. Perhaps this can be terminated now. Does the Prep Act confer immunity to the injectors?
I have not been shown the evidence that supports the idea the Prep Act confers immunity to the injectors, i.e. that it protects injectors who inject people who are under duress to comply (i.e. coercion and mandates), so without valid voluntary informed consent for the intervention.
It seems to me vaccinating practitioners have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to obtain valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination, and to ensure people are free to accept or decline medical interventions, e.g. vaccination, as they choose.
Now waiting to see how this plays out under the new administration.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bailiwicknews/p/the-prep-act-an-act-of-treason?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tmft5
I don't trust anyone anymore, least of all those that are on the stage, but I do think the perception managers want at least a few to know something close to the truth.
Revelation of the method, predictive programming, the alchemical processing of humanity / freeze and thaw - all good reasons why the truth is never completely hidden.
We need to mandate the death penalty for anyone attempting to mandate any injection of any kind.
Millions of people have been murdered by vaxx mandates.
I still find it strange that the majority of practitioners, whether nurses or doctors complied to the narrative. Having nursed from a 17yr old til 64yr old, so 47yrs there was no way I could abandon my duty of care, informed consent policies, evidence based practice or 'vaccine' policies re no vaxx in pregnancy. Our institutions and regulatory authorities expected us to ignore everything we learned over the years. They gagged us, deregistered and mandated mass inoculation of the population with experimental, unknown gene altering concoction for a respiratory infection that could be treated with simple meds, symptomatic relief, rest, vitamins, ivermectin etc.
Needless to say, I did not comply. I lost everything, my beloved job, rental accommodation, finances, ultimately my independence. I still do not understand how any practitioner could work with inappropriate 'health' orders without being and feeling completely compromised by the covid narrative.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Citation: Smith R (2005) Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Med 2(5): e138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Published: May 17, 2005
Copyright: © 2005 Richard Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Competing interests: Richard Smith was editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.
check out a page called the expose/dr vernon coleman/ a documentary on bitchute plandemic
RFK came to Oregon and prevented a bill for mandatory vaccinations. Hoping he addresses this issue to all States. Infuses Confirmed consent before he unravels the insane 72 shots plus the now additional mRNA shots.
Our Situation
in a graph...
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/our-situation