Disclaimer – This is for informational and educational purpose only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
In part II of this series on Informed Consent, we can examine scenarios to determine how it can be that we are now living in Auschwitz.
Somewhere along the way, entities and certain individuals determined many things could be done without obtaining informed consent IF it could be done through government permission, government sanction/edict, or without the people’s knowledge. When the people did not vehemently oppose government interference or government allowed certain “violations” to take place, the assumption became that informed consent was not needed nor necessary. For companies committing acts without the people’s knowledge, such as BD releasing ethylene oxide into the atmosphere in small towns, it was the old adage, “what the people don’t know, won’t hurt them.” Unfortunately, it is not the case (Hosea 4:6). As we have discovered over the years, what people don’t know can hurt them and damage is done that cannot be rectified. To this end, companies view lawsuits and penalties for harm caused as “the cost of doing business.” It goes along with “it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.”
Everyone should be familiar with what happened in Auschwitz – horrible medical experiments conducted upon the imprisoned, murder of individuals because of ethnicity, starvation, and other atrocities that are rarely mentioned. It is hard to believe the people of Germany did not know that people were being murdered and incinerated when the ashes of those incinerated were raining down on them from the chimneys of the ovens. One could say they held the opinion that if government sanctioned the acts, it was acceptable. It could have been that the opinion was “it was the cost of doing business” in order to achieve the misplaced ideological goal of a “pure race”. Or, maybe it was the “better to ask forgiveness than permission” mantra. Then, again, it could have been a matter of coercion and threat of punitive consequences that garnered the silence of the people. In any circumstance, informed consent was not obtained of the people to commit such acts in their name by their government and informed consent to participate in “experiments” was denied those who were imprisoned.
Fast forward to today. We the People of the united States of America gave informed consent for representative government to do only a limited number of actions, which are found in our Constitution, Article I, Section 8. All else being done, even with representation, outside of Article I, Section 8, is done without the “consent of the governed”. Regardless of the mantra, “silence is consent”, if the people are not informed of an action properly, silence cannot be considered consent. In this context, think of chemtrails, harmful food additives, etc. It goes along the lines of “what the people don’t know won’t hurt them”. As has been demonstrated throughout history, what you don’t know can definitely hurt you. It also reeks of “better to ask forgiveness than permission” and “it’s the cost of doing business” when caught.
Let’s look at an issue that hits close to home – vaccines (Revelation 18:23) to attend public schools (brainwashing centers) and universities (indoctrination centers; Daniel 1:4). The reference to brainwashing and indoctrination without informed consent will be covered in another part of the series. At this point, no one should be sending their children to public brainwashing or indoctrination centers, but that is a different discussion. The history behind the requirement for vaccines in school will not be covered since it is too lengthy. The current situation today will be covered as it relates to informed consent.
There is not an individual with children who has not heard of the “Recommended Vaccination Schedule for Children”. You can find it here. It even references “recommended”. Yet, States will deny children entry into the public school system and universities IF a child does not have the “recommended” vaccines. The denial of entry into the public school and university system is a punitive measure for exercising informed consent. But, is informed consent of the parents obtained by the physician when recommending vaccines? Please review the entire section carefully on the process of informed consent contained in Part I. Are parents being coerced to vaccinate their children under the mantra, “you won’t be ‘allowed’ to send your child to school without them”? Or, are parents just told, “at this visit, your child will receive ‘x, y, and z’ vaccines”? None of this is informed consent per the AMA or the paper at the NIH National Library of Medicine referenced in Part I.
Now, some States provide “religious exemptions”, “medical contraindication exemptions”, or “philosophical objection exemptions” that must be approved. Some provide none while others only provide one or two of these. This totally negates informed consent. How? Any decision on any medical intervention is required ethically and legally by the State to have informed consent obtained by the provider, normally a physician. When a State or other entity can override that informed consent by demanding an exemption that must be approved by it, the legal standard on informed consent is negated, if proper informed consent was ever obtained in the first place. In the State of Georgia, the religious exemption form states at the very end, “… my child may be required to receive a vaccination in the event that such a disease is in epidemic stages, as provided in Georgia Code Section 31-12-3 and DPH rule 511-9-1-.03(2)(d).”
As a parent, would you give your consent for your baby, young child to receive “vaccines” that have never been tested using a placebo-controlled trial? According to Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 1986 hard copy, a placebo is defined as “Inactive substance given to satisfy patient’s demand for medicine. Also used in controlled studies of drugs. The placebo is given to a group of patients and the drug being tested is given to a similar group, then the results obtained in the two groups is compared.” The Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines placebo as “a substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings”; think saline injections or sugar pills. Most parents would say “no” to injecting their children with substances that have not been subjected to properly controlled trials using a placebo. Yet, it occurs constantly as parents are not told this information by physicians or State entities. And, this information is readily available to all physicians on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website through on-line package inserts. Would this not be considered “relevant information” a parent would need to make an informed decision? Yes. How could the risks of a vaccine be communicated if it was never trialed against a placebo? It couldn’t. None of the vaccines were ever trialed either to determine the risks when administered at the same time, during the same visit. Would that be “relevant information” a parent would need to provide informed consent? Of course.
It would also be relevant to know the ingredients in childhood vaccines for informed consent. Review the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Pink Book, Appendix B, for a list of ingredients contained in common childhood vaccines. Many vaccines contain aluminum salts, formaldehyde, fetal calf bovine serum, porcine (pig) “virus”, human DNA, unknown DNA, MRC-5 cells (aborted fetal cells), canine kidney cells, unidentified ingredients listed as “other buffer and media ingredients”, WI-38 cells (aborted fetal cells), and “other process chemical residue” just to name a few. Research each ingredient and ask yourselves, “would I want to put that in my body or the body of my child?”
Why is this not being communicated? Because most parents wouldn’t give them to their children if they knew and government agencies along with physicians have received money from the pharmaceutical companies to facilitate uptake of these interventions. It is obvious ingredients are known because of the package inserts and information on the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. For the pharmaceutical companies, the CDC and FDA, injuries, deaths, and penalties are “just the cost of doing business”. And, the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provides immunity to pharmaceutical companies from injuries as a result of their manufactured vaccines.
Armed with this information, you should be able to rationalize out the CONvid-1984 informed consent debacle. If you are having difficulty, please review Appendix 1, List of Adverse Events of Special Interest in Pfizer document 5.3.6. This document was part of the material Pfizer submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for “approval” of its modified mRNA injection and included in the first 55,000 page release. Did anyone administering these shots inform recipients about any of these health issues that could be caused by the CONvid-1984 shot as a part of informed consent? The FDA knew about it. Pfizer knew about it. You didn’t. Moreover, on page seven of Pfizer document 5.3.6, there were 1,223 deaths reported in the documents submitted to the FDA (Exodus 20:13). Wouldn’t this be relevant information to provide in order to obtain informed consent? Wouldn’t it also be relevant information for individuals to know these CONvid-1984 injections were gene-therapy and not vaccines in order to obtain informed consent?
Is any of this different than Auschwitz? Not really. Without informed consent for any intervention, medical or otherwise, it is an ethical and legal violation. Each State has laws applicable to informed consent, what constitutes a violation, and possible consequences for such. The federal government has zero authority where informed consent is concerned to make legislation regarding it or to abolish state legislation regarding informed consent.
Let’s turn our attention to chemtrails, food additives, GMO foods, GMO insects/animals, and fluoridated water in regards to informed consent and experimentation to look at it through the lens of informed consent.
It has been established informed consent was not obtained for any of the above listed. Remember, just because the local public servants inform you of the release of GMO mosquitoes they are allowing, it does not mean you have been given informed consent. Anything done to the atmosphere or environment inevitably affects everyone, not just those in a small area.
To put this in perspective, let’s ask this question – does a majority vote of representatives in government in favor of chemtrails override informed consent? The answer is no, it does not. They would only be able to give informed consent for you IF you have legally made those representatives a “legal guardian”. Those representatives cannot appoint themselves your legal guardian without first determining in court you were unable to make decisions for yourself. Representatives holding office are only given limited authority under the Constitution. Governments were not given authority to alter the atmosphere or the environment. In that respect, there is no “consent of the governed”.
The next question that would follow is “can a majority vote of people override informed consent?” Again, the answer is no. A majority of people cannot vote to negate informed consent. So, if a majority of citizens could vote that it is acceptable to place poison in food for you to eat, you have ceased to be free, have bodily autonomy, and have, in essence, become a slave or prisoner of Auschwitz. Just as a majority cannot vote to remove the right to informed consent, a minority cannot vote to do it either – think legislative bodies, courts, local government entities, corporations, etc.
The same goes for corporations. Even if the “government” approved additives to food, which they have, without informed consent, it amounts to experimentation on people. The Nuremberg Code, established after World War II, addressed experimentation without informed consent.
Regarding chemtrails, the spraying of unknown chemicals into the air to filter down upon the people by government or a corporation without informed consent is a violation. We do not live in a bubble. Even one person objecting or refusing would mean ceasing the operation. But, we see it done daily. No one can or will tell you what happens with all the chemicals being sprayed in the atmosphere. No one can or will tell you the risks. No one can come up with any benefits nor can a definite risk to benefit ratio be given. It is absolutely known that no one will tell you what chemicals are in those trails of cloud-like threads streaked across the sky. So, how have you given any informed consent for it? You haven’t.
Knowing this, you should be able to understand the “experimental” nature of the CONvid-1984 injections and continued emergency use authorization, which allows “experimental” interventions to be used, but only in a very specific set of circumstances – those circumstances were not satisfied as other interventions were available to treat those who were sick. Informed consent is essential for any experimental product or action. Key to the administration of any experimental product is the right of the individual to withdraw at any point. Mandates in regards to any product, but particularly an experimental one, denies the individual of the right to withdraw from it. Any type of “mandate”, whether government issued or private sector issued, denies the individual of the right to informed consent or informed permission in the case of a minor child, unless the minor child falls under previously identified circumstances in Part I. And, any punishment/consequences because of exercise of informed consent to refrain from receiving medical intervention is prohibited. But, what was seen during the CONvid-1984 debacle?
In the case of a terminal illness where all approved interventions will not extend or save the individual’s life, the individual may request an experimental intervention. But, informed consent is still applicable and the individual may withdraw at any point.
Considering all of this, how long have we been living in Auschwitz?
In the next installment of Informed Consent, a bit of history will be covered that will show Americans have been denied informed consent before – some without even realizing it.
