"Conclusion: There is no empirical evidence that any vaccine is safe or necessary for controlling infectious diseases. Hence, the use of mandatory policies with coercive strategies is a crime against the population."
Would you then support mandatory vaccines if they were empirically safe and effective against controlling an infectious disease?
One reason is because the injection of proteins, which is what the current version of "vaccination" does, not to mention all the other ingredients found in vaccines, is generally a bad idea.
Understood, but my question is: if a vaccine was shown to cause no harm and was effective against a disease, then what is the reason(s) that it should not be mandated? Would it still be a crime against the population to mandate it?
Even though I consider the question to be wrong, loaded in fact, I did answer it clearly because I don't consider it appropriate to mandate any injection.
There are other ways to protect against disease, an example would be homeopathic prophylaxis, which doesn't involve the injection of substances directly into the body.
If you answer yes to the question you pose, then perhaps we could get into how we would go about proving a vaccine caused no harm & was effective, & the nature of disease itself.
Well said Dr Wilyman. Bravo. Unfortunately these times we live in are full of deception. Nearly everything is inverted. What the majority of us have been taught to think is good for us in reality is bad for us.
Thank you for integrity and truth and your love for people and the community. There is lots of evidence that vaccines are useless and harmful and deadly. They really need to be banned. But they are making too much money based on lies and deception. People are waking up, thanks to people like yourself. Thank you again.
In response to Charl, for me the answer has to be no because we are all different, culturally, genetically.
The simplest analogy I guess could be, I don't like brussel sprouts, I don't want to eat brussel sprouts, why should I be forced to eat brussel sprouts, even though they're "good" for me. And maybe you don't like watermelon. Why should you be forced to eat watermelon, just because it's good for you?
Additionally, there is often more than one solution to a problem, "more than one way to skin a cat" as they say. Narrowing the solution to disease down to mandating a single drug is ludicrous, when we consider how nature/evolution works. We have seen this in the overuse of antibiotics.
In a just and democratic society, we must have freedom to choose, otherwise we're living in a totalitarian state.
The totalitarian state has been creeping up on us for a very long time. We are already forcibly medicated through the use of fluoride in most water supplies. Also with the so called fortification of foods. With the invention of gene editing tools, there will be an onslaught of products brought to market tweaked to be "good" for us.
Whilst all that is true, we have a choice to say no. Don't drink their water and don't eat their "food". Shop locally but not at supermarkets, go and meet your farmer or find a farmer's market. Eat organic.
I'm probably not telling you something that you don't already know, but there are still a lot of people who haven't progressed from supermarket shopping...
Here are some questions I sent to my local members of parliament some time back, no response to date:
1) Vaccines are known to occasionally kill people, as confirmed by the TGA. Do you agree that vaccine mandates therefore violate the right to life? Yes or No?
2) Is it ethical to mandate the potential killing of a few people for the perceived benefit of everyone else? Yes or No?
3) Is it ethical to discriminate against the innate characteristics of the human race? Yes or No?
4) Do Australians have the right to free, uncoerced medical consent? Yes or No?
Politicians or bureaucrats will never give yes or no answers to these questions, or any questions for that matter.
The other thing to consider is that the TGA has never admitted to any vaccine death, as far as I know. They use the words "probable" or "likely" or "unlikely" when attributing serious adverse events in temporal proximity to vaccination.
They can never guarantee that no one will die from a medical treatment, that in itself is sufficient reason that vaccine mandates are unethical. From the TGA website: "The TGA has identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination from 1,004 reports received and reviewed." "The 14 deaths likely to be related to vaccination occurred in people aged 21-81 years old." To continue to mandate this 'vaccine' even after just one death, is unethical and a crime. Their is evidence from the UK as well: "In England, there are 59 deaths registered involving COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use, of which 51 have this ICD-10 code as the underlying cause of death.
In Wales, there is 1 death registered with COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use as the underlying cause."
The way they carefully word their statements indicates to me that they will never admit to a death directly attributable to vaccines/injections. It is always framed as a "risk/benefit" analysis & that serious adverse events are "rare" or "very rare". It is also a joke the number of "likely" attributable deaths. The number, as most of us know, is much much higher, but the TGA had to be seen to be proactive in tracking "safety".
I'm well aware of how the TGA operates, they are basically a CDC-FDA lite version, although the Australian Government Corporation wants to create & probably will sooner or later a "Centers For Disease Control Australia", which may well mean the TGA will get rolled up into it.
I agree with you, it is unethical, but the system & its minions also can entangle you with "ethics".
Anyone who argues against ethics is simply unethical themselves. A weak ethicist will always get entangled. Risk/benefit argument is the wrong argument. Who do you risk (kill), so that who can benefit (live)? Just silly nonsense.
Not sure why, perhaps it's because they belong to societies and associations.
"Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda)." - Michael Kowalik. The only ethicist I've found making strong arguments.
As Michael puts it: "The reason it appears that ethicists have been disappointing is because only mediocre ethicists are given voice by the leading alternative media profiteers and the rebel doctor ‘movement’. Their counter-narrative does not seem to want any clear cut, rational answers, no civil solutions, only a revolution."
Great work Than You. Australian immigrant Michael Denborough did a paper on the connection between Immunisation and SIDS in 1962. The roll of Calcium in Drug Action. The Calcium causing malignant hyperthermia. I was born in 61 and my 6 month Whooping Cough immunisation nearly killed me so my parents tell me. The WHO removed Death by Immunisation/Vaccination from the International Coroner’s Code to protect the manufacturers from litigation.
"Conclusion: There is no empirical evidence that any vaccine is safe or necessary for controlling infectious diseases. Hence, the use of mandatory policies with coercive strategies is a crime against the population."
Would you then support mandatory vaccines if they were empirically safe and effective against controlling an infectious disease?
The answer to that should be no.
I'd like Judy's response to this important question.
In your opinion, why should the answer be no?
One reason is because the injection of proteins, which is what the current version of "vaccination" does, not to mention all the other ingredients found in vaccines, is generally a bad idea.
2nd last paragraph.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture/
Understood, but my question is: if a vaccine was shown to cause no harm and was effective against a disease, then what is the reason(s) that it should not be mandated? Would it still be a crime against the population to mandate it?
Even though I consider the question to be wrong, loaded in fact, I did answer it clearly because I don't consider it appropriate to mandate any injection.
There are other ways to protect against disease, an example would be homeopathic prophylaxis, which doesn't involve the injection of substances directly into the body.
If you answer yes to the question you pose, then perhaps we could get into how we would go about proving a vaccine caused no harm & was effective, & the nature of disease itself.
My question is the argument some proponents of vaccines will put forward. They will entangle you with their science.
Well said Dr Wilyman. Bravo. Unfortunately these times we live in are full of deception. Nearly everything is inverted. What the majority of us have been taught to think is good for us in reality is bad for us.
Thank you for integrity and truth and your love for people and the community. There is lots of evidence that vaccines are useless and harmful and deadly. They really need to be banned. But they are making too much money based on lies and deception. People are waking up, thanks to people like yourself. Thank you again.
In response to Charl, for me the answer has to be no because we are all different, culturally, genetically.
The simplest analogy I guess could be, I don't like brussel sprouts, I don't want to eat brussel sprouts, why should I be forced to eat brussel sprouts, even though they're "good" for me. And maybe you don't like watermelon. Why should you be forced to eat watermelon, just because it's good for you?
Additionally, there is often more than one solution to a problem, "more than one way to skin a cat" as they say. Narrowing the solution to disease down to mandating a single drug is ludicrous, when we consider how nature/evolution works. We have seen this in the overuse of antibiotics.
In a just and democratic society, we must have freedom to choose, otherwise we're living in a totalitarian state.
The totalitarian state has been creeping up on us for a very long time. We are already forcibly medicated through the use of fluoride in most water supplies. Also with the so called fortification of foods. With the invention of gene editing tools, there will be an onslaught of products brought to market tweaked to be "good" for us.
Whilst all that is true, we have a choice to say no. Don't drink their water and don't eat their "food". Shop locally but not at supermarkets, go and meet your farmer or find a farmer's market. Eat organic.
I'm probably not telling you something that you don't already know, but there are still a lot of people who haven't progressed from supermarket shopping...
💯 percent correct.
Here are some questions I sent to my local members of parliament some time back, no response to date:
1) Vaccines are known to occasionally kill people, as confirmed by the TGA. Do you agree that vaccine mandates therefore violate the right to life? Yes or No?
2) Is it ethical to mandate the potential killing of a few people for the perceived benefit of everyone else? Yes or No?
3) Is it ethical to discriminate against the innate characteristics of the human race? Yes or No?
4) Do Australians have the right to free, uncoerced medical consent? Yes or No?
Only a Yes or No to each question is required.
Politicians or bureaucrats will never give yes or no answers to these questions, or any questions for that matter.
The other thing to consider is that the TGA has never admitted to any vaccine death, as far as I know. They use the words "probable" or "likely" or "unlikely" when attributing serious adverse events in temporal proximity to vaccination.
They can never guarantee that no one will die from a medical treatment, that in itself is sufficient reason that vaccine mandates are unethical. From the TGA website: "The TGA has identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination from 1,004 reports received and reviewed." "The 14 deaths likely to be related to vaccination occurred in people aged 21-81 years old." To continue to mandate this 'vaccine' even after just one death, is unethical and a crime. Their is evidence from the UK as well: "In England, there are 59 deaths registered involving COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use, of which 51 have this ICD-10 code as the underlying cause of death.
In Wales, there is 1 death registered with COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use as the underlying cause."
https://www.tga.gov.au/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety-reports/covid-19-vaccine-safety-report-02-11-23
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsduetocovid19covid19vaccineinjuryandexcessdeathsbyvaccinationstatus
The way they carefully word their statements indicates to me that they will never admit to a death directly attributable to vaccines/injections. It is always framed as a "risk/benefit" analysis & that serious adverse events are "rare" or "very rare". It is also a joke the number of "likely" attributable deaths. The number, as most of us know, is much much higher, but the TGA had to be seen to be proactive in tracking "safety".
I'm well aware of how the TGA operates, they are basically a CDC-FDA lite version, although the Australian Government Corporation wants to create & probably will sooner or later a "Centers For Disease Control Australia", which may well mean the TGA will get rolled up into it.
I agree with you, it is unethical, but the system & its minions also can entangle you with "ethics".
See here for an example:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13015
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/04/04/bioethics-recycles-old-antivax-tropes-about-covid-vaccines-for-children/
Anyone who argues against ethics is simply unethical themselves. A weak ethicist will always get entangled. Risk/benefit argument is the wrong argument. Who do you risk (kill), so that who can benefit (live)? Just silly nonsense.
Why do you think there were so few ethicists like Julie Ponesse to actually speak up? Where were the ethics societies & associations?
The last 4 years isn't the first time vaccines/gene therapies have been made mandatory. Children & healthcare workers have been harmed for decades.
Not sure why, perhaps it's because they belong to societies and associations.
"Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda)." - Michael Kowalik. The only ethicist I've found making strong arguments.
As Michael puts it: "The reason it appears that ethicists have been disappointing is because only mediocre ethicists are given voice by the leading alternative media profiteers and the rebel doctor ‘movement’. Their counter-narrative does not seem to want any clear cut, rational answers, no civil solutions, only a revolution."
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
For more deception
Oxygen is a poison
Oxygen is manufactured from air.
Oxygen is not a constituent of air.
Oxygen is made by stripping air of water.
Medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination.
Whereas: air is measured by its humidity. Eg it’s 60% humidity today.
Oxygen obviously can not co-exist in air.
Once released from its confinement oxygen rapidly absorbs moisture from its surroundings and reverts to its natural state: air.
Oxygen is a powerful dehydrator.
When released inside the respiratory system it strips moisture from the mucosa and dehydrates the delicate alveoli.
This is the mechanism of oxygen’s toxicity.
Still think air is made of oxygen and nitrogen?
Find the volunteers who entered a room filled with 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and lived to tell their stories.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Oxygen becomes nitrogen with the addition of carbon particles. Nitrogen is simply non-flammable oxygen.
As both oxygen and nitrogen are manmade they are not going to be essential in mammalian physiology.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/peter-and-pete-demonstrate-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
NaCl is an essential part of mammalian physiology. Restricting salt has produced numerous chronic states of dis-ease.
Study the dis-ease of cystic fibrosis to see how salt deficiency manifests.
My article titled
How does salt restriction lead to heart dis-ease and fear based reactionary thinking?
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/how-does-salt-restriction-lead-to?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Examines the role the adrenals must play in a salt restricted body or a dehydrated body.
Great work Than You. Australian immigrant Michael Denborough did a paper on the connection between Immunisation and SIDS in 1962. The roll of Calcium in Drug Action. The Calcium causing malignant hyperthermia. I was born in 61 and my 6 month Whooping Cough immunisation nearly killed me so my parents tell me. The WHO removed Death by Immunisation/Vaccination from the International Coroner’s Code to protect the manufacturers from litigation.