THE TRUTH HAMMER

After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never again!” would the health system be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience.

Among these were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration and the Nuremberg Code.

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment… Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” – http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

.“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…” –http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html

.“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” –http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html

Informed consent may be defined:

“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognised standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centeric approach to “informed consent.” Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Informed consent is under attack worldwide.the Government of Australia, another “advanced” country with very high infant mortality and a large number of “recommended” infant vaccines, seeks to abolish religious conscientious objections to vaccination and will deny welfare benefits to non-vaccinating children.

In Australia the immediate-past vax-pushing Prime Minister (whose three daughters did not receive the very dangerous Gardasil vax) and the new PM, Malcolm Turnbull want to force all poor families on government assistance to receive all “required” vaccines, or be denied public assistance. Giving parents the choice between an uninsurable, potentially dangerous medical intervention with foreseeable harm or having the public support they need to survive is a type of the “force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” for which the Nazi doctors were hung.

No civilized country is permitted to condition the receipt of public benefits on the surrender of a right; that is called an “unconstitutional condition” and is a mark of tyranny.

While we are told that “correlation is not causation” we also know that there is always correlation when there is causation, which is strongly suggested by this comparison of two graphs from a US government-published study. What we do below is show the two graphs together. What the graphs show is that, in general, the more required infant vaccines the worse the infant mortality.

Australia and the USA have the sad distinction of the most “recommended” infant vaccines and very high, unacceptably high, rates of infant mortality.

LINKS