Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Informed Consent for Covid Vaccine
Physician: Informed Consent For COVID Vaccine Requires Full Disclosure Of Risk & Liability, And Here It Is…
Blaylock On Vaccines: What You Need To Know For Informed Consent

Prior to taking any unapproved drug, you have the right to receive a broad and complete spectrum of information about the potential effects of those drugs on your body, in order for you to give “informed consent” or to refuse. Dr. Blaylock wrote this especially for this purpose.
There are four major companies offering the COVID-19 “vaccines” (biological bioengineered agents); Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Two (Pfizer and Moderna) use a technology never before approved or used “vaccine” called a messenger RNA (mRNA) biological.
The mRNA biologicals encase spike protein producing mRNA within a nanoparticle capsule–LNP [which contains nano-sized polyethylene glycol (PEG)] to protect the mRNA from enzymatic destruction by the vaccinated person’s cells. This prolongs the survival of the mRNA, allowing it to continuously produce the spike protein in your body.  The latter two biologicals, from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, utilize a single vaccine technology involving the use of an altered, attenuated virus (Adeno26) to generate antibodies to the spike protein.
This man-made virus literally infects the person with a spike protein-containing virus. You should know that the spike protein is the pathological part of the COVID-19 virus. In essence, you have a man-made virus, and mRNA biological that does exactly what the COVID-19 virus does to you—it exposes you to massive amounts of spike protein. Once in the body this spike protein can enter all tissues—including the heart, the brain, the lungs, the kidneys, the eyes, and the liver.  The two main sites it invades with the spike protein are the liver and the spleen—both major immune regulating sites.
Since no studies have been done on what happens to the spike proteins once they have been injected and most important, how long the mRNA will keep producing the spike proteins, we have no idea concerning the safety of these vaccines. Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have never made a vaccine before this.
It is also important to appreciate that biodistribution studies have shown that the mRNA injected into a person’s body has been found to deposit a small amount of the mRNA into several tissues, most importantly into the brain. This means that the mRNA from the vaccine is producing large amounts of the spike protein directly into your brain for what could be a prolonged period. In such a location as the brain, the spike protein will act as a continuous source of inflammation and excitotoxicity (immunoexcitotoxicity), known to be a central mechanism of several neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and ALS, among others.
Most important, one should understand these are experimental vaccines and do not have the approval of the regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In order to allow the population to use these entirely experimental biologicals the government had to declare this “pandemic” a medical emergency and utilize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)—which emphasizes that the agents are not approved and are entirely experimental. The vaccine approval process for an experimental vaccine normally requires a period as long as ten years of intensive study before a vaccine is approved.
In this case, these companies were studying these vaccines for only two months before they were released, despite the recommendation by the FDA they be studied a minimum of 2 years before approval. Meetings by the regulatory agencies were unable to come to a firm conclusion on the length of the studies needed, so EUA proceeded despite the inherent dangers to the public.
You should be aware that the so-called “studies” by these makers of the vaccines were badly flawed, in that placebos and blinding of the studies were abandoned before adequate studies were completed. This prevents researchers and regulatory agencies from being able to determine if a product is actually safe or effective.
As mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies did not conduct studies to see how the injected biologicals were distributed in the body or how long the immune stimulation would continue—which is absolutely vital as regard to safety and the risk of long-term side effects. The biodistribution studies were done independently.

Blaylock on Vaccines: What You Need To Know…
‘Our bodies are a temple’: Female soccer players sue Western Michigan University for ‘violating their religious freedoms’ with vaccine mandate

Four female soccer players at Western Michigan University (WMU) have sued the school claiming its Covid-19 vaccine mandate violates their Christian beliefs.
Emily Dahl, Hannah Redoute, Bailey Korhorn and Morgan Otteson filed a federal lawsuit on Monday in Grand Rapids after the university announced on August 12 that they have to be vaccinated by the month’s end or they would be kicked off the team.
The suit from the Great Lakes Justice Center – which was released on the eve of the vaccine deadline – stated the athletes were allowed to request religious exemptions beginning August 24, which all four players took advantage of.
According to the lawsuit the athletes were separately denied throughout the following week. On August 26 they each ‘submitted a written request for explanation for the denials and for information on their right to appeal the denial’.
The university claimed the denials were not due to ‘insufficiency or insincerity’ of their religious beliefs and cited their written response which stated the school ‘has a compelling interest in taking action to avoid the significant risk posed to the intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due to unvaccinated participants’.
To accomplish that, the school is ‘prohibiting unvaccinated members of the teams from engaging in practices and competition’.
Read more: ‘Our bodies are a temple’: Female soccer players sue Western Michigan University for ‘violating their religious freedoms’ with vaccine mandate
PROMIC Provide Vaccine Exemption Forms

The forms below have been prepared to assist and empower an individual to make a fully informed choice as to whether they want to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. No guarantees are provided as to whether (1) any health professional will accept or sign the form (2) the form will be recognised by any organisation. The forms are not intended to give, nor do they give, any medical or legal advice. If an individual has any concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine or if they are being told or recommended to have the COVID-19 vaccine, they are encouraged to seek independent legal and medical advice.

View here.
Telegram Post (Nicholas Veniamin)

Forwarded to me …


The secret is NOT to refuse it....
I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead.
I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements:
1. Can you please advise me of the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?
2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?
3. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since its introduction?
4. Can you please advise of the full list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?
5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT ‘experimental mRNA gene altering therapy’?
6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?
Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:
1. You confirm that I will suffer no harm.
2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.
3. In the event that I should have to decline the office of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?
4. I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.
The point being though, is that they CANNOT provide that information but you’ve NOT refused their request nor their bullying (whatever the case may be) to have the jab!
Much love to you all using this and may GOD bless you!

FB Post (Contract Law Commercial Liens Control your Strawman)

This is a post by Andrew James Spencer I just had to change it slightly for obvious reasons
For those you need to know:
It is not legal for workers to be required to have jellybeans to keep their job. - See notes below from UK Column 08-9-2021 (Video clip)
Legal Advice Network London - Edward Lowe (Director)
Sent a letter to Sajid Javid (Health Secretary) regarding:
The Health & Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amended) Charlie Victor Regulations 2021.
BUT Section 45E of the parent Primary legislation, the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 states:
this type of Treatment.
(1) Regulation under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo this type of treatment.
(2) this type of Treatment includes jellybeans and other toffee apple treatments.
This overrides the Charlie Victor Regulations which are
unenforceable, because the provision of an Act takes precedent over provisions of any regulation.
Also, the government has failed to explain that there is valid clinical reasons for not being a jellybean as provided by the regulation, therefore causing coercion, harassment and loss of income.
Ask questions in an Affidavit to your employer, and include a Notice of their Liability.
It is highly unlikely that you will get a proper rebuttal reply, but that is good because therefore they have remained silent and not rebutted your affidavit, which therefore stands as truth.
Hope this is helpful.
sorry for the insanity of word play but farce book do like to play their pathetic games.
However, rather than an affidavit i a man have a very powerful notice that any man or woman can and should use if there is any mention of such gobbledygook in the workplace.
We are men and women, we are not persons. Only a person can be told what to do as they are owned by the government. If you still believe you have to follow a private corporation's rules then you are still suffering from complex PTSD which was created in your head at school. PLEASE STOP IT.
You are a living, flesh, and blood creature of YHWH not a fictional thing on a piece of paper.
No one and nothing can tell a man or a woman what to do. We must realize who we are.
PROMIC - professionals For Medical Informed Consent and Non-Discrimination …


Professionals for Medical Informed Consent and Non-Discrimination (PROMIC) is an umbrella group for organisations of health professionals, scientists and lawyers established in August 2021.

The founding organisations of PROMIC are the Alliance for Natural Health International and the UK Medical Freedom Alliance
The two main objectives of PROMIC are to facilitate: 

  1. properly informed medical consent, especially in relation to COVID-19 vaccination and testing, and; 

  2. the avoidance of discrimination by governments authorities, institutions or private companies based on an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination or testing status.



Seeking informed consent to medical treatments from patients is a fundamental principle of medicine. It is the process by which an individual agrees to a particular medical treatment be it a vaccine, a pharmaceutical treatment, surgery, or investigative or diagnostic tests, after considering known risks and benefits of the treatment or test in question.

Informed consent also requires that an individual is provided with relevant information on available alternatives.

There are four basic pre-requisites for informed consent to be valid:
  • Consent must be given voluntarily, without coercion or duress

  • The individual giving consent must be deemed to have the mental capacity/ability to make the decision

  • The clinician or other health professional responsible for administering or prescribing the treatment, test or procedure must disclose the expected benefits and risks of the given treatment, test or procedure along with the likelihood of those risks/benefits occurring

  • The individual needs to be able to understand the information she or he is given.
Legal precedent has refined the definition of informed consent in the UK to stating that
 “…doctors must ensure their patients are aware of the risks of any treatments they offer and of the availability of any reasonable alternatives.”

Elsewhere, the definition is similar, such as in the US, the European UnionAustralia and South Africa
Telegram Post (VGC Chat)

Since there is no such thing as a medical intervention that is 100% safe and effective for all people, a risk/benefit analysis is required in order to decide whether to undergo any medical intervention.  Human health is highly personal, and health outcomes are determined by a myriad of factors such as genetic predisposition, age, diet, environmental toxins, pre-existing health conditions, other medications, etc.  Our objective is to weigh the available data for risk of serious health outcome due to COVID-19 infection vs risk/benefit of COVID-19 vaccine intervention.

Learn more:
Alert: Japan Places Myocarditis Warning on ‘Vaccines’ – Requires Informed Consent -

Japan is now labeling Covid “vaccines” to warn of dangerous and potentially deadly side effects such as myocarditis. In addition, the country is reaffirming its commitment to adverse event reporting requirements to ensure all possible side effects are documented.

These efforts from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the deceptive measures taken by other countries to coerce citizens into taking the injection, downplaying side effects, and discouraging proper adverse event reporting.

Additionally, Japan is emphasizing informed consent and bodily autonomy. Until the coronavirus pandemic, the concept of “informed consent” was considered sacred to healthcare professionals in the West.

Japan is particularly raising concerns about the risks of myocarditis in young men injected with Pfizer or Moderna’s genetherapy treatment. The country is enforcing a strict legal reporting requirement of side effects that must take place within 28 days of the injections…
Entire England hospital units may close as staff revolt over fake vaccine mandate, says NHS leader (The government is all about protecting your health you see)

Entire hospital units could be forced to shut because of staff quitting in protest at the government’s order that they must all be vaccinated against Covid-19, a senior NHS leader has warned.
Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, said that at one hospital trust in England, 40 midwives were refusing to get jabbed, raising fears that the maternity unit may have to close.
“Trust leaders are acutely aware that, from April onwards, when Covid vaccinations will become mandatory, decisions by staff to remain unvaccinated could – in extreme circumstances – lead to patient services being put at risk,” said Hopson.
“If sufficient numbers of unvaccinated staff in a particular service in a particular location choose not to get vaccinated, the viability and/or safety of that service could be at risk.”
Hopson did not name the trust. But he cautioned that its maternity unit is “one representative example” of potential closures on grounds of patient safety that the government’s decision to compel NHS staff in England to be vaccinated or risk losing their job could lead to.
Hopson said: “I was talking to a [trust] chief executive who said that 40 of the midwives on their midwifery service … were saying they were not prepared to be vaccinated. Those staff, given their skills and their expertise, are not easily redeployed but they’re also extremely difficult to replace.
Read more: Entire England hospital units may close as staff revolt over fake vaccine mandate, says NHS leader (The government is all about protecting your health you see)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)