Informed consent is different from deceiving a patient. The bait and switch is what I have a problem with. Instead if she had provided the patients information about the vaccine and allowed them to make up their own mind, I would not have a problem. The deception is the issue.
can you really give informed consent if you have a family to support and your job or government requires injecting unknown substances into your body to keep that job? I don't think so, and big pharma doesn't disclose or have liability. the problem with your analogy is saline is 100% proven to be safe, and used as a placebo. Removing a kidney is obviously not, nor are experimental drugs.
Big pharma has not given information to people such that they can make an informed decision. I agree with you on that. People that are more or less being forced to choose between their job and their health freedom have been placed in a terrible position, everyone should have the choice.
The saline is safe, yes, but it was not what the patients agreed to be injected with. Its a moral issue. Am issue of deceiving someone whom you are supposed to trust. If I go to get a tetanus shot and they give me a flu vaccine instead, I'd be pretty angry, it was not what I asked for. This is my issue, not that the saline was safe or not, but that she deceived her patients.
When this goes to the court, the nurse will be able to defend herself, by asking what exactly is in this vaccine (not a vaccine). Informed consent works both ways.
This is akin to someone telling Jews when entering the showers its only a shower. As opposed to telling the, its only a shower when in fact its a gas chamber that will lead to certain death. We are at war, and this nurse gets it.
So because they won't know the difference, it doesn't matter that they were decieved? If someone lies to me, I need to know, so that I do not trust that person any longer. I refuse to not learn from mistakes.
You can justify this saying we are at war and all options should be on the table, but we are talking about our fellow human beings. We are supposed to be coming together, not deceiving. How do you think these people will view this nurse and people like us after they find out they were deceived. Do you think they will now have any chance to be convinced to come to our side? (yes j know they probably wouldn't since they were already getting the shot, but what if the nurse had given them jnfo or warnings ahead of giving the shot, rather than just deceiving them?)
Why would she as a nurse be obliged to build trust in big pharma. Her oath is not to big pharma. Her oath is to not harming people but helping them.
Putting a needle in an arm and administer a solution with:
Gene therapie
Graphen Oxyde
aadjuvants like SM102 that should NOT EVER NEVER be injected into a marine environment. And our bodies ARE a marine environment!
is causing harm.
Are you with the program?
S-1 cannot die in the body. It will amass. And cause problems down the line.
Quite sure: you would simply do the job. She made a statement. I am sure she will pay for it. But ... her statement will further bring the message out.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the Healthcare industry, not big pharma.
Think about the patients. Do you believe they will be able to be convinced to come to our side after being deceived? This will drive them away from us, make us not trustworthy. This is my issue.
Ah yes devolving into name calling. The mark of a solid argument....
Do you even know what forum sliding is? Cause this ain't it. Thisnis called a discussion. If I was forum sliding, I would make multiple posts, not comments, to take other posts out of users view.
It does not deserve public trust. As an example, we now have MILLIONS of autistic kids in America, whose lives were RUINED by having poisonous vaccines administered to them. Puh-leez!!
I don't want to be attacked bringing this up, but I think the vaccine/autism link is overblown. I am not going to sit here and say I know that for sure because I don't, but I think it is more hereditary than it is caused by poisoning.
Two things to consider :
1> Why autism? Those on the mid-to-high functioning end of the spectrum grow to be more independent. That alone makes them less likely to be corrupted by the DS and are much harder to handle as adults. I can't see an army of autists being something the DS wants.
2> They didn't start tracking all of the various shades of the autistic spectrum until relatively recently.
My son is autistic. He's fine overall. His speech was delayed and he still has a couple of issues, but he's getting better every day. He was diagnosed as high functioning. I am almost 100% sure I would have been put on the spectrum myself had I been born later. Looking back I can identify many traits my son has. I'm pretty sure my dad would have been on the spectrum as well.
My son was vaccinated like I was. He was the exact same as he was before the shots. I have read the cases where parents claim their kids were different after the shots (I'd call them jabs, but I don't want to confuse anyone :-) ). I won't discount them ... after seeing the DS in action, I won't be surprised if they're screwing with kids via vaccines.
That being said, I don't think these standard vaccines are causing autism. Autism seems to be related to the way the brain develops ... it's as if the program responsible for brain development executes differently than those that would be called "normal". In many cases, it doesn't seem to be linked to brain damage ... I'd think that a jab that causes autism would result in some kind of damage to the brain.
I think if the DS is screwing with vaccines, it is to do pretty much what we are seeing today ... taking exotic "therapies" and testing them out in the real world with no regard for life. There are BILLIONS of dollars to be made with various shots/jabs. I'm sure the sick pricks that come up with "mandatory" ones get an extra special reward that would drive them to do sneaky shit to get feedback on their poison.
I am not some shill trying to change your mind for whatever it's worth. I'm just pointing out what I've learned and experienced ever since my son was diagnosed. I may very well be wrong of course ... it wouldn't be the first time :-) ... and I certainly encourage you to remain skeptical of anything I posted ... I just can't see that vaccine/autism link myself, but I'll certainly pay close attention to any developments.
I am not advocating vaccines. I agree they are very risky. Again the issue I have is with deception. People were told by someone they trust that they would do one thing, when they ended up doing another. Deception is evil. Information is power.
The thing about placebos is you're not supposed to know you get them. The whole vaccine is an experiment so they need to use placebos. This was probably planned and she was thrown under the bus to cover up the mass human trials currently happening. If they volunteer to be part of the vaccine experiment then by extension they volunteer for the potential for a placebo.
I agree this is one big experiment that none of us really consented to. That said, in a double blind trial, as part of the waivers, you are informed there will be placebos. There was no information to that effect in this experiment.
I don't think she's being thrown under the bus to cover up mass human trials. She will likely land in hot water though.
I thought we were the control group? Those that choose not to take a vaccine at all.
Informed consent is different from deceiving a patient. The bait and switch is what I have a problem with. Instead if she had provided the patients information about the vaccine and allowed them to make up their own mind, I would not have a problem. The deception is the issue.
can you really give informed consent if you have a family to support and your job or government requires injecting unknown substances into your body to keep that job? I don't think so, and big pharma doesn't disclose or have liability. the problem with your analogy is saline is 100% proven to be safe, and used as a placebo. Removing a kidney is obviously not, nor are experimental drugs.
Big pharma has not given information to people such that they can make an informed decision. I agree with you on that. People that are more or less being forced to choose between their job and their health freedom have been placed in a terrible position, everyone should have the choice.
The saline is safe, yes, but it was not what the patients agreed to be injected with. Its a moral issue. Am issue of deceiving someone whom you are supposed to trust. If I go to get a tetanus shot and they give me a flu vaccine instead, I'd be pretty angry, it was not what I asked for. This is my issue, not that the saline was safe or not, but that she deceived her patients.
When this goes to the court, the nurse will be able to defend herself, by asking what exactly is in this vaccine (not a vaccine). Informed consent works both ways.
This is akin to someone telling Jews when entering the showers its only a shower. As opposed to telling the, its only a shower when in fact its a gas chamber that will lead to certain death. We are at war, and this nurse gets it.
Exactly. Great comparison.
The deception came from the ones who created the gene therapy and then called it a vaccine. THEY are the guilty ones.
Agree with those here that she is a hero, but once again, this is not “gene therapy”
True. It's graphene oxide poisoning.
I absolutely agree with this statement.
war is war bro
i commend this hero.
none of these people will even know the difference since apparently vaccinated people catch "covid" just the same as anyone else.
The vaxxed make the covid. Util the Vax there was NO covid. It was all psyops.
So because they won't know the difference, it doesn't matter that they were decieved? If someone lies to me, I need to know, so that I do not trust that person any longer. I refuse to not learn from mistakes.
You can justify this saying we are at war and all options should be on the table, but we are talking about our fellow human beings. We are supposed to be coming together, not deceiving. How do you think these people will view this nurse and people like us after they find out they were deceived. Do you think they will now have any chance to be convinced to come to our side? (yes j know they probably wouldn't since they were already getting the shot, but what if the nurse had given them jnfo or warnings ahead of giving the shot, rather than just deceiving them?)
You are seriously stupid. She saved their lives. Fuck off until you can think logically.
Yes she saved lives, while doing nothing to build trust in an industry that will soon loose all public trust.
Huh?
Why would she as a nurse be obliged to build trust in big pharma. Her oath is not to big pharma. Her oath is to not harming people but helping them.
Putting a needle in an arm and administer a solution with:
is causing harm.
Are you with the program?
S-1 cannot die in the body. It will amass. And cause problems down the line.
Quite sure: you would simply do the job. She made a statement. I am sure she will pay for it. But ... her statement will further bring the message out.
It's one of the bravest things I've seen anyone do during g this entire bullshit.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the Healthcare industry, not big pharma.
Think about the patients. Do you believe they will be able to be convinced to come to our side after being deceived? This will drive them away from us, make us not trustworthy. This is my issue.
It doesn't deserve our trust. It's evil through and through. NOW FUCK OFF TROLL. ENOUGH FORUM SLIDING.
Ah yes devolving into name calling. The mark of a solid argument....
Do you even know what forum sliding is? Cause this ain't it. Thisnis called a discussion. If I was forum sliding, I would make multiple posts, not comments, to take other posts out of users view.
It does not deserve public trust. As an example, we now have MILLIONS of autistic kids in America, whose lives were RUINED by having poisonous vaccines administered to them. Puh-leez!!
I don't want to be attacked bringing this up, but I think the vaccine/autism link is overblown. I am not going to sit here and say I know that for sure because I don't, but I think it is more hereditary than it is caused by poisoning.
Two things to consider :
1> Why autism? Those on the mid-to-high functioning end of the spectrum grow to be more independent. That alone makes them less likely to be corrupted by the DS and are much harder to handle as adults. I can't see an army of autists being something the DS wants.
2> They didn't start tracking all of the various shades of the autistic spectrum until relatively recently.
My son is autistic. He's fine overall. His speech was delayed and he still has a couple of issues, but he's getting better every day. He was diagnosed as high functioning. I am almost 100% sure I would have been put on the spectrum myself had I been born later. Looking back I can identify many traits my son has. I'm pretty sure my dad would have been on the spectrum as well.
My son was vaccinated like I was. He was the exact same as he was before the shots. I have read the cases where parents claim their kids were different after the shots (I'd call them jabs, but I don't want to confuse anyone :-) ). I won't discount them ... after seeing the DS in action, I won't be surprised if they're screwing with kids via vaccines.
That being said, I don't think these standard vaccines are causing autism. Autism seems to be related to the way the brain develops ... it's as if the program responsible for brain development executes differently than those that would be called "normal". In many cases, it doesn't seem to be linked to brain damage ... I'd think that a jab that causes autism would result in some kind of damage to the brain.
I think if the DS is screwing with vaccines, it is to do pretty much what we are seeing today ... taking exotic "therapies" and testing them out in the real world with no regard for life. There are BILLIONS of dollars to be made with various shots/jabs. I'm sure the sick pricks that come up with "mandatory" ones get an extra special reward that would drive them to do sneaky shit to get feedback on their poison.
I am not some shill trying to change your mind for whatever it's worth. I'm just pointing out what I've learned and experienced ever since my son was diagnosed. I may very well be wrong of course ... it wouldn't be the first time :-) ... and I certainly encourage you to remain skeptical of anything I posted ... I just can't see that vaccine/autism link myself, but I'll certainly pay close attention to any developments.
I am not advocating vaccines. I agree they are very risky. Again the issue I have is with deception. People were told by someone they trust that they would do one thing, when they ended up doing another. Deception is evil. Information is power.
Placebos exist
So do patients rights.
The thing about placebos is you're not supposed to know you get them. The whole vaccine is an experiment so they need to use placebos. This was probably planned and she was thrown under the bus to cover up the mass human trials currently happening. If they volunteer to be part of the vaccine experiment then by extension they volunteer for the potential for a placebo.
I agree this is one big experiment that none of us really consented to. That said, in a double blind trial, as part of the waivers, you are informed there will be placebos. There was no information to that effect in this experiment.
I don't think she's being thrown under the bus to cover up mass human trials. She will likely land in hot water though.
I thought we were the control group? Those that choose not to take a vaccine at all.