FORCED COVID-19 “JABS” = PHARMACEUTICAL RAPE=============
In a PHARMACEUTICAL RAPE culture, doctors and patients unknowingly trust what are oftentimes pseudo-scientific facts put forth by drug makers about drug safety.
Both doctors and patients end up disbelieving the reality of the adverse events they see and instead believe alternate explanations for such events. A pharmaceutical rape culture condones harms caused by the industry-government-medical trade alliance because the culture produces, reproduces, and is completely saturated with “information” that supports that alliance.
Behaviors associated with pharmaceutical rape • Denial of widespread pharmaceutical rape: A tendency to remain oblivious in the face of evidence of harm. • Trivializing pharmaceutical rape: A response to harm by denying that real damage was done. • Medical/pharmaceutical objectification/commodification: An attitude about patients that is limited to placing primary value on what goods or services can be employed for reimbursement or compensation. Reducing him/her to a commodity with value being limited to financial usefulness. • The refusal to acknowledge reports: only accepting controlled clinical trials and not case studies.
Rape involves a bodily violation. Something is put into your body that causes harm, something that you didn’t consent to, something that if you had known about you might have made a different choice.
Pharmaceutical rape involves trusting and having that trust violated. Pharmaceutical rape involves suffering physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual damage at the hands of those holding power who deny any wrongdoing and remain free to do the same to others.
See Robert L. Jayes et al., Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Intensive Care Units: Current Practices and Recent Changes, 270 JAMA 2213, 2215 (1993) (discussing the increases in the frequency of do not resuscitate orders); see also Areen, supra tote 7, at 449 (commenting that the emergence of a patient's rights movement over the past few decades has reduced the traditional autonomy of the medical profession). A recent study reported that, from 1988 to 1990, almost twice as many intensive care unit patients had DNR orders as did patients from 1979 to 1982.
see M. Rose Gasner, Financial Penalties for Failing to Honor Patient Wishes to Refuse Treatment, 11 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 499, 504-12 (1992) See In re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N*J. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 922 (1976) (allowing the father of a woman in a persistent vegetative state to have her respirator removed); Rasmussen v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674, 681-82 (Ariz. 1987) (en banc); Bartling v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. Rptr. 220, 225 (Ct. App. 1984); In re Severns, 425 A.2d 156, 158-59 (Del. Ch. 1980); In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, 1244-45 (D.C. 1990) (en banc); In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 568 So. 2d 4, 9-12 (Fla. 1990); In re Welfare of Colyer, 660 P.2d 738, 742 (Wash. 1983) (en banc).
As someone posted a few weeks ago...it's not rape if you just say yes.
but...but...IT'S CALLED "COERCION"....or....."EXTORTION"
They are prepping the country for a modern version of Prima Nocta. Modern meaning no discrimination.
We have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to the safety of our persons.
FORCED COVID-19 “JABS” = PHARMACEUTICAL RAPE============= In a PHARMACEUTICAL RAPE culture, doctors and patients unknowingly trust what are oftentimes pseudo-scientific facts put forth by drug makers about drug safety.
https://davidhealy.org/pharmaceutical-rape/
Both doctors and patients end up disbelieving the reality of the adverse events they see and instead believe alternate explanations for such events. A pharmaceutical rape culture condones harms caused by the industry-government-medical trade alliance because the culture produces, reproduces, and is completely saturated with “information” that supports that alliance.
Behaviors associated with pharmaceutical rape • Denial of widespread pharmaceutical rape: A tendency to remain oblivious in the face of evidence of harm. • Trivializing pharmaceutical rape: A response to harm by denying that real damage was done. • Medical/pharmaceutical objectification/commodification: An attitude about patients that is limited to placing primary value on what goods or services can be employed for reimbursement or compensation. Reducing him/her to a commodity with value being limited to financial usefulness. • The refusal to acknowledge reports: only accepting controlled clinical trials and not case studies.
Rape involves a bodily violation. Something is put into your body that causes harm, something that you didn’t consent to, something that if you had known about you might have made a different choice.
Pharmaceutical rape involves trusting and having that trust violated. Pharmaceutical rape involves suffering physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual damage at the hands of those holding power who deny any wrongdoing and remain free to do the same to others.
See Robert L. Jayes et al., Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Intensive Care Units: Current Practices and Recent Changes, 270 JAMA 2213, 2215 (1993) (discussing the increases in the frequency of do not resuscitate orders); see also Areen, supra tote 7, at 449 (commenting that the emergence of a patient's rights movement over the past few decades has reduced the traditional autonomy of the medical profession). A recent study reported that, from 1988 to 1990, almost twice as many intensive care unit patients had DNR orders as did patients from 1979 to 1982.
see M. Rose Gasner, Financial Penalties for Failing to Honor Patient Wishes to Refuse Treatment, 11 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 499, 504-12 (1992) See In re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N*J. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 922 (1976) (allowing the father of a woman in a persistent vegetative state to have her respirator removed); Rasmussen v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674, 681-82 (Ariz. 1987) (en banc); Bartling v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. Rptr. 220, 225 (Ct. App. 1984); In re Severns, 425 A.2d 156, 158-59 (Del. Ch. 1980); In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, 1244-45 (D.C. 1990) (en banc); In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 568 So. 2d 4, 9-12 (Fla. 1990); In re Welfare of Colyer, 660 P.2d 738, 742 (Wash. 1983) (en banc).
Your title is an EXCELLENT text-meme, PatriotLady1.
Can't be unheard. Can't really be argued with. Absolutely WILL stay in the person's brain. Wish I could upvote this 100 times.