With all this COVID19 scamdemic nonsense there is a globally developing trend to enforce newly-developed highly-experimental coronavirus vaccines on the population. But at the same time we read reports of serious adverse reactions including 2 deaths and several developing Bell’s palsy (facial paralysis) in the Pfizer vaccine trial.
Two Pfizer vaccine recipients suffered life-threatening severe anaphylactic reactions following their injection. As a result we are told the following.
England’s National Health Service (NHS) warned Wednesday that people “with a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food” should not be given the COVID-19 vaccine developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech.Quoted from The Defender, CHD News and Views.
But how is that possible if the vaccines are made mandatory?
Also the US FDA lists 22 potential adverse reactions that are expected from these COVID19 vaccines. See above table. But note that death is listed as a serious reaction. What about “do no harm”? Yet the ‘medical’ dictatorship may force these COVID19 mRNA gene-altering vaccines on us and our children in the dystopian future the ruling elites have planned for us all.
In Western Australia, where I live, the state Premier Mark McGowan has indicated that by 2022 a COVID19 vaccination could be made mandatory for children to be allowed to go to school. No medical freedom there. No informed consent just total dictatorship.
Under the excuse of the COVID19 scamdemic Western Australia is no longer a free free country but a dictatorship. Below I quote from my friend Prof Augusto Zimmermann, a constitutional lawyer.
HOW WESTERN AUSTRALIA BECAME AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP
Western Australians are unfortunate enough to have a Labor Premier who is extremely arrogant and authoritarian. [JGH: Labor is a very left leaning political party that is authoritarian and practically communist.]
The Iron Ore Processing Agreement Amendment Act provides Premier Mark McGowan and his Attorney General exemption from the criminal law and civil liabilities.
Clause 12 of the Act provides that decisions and actions in relation to certain government decisions cannot be appealed.
It adds that “the Rules known as the rules of natural justice (including any duty of procedural fairness) do not apply to; or in relation to, any conduct of the State that is, or is connected with, a disputed matter”.
In addition, this Act prevents citizens from obtaining information about what the Western Australian government is doing to hold it accountable.
To make it worse, the WA Parliament has also passed the Emergency Management Amendment (COVID-19 Response) Bill.
Under this Act, government authorities can issue directions to a “class” or group of people, rather than an individual, and impose penalties of $12,000 fines and 12 months of imprisonment for non-compliance.
Furthermore, the Act allows the WA government to use, for an indefinite period of time, invasive technology to analyse, control and determine the actions of every single person in Western Australia.
While these security powers can be used during a state of emergency, only one of these provisions carries a “sunset clause”, thus not guaranteeing their expiry with the end of the alleged pandemic.
As can be seen, this is not just about protecting the community during a pandemic, but primarily about power and control. For nothing can produce a police state more rapidly than such arbitrary measures.
In fact, as a constitutional lawyer I can comfortably state that Western Australia is no longer a truly functional democracy, but currently experiencing a less open or more disguised form of elected dictatorship. [JGH: my emphases added in bold]
To read more, visit the website of The Good Sauce.
Prof Augusto Zimmermann LLB, LLM, PhD
Who is really healthier anyway?
Considering the fact that some dangerous COVID19 vaccines may be forced into our bodies I ask this question. In the long term, over the years following childhood vaccinations, how healthy are those children?
Well a study was done by the pediatrician Dr Paul Thomas and his colleague in a research paper titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” published 22 November 2020 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (citation below)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(22), 8674; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228674
As Dr Thomas explained to Del Bigtree on the Highwire (Episode 193) he received suspension by his medical board from medical practice soon after this study was released. The real reason would seem to be because, as a doctor, a pediatrician, he offers the parents an informed consent choice whether or not to vaccinate and if they do choose to do so he gives them the choice of vaccines and on what schedule they do it. He does not pressure any but gives the parents as much information as available to allow them to make an informed decision.
More than ten thousand children at his practice have had some vaccinations, so he by no means can be called an ‘anti-vaxxer’ (which is really an invented pejorative term designed to denigrate critical thinkers).
As a result, he has a database of thousands of vaccinated children as well as many hundreds who are totally unvaccinated. From the cohort of children who have been with him since birth, he was able to pull together this study.
The health outcomes of 2763 vaccinated children, with varying numbers of vaccines, are compared with 561 children who have never been vaccinated. See the paper’s Figure 2 above.
The relative number of doctor’s Office Visits are used as a measure of health for the children. Various medical conditions were extracted from the database of the practice and compared in the two groups.
The chart of graphs below (Figure 5 from the paper) shows the vaccinated children in orange and the unvaccinated in blue. The number of visits by the unvaccinated has been adjusted by a factor of 4.9 to allow for the lower population in that group.
The horizontal axis is the number of Days of Life, which are all tracked by the one pediatric office from birth. The study was closed off at 10 years after birth.
The conclusion of the study is earth-shattering. If the vaccinated children had better health than the unvaccinated the blue line would be far above the orange line. But the opposite is true. The vaccinated have many more health problems in the first ten years of life than the totally unvaccinated children have.
Compared to their unvaccinated counterparts, vaccinated children in the study were three to six times more likely to show up in the pediatrician’s office for treatment related to anemia, asthma, allergies and sinusitis.
There were no children diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) amongst the unvaccinated but 0.063% of the vaccinated (in the practice I presume). The practice wide rates of ADHD and autism were roughly half the rates found in the general population of American children. This is most probably due to the vaccine-friendly parent-doctor decision-making plan at Dr. Thomas’ practice.
The authors make the final claim in their paper:
The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not
unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.
There you have it. A study that has been long overdue which supports the very few other studies. The unvaccinated are by far healthier than the vaccinated children. And even though more unvaccinated children in the study group caught Whooping Cough than the vaccinated (9 compared with 1), and similarly for Chicken Pox (23 compared with 6), they were far healthier, presenting to the doctor’s office less often. There were no deaths due to disease or any vaccine-targeted diagnosis in the practice over the study period.
For further analysis see Groundbreaking Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Vaccinated Children