Home Corona What’s an Australian To Do When Told To Take an Unwanted Vaccination?  

What’s an Australian To Do When Told To Take an Unwanted Vaccination?  

39

Editor’s note: A reader, Harold, has sent this cartoon above (one of many) to us.

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

I must begin with a big, big disclaimer: I don’t know what I’m talking about.

That said, if you still wish to continue reading, you do so at your own risk.

Oh, still here, are we? Thanks. I will attempt to scrounge around looking for answers as to what an Aussie should do if the big needle rears its ugly head.

The General Rule

Let’s start with an example of a state wishing to compel a citizen to take a vaccination that has nothing to do with the 2020 pandemic. Your basic polio shot, or tetanus shot.

It is well established that government(s) cannot force a person to undergo any medical procedure if he does not give his informed consent. This is known as the Nuremberg Code.

You may have heard of cases where a child was forced to take a blood transfusion over the objection of her Jehovah Witness parents (based on a religious belief about blood). Yes, the Court did grant it but not by saying the state could force it.  Rather, they changed the guardianship of the child to the state, based on the claim that the parents were not acting reasonably to save the child.  Had the patent been an adult Jehovah Witness, the state could not force a blood transfusion.

It was not ever thus. The colony of Victoria in 1854 claimed the right to force a vaccination on everyone.  The law does not say “smallpox vaccination” but it must have been that.

I quote:

“An Act to make compulsory the Practice of Vaccination. [Assented to 20th November, 1854.] WHEREAS it is expedient to make compulsory the practice of vaccination Be it therefore enacted by His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Victoria”.  etc.

This law did allow a doctor to write a certificate saying the child was not fit to receive vax, but it had to be renewed every six months.

History

In the 1890s, in the lead up to Australia’s federation in 1901, there was major dissent in Mother England as to the effectiveness of smallpox vaccine and much complaint about dire side effects. There was a THOROUGHLY DISHONEST Royal Commission on the subject.  I will cover that on another day.

So it is not surprising that one of the new states, South Australia (my home from 1980 to 2019), passed a law, quick smart, to ABOLISH compulsory vax:

“EDWARDI V11 REGIS. A.D. 1901. No. 761. An Act to abolish Compulsory Vaccination. BE it Enacted by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Parliament of South Australia, as follows: 1, (1) No parent … shall be liable to any penalty under section 21 of ” The Vaccination Act, 1882,” if within six. months from the birth of the child he makes a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, in the form of the Schedule hereto, that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child, and within seven days thereafter delivers to the vaccination officer such declaration.”

However further down in that Act we find the statement that

“The Governor may, on the breaking out of smallpox in the State, by Proclamation render section 1 inoperative for specified time in the whole or any part of the State, and may order persons. who have been contacts with a case of smallpox to be vaccinated or – re-vaccinated within a specified time. 3.This Act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of  June, one thousand nine hundred and six.”

In other words there was a five-year sunset clause, The Bill won renewal in 1906.  I have not followed it up to see if it ever sunsetted permanently.  You can find it easily — each and every law of Australia at a very easy-to-use website, Austli.edu.au. (Some NZ law there also).

By the way, I disclaimed my expertise in Australian law. It was only today when reading that November 1901 law that I noticed that it began with

“BE it Enacted by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Parliament of South Australia….”  Holy smoke.  It does not say that the People (i.e., Parliament) passed it.  It says the People (i.e., Parliament) gave their consent to the Governor. Why then do we say that the Governor “assents”?  I do not know.

Further gossip:  the Victorian colonial law cited above was signed by the governor mentioning his title Commander of the Order of Bath.

Swearda God.  And why don’t I mention for the umpteenth time that the courtroom in Darlington, NSW – scene of the 2016 murder trial of Amirah Droudis  — has a three dimensional banner over the judge’s bench complete with the motto of the of the Order of the Garter “Honi soit qui mal y pense.”  Fiona Barnett has reported that the student magazine at Sydney University is called “Honi Soit”

I’ll say no more.  Well, I might. We shall see.

The “Civil Conscription” Bit

Now for a matter in which I fear I will gain a reputation as a spoil-sport.  There is an article making the rounds on the Internet that says Aussies do not have to take the needle, thanks to a 1946 Referendum.

Commonwealth Referenda do indeed change the Constitution, so I was eager to check it out. The 1946 referendum tried to get the people’s agreement, and did get the people’s agreement, to the following proposal:

“New paragraph to be added to section 51 of the Constitution:

“(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances….” [Emphasis added]

The author, “True Blue Observer,” of the article circulating on the Internet, has interpreted that text to mean:

“In 1946 Australians voted in a referendum that asked if they would authorise the so-called political party governments to force anyone to undergo a medical or dental procedure without their consent.”

No, not at all. People weren’t asked to vote on non-consensual medical procedures.  The question was about giving the Commonwealth a new power, in 1946, to make laws involving social benefit type stuff (unemployment, child allowance, etc.) A “Yes” vote would mean that the Cth, which had heretofore been prohibited from – pardon me – socialistic adventures – could now go whole hog.

Section 51 is about the grants of powers from the 6 states of Australia to the Commonwealth. (I admit my view may be skewed by the American constitution whose grants of power to the feds are all neatly listed in Article I, section 8. But, my chauvinism aside, the writers of the Aussi Con in 1899 did seriously use the Yankee Con as a model, to some extent.)

So there is nothing in the referendum – correct me if I’m wrong! – to say that a person could, or could not, get the jab coercively.  The phrase “civil conscription” referred to the words that preceded it. I guess it was inserted by pharmacists or doctors who did not want to be forced to participate in government-issued medication. They wanted choice on that.

Soon after the referendum’s change to Section 51 came into force, a private group in NSW, known the British Medical Association (anti-cringe did not arrive till around 1970), sued over a matter that involved the words “civil conscription.”

I won’t spend time here to discuss it. You can find the lengthy ruling by Justice Barwick at … where else? Austli.edu.au. The case is dated 1949. You can trust me on this: the case had zilch to do with mandatory anything as far as the human body is concerned.

By the way, I was taken aback to realize that permission for the nanny State to get under steam began only in 1946 in Oz.  But then, FDR’s “New Deal” in the US dates to only the 1930s.

(It is my understanding that Otto von Bismarck got that sort of thing started in the 1880s, the Pars Commune of 1850 having fizzled. Do I think it is all a global plot? Of course I do.)

So What To Do When They Come after You?

The article by True Blue Observer says you should citizen-arrest the needle-bearer for breaking the law. As I said there is a general law about no bodily attacks – let’s call it medical rape – for any person who does not give informed consent. (But don’t try to rely on that 1946 referendum, OK?)

My new book, Grass Court: How To Use Law To Deal with the Pandemic, is gung-ho citizen’s arrest for many infractions.  I also declared that I apply a baseball bat to anyone trying to give me a Covid-19 “vaccination.” That, however, is to occur in an American setting, given my present location. I do not know how to advise my dear fellow Australians.

I searched that famous edu.au website – you know the one – but I did not find any 2020 cases challenging any Morrisonian threats to the people of Australia involving vax.  I did find a 2017 article from a Family Law journal which you could say proves that there were NOT any challenges, at least up to that date.

The journal article addresses only the issue of parents fighting each other on the subject of vax.  The abstract is as follows:

Immunisation Disputes in the Family Law System

by Miranda Kaye

“Abstract: This article examines the impact of the new ‘No Jab, No Pay’ and ‘No Jab, No Play’ laws on future Family Court disputes between parents in relation to immunisation of children. The article reviews previous disputes in relation to immunisation, looking particularly at what evidence has been required by the court in disputes and how the courts have formulated the best interests of the child in these disputes [gasp!]. Given that most cases result in orders for immunisation of children, the article recommends that such cases should be settled without lengthy litigation, but recognises that the entrenched views of the parties in these disputes prevent settlement.”

My final word on this matter for now is that we should have supported the less-wealthy a few years ago when they were made to accept vax or lose welfare payment. Even now we should mount a court challenge to that discriminatory practice.  It is disgusting.

Note: Cricket bats are of varying prices at: buyersguide.org/cricket-bats/

SHARE

39 COMMENTS

  1. There is no need for a vaccine for any so called virus, as it has been scientifically documented that there is no such thing as a virus. I have in my possession, (yes even though taken down by youtube) at least four videos by health professionals that claim viruses do not exist.

    If politicians want to strong-arm the public with mandated or coerced unwanted vaccines they had better come up with some scientifically proven evidence that viruses do in fact exist. I do not mean bought and paid for evidence.

    • They have a long history of trying to shut down alternative medicines and now the WHO is secretly “trying to develop a marketing campaign” for their junk science (refer short Buttar video from G5 yesterday)
      ***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hch33RhTyLg&feature=youtu.be
      Unlimited chemicals and junk food with preservative etc are all good though no need even for the government to stick a levy on it

  2. We now know that the so-called test for Covid-19 is no such thing. The test is recording chromosome 8, which is a natural part of human DNA. How low will some medical criminals stoop?

    All the drama, bringing people of the World to their knees, losing jobs, creating bankruptcy situations, creating suicide situations, marriage breakdowns, domestic violence, children’s future health & psychological problems, possible loss of houses, just because Bill Gates and the WHO want to flex their muscles. Abetted by all the political and health department leaders of the World.

    • The reverse Primer (nCoV_IP2-12759Rv)used by the Institute Pasteur is an 18 base DNA sequence wriiten 5′ to 3′.To be used in the test it has to be REVERSED ie 3′ to 5′.It has been mistakenly ascribed to a sequence in chromosone 8(in its 5′ to 3′ configuration) but this is not the configuration used in the test.Therefore this primer has nothing to do with Chromosone 8.
      Most rtPCR tests involve 3 sets of primers(forward and reverse) and a probe and various countries chose different parts of the virus’s sequence to set up their rtPCRs.

  3. Chauvinist is a very useful pejorative, too bad the meaning of it was distorted (probably Soros again).
    “Devoted to military glory” I would say was the essence of this word which is nowadays almost lost.

    • We have police officers who have the power of arrest for not wearing face masks, yet this sergeant cannot correctly wear his own. Most of the interview his mask was below his nose. Such hypocrisy!

  5. https://davidicke.com/2020/08/24/big-story-please-share-pcr-test-that-is-producing-the-virus-cases-triggering-the-new-lockdowns-worldwide-is-testing-for-genetic-codes-that-every-human-has-and-not-the-virus-david-icke-tal/

    BIG STORY – PLEASE SHARE: PCR test that is producing the ‘virus cases’ triggering the new lockdowns worldwide is testing for genetic codes that every human has and NOT THE ‘VIRUS’ – David Icke talks with Dr Andrew Kaufman about the astonishing hoax transforming human society

    • The rtPCR tests vary.The mistaken interpretation of the reverse primer (see explanation above)is one of 3 primer/probes used by the Institute Pasteur.The rtPCR used by the CDC uses 4 sets of primer/probes(different from Institute Pasteur)targeting a different sequence of SARS-COV-2.
      And no, viruses do exist and they are not exosomes.The human genome has been sequenced(millions of base pairs) and so has SARS-COV-2(a mere 30,000 bases) and yes Koch’s postulates have been satisfied- except for ethical reasons the final step of reinfection used a monkey instead of a human subject.

      • Of course viruses exist; It’s the belief that they are intrinsically harmful that’s skewed. Health is all about maintaining a certain chemical dynamic and that’s what medicos should be focusing on. Instilling fear in people is just a scurrilous form of control that couldn’t be further removed from solving anything.

  8. The legal status of the corporation known as Centrelink was recently exemplified as follows:

    In Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured by being subjected to heavy metal music for hours on end
    The treatment doled to Aussie inmates is a little more subtle. Any of them who dare to question anything will simply be subjected to hours and hours of this sort of stuff:

    • The relevance goes to the claim that “we should have supported the less-wealthy a few years ago when they were made to accept vax or lose welfare payment.”

      Actually said manoeuvre was just one of many factors that prove all government welfare programs to be:
      * rooted in the most nefarious sort of control
      * beleaguered by patent lawlessness

  10. Could Scomo, the supposed Christian be charged with extortion

    Extortion

    The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

    Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion.
    Elements of Offense

    Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim’s spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

    Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim’s business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.

    Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as “willful” or “purposeful” in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime………………”

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

      • 18 U.S. Code § 872. Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

        Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

        • Two other government proxies renowned for extorting money out of the weak and vulnerable: the Australian Taxation Office and Baycorp Pty Limited.

          As the Country’s justice system is equally illegitimate the issue would never be properly sorted there, but as those with a vested interest could ill-afford the inevitable publicity………

  13. OK, this is my fourth try at posting a link to a banned video (it must be REALLY important to the PTB). The video has embedded in it a video from 1956 that discusses a pandemic in 2020. It also has the new UN video of happy children signing about Covid-19, closed borders and a NWO behind closed doors (YES, REALLY!)

    Just delete all the Xs and maybe you can get the link to work.

    XXXXhttps://www.bitXXXXchute.com/videoXXXX/GnHRDfA7hpw/XXXX

  14. Are diseases being perpetuated by vaccines?

    University of Glasgow.
    Scottish way of birth and death: Vaccination.
    University of Glasgow; nd.
    “…………..Compulsory vaccination for smallpox was discontinued in the UK in 1948, and the registrars were finally relieved of their duty to log successful vaccinations and conscientious objections. There was a small outbreak in Glasgow in 1950, but in 1978 the World Health Organisation announced that the smallpox virus had been eradicated globally.”

    https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/economicsocialhistory/historymedicine/scottishwayofbirthanddeath/vaccination/

    Yet, still today we have a vaccine for smallpox!

    Smallpox (Vaccinia – ACAM2000) Excipients: African Green Monkey kidney (Vero) cells, HEPES, human serum albumin, sodium chloride, neomycin, polymyxin B, Glycerin,

  15. Seems like the absurdity of Scomo’s “as mandatory as possible” remark has been largely missed:
    As a mandate either is or isn’t it’s fairly obvious he meant “as compelling as possible” . That is, of course, a completely different kettle of fish.

    • And lest we forget, the entire contagion/social responsibility argument is belied by the pressure that one constantly encounters re tetanus shots.

      In 1984 my midwife advised me that said poison was not only the most unnecessary one out of what used to be called the triple antigen but also the most harmful one to young children.

      But when you front any medical centre for anything whatsoever and you happen to have a graze that’s in the process of healing you’re invariably asked if you’re “up to date” and told that perpetual coverage is critical.

      I only managed to find one coherent article on the subject and the link won’t post
      but if you type in “say-no-to-the tetanus-shot” it should come up

  16. I have been to the federal members office and got a very good hearing with the top staffer (they aren’t in Canberra because they aren’t quarantine exempt like the MPs it would appear). They seem to agree the WHO is corrupt, misleading the Australian Therapeutic Goods Admin and we should be trying ordinary medicines. I think Denial Andrews is soon going to become the scapegoat here and Scotty will do the numbers in Australia and Washington and switch sides, could be soon, maybe just as we go off the “fiscal cliff” Sept 1 would be a good opportunity, when everyone is paying attention. Don’t expect much bravery from Scotty, he is busy doing the numbers.

  17. Much of what you say is fair enough, Mary. The men who drafted the Australian Constitution certainly did look at the Constitution of the USA and many other Constitutions around the World that were imposed or proposed. However, the most crucial difference between the Aus. Const. and all the others is that in Aus. the Nation Commonwealth is the people and that the Constitution which was to form the basis of the function of government and civil law was accepted by the people in referendum… and which could only be changed with the agreement of the people by referendum; rather than the more common type of “Constitution” that was formulated by an elite and then “delivered” to the people granting or denying a list of poorly or undefined “rights”. It was also formally agreed to by the reigning Monarch making it an entirely unique combination of the natural order whereby there is some ONE charged with the maintenance of civil order and the preservation of national and cultural integrity with the right of popular representation and redress against arbitrary tyranny.

    There’s much more that can be said about that; but that’ll do for now.

    However, the ink wasn’t even dry on the document when the secretocracy began to subtly transform the practical application to something more consistent with the aims and intent of the French Revolution and its translation into the American Revolution… which I contend was with the connivance of the “Crown” (i.e. the cartel of usurers centred in “The City of London” of which the Monarchy has been but a figurehead for hundreds of years).

    Anyhow, for all yous lawyer types out there who think that various documents are some sort of guarantee of anything except that someone said or agreed to something sometime, why the hell are you appealing to the likes of Magna Carta? it’s been practically ignored for about 800 years! The Aus Const has been practically ignored for about 120 years.

    We have the wonderful example of Wayne Glew
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtGYcKVYIw
    and many like him who think that the Constitution is some kind of “force shield” that can protect us all from the utter perversity of the secretocracy that sees itself as the director of God and the manager of everyone not in the club. G’donya, Wayne and GAP bods… y’ think that the Pommy elitist mob that gave us what we’ve got are going to “fix” it for us while they’ve got more of the same for longer. “Physician, heal thyself”.

    Even the notion that the Monarchy, defector from the Faith, with the Lutheran revised and edited version of Scripture that can be interpreted by anyone to suit their fancy, could be anything but a goal sloshing in a sea of convenience opinions is irrational. “Defender of the (Protestant) Faith” is a defender of an ephemeral, undefinable, plethora of opinions that has only one thing in common… Christianity can be anything at all except Apostolic, consistent.

    Rules for playing tennis, cricket, footy, work well to make the activities functional for purpose while the rules are adhered to or changed with the agreement of the participants for the good of the game. Y’ can’t have a footy match if a gang is not playing by the rules; y’ve gotta get rid of them.

  18. I suggest everybody read old David’s post cartefully. Arthur Chresby said much the same.

    Re the Constitution (Sec 51), the referendum, and the Social Services Act… I studied these when I studied social welfare and the referendum Mary quoted was 1945 as I recall, and the Social Services Act was passed in 1946. I now see purported copies of the Act dated 1947, so either I have recalled incorrectly (well, ahem, I am 77) or Government has re-written the Act to make means-testing appear legal.

    I suspect the latter.

    As to the inspiration for that Act, and the enabling referendum, the genesis was very different to that imagined above.

    PM Ben Chifley was horrified at war’s end to learn that Australian age pensioners had starved to death. He discovered that the 1913 pension was grosly inadequate and that the depression had been responsible for many deaths caused initially by malnutrition. Thus the Social Services Bill was born.

    This was funded by PAYE deductions of gross income (one and sixpence in the pound) into the Welfare Fund. (The Kiwis called this identical form IR 12). Income tax was paid on what was left. Thus, DSS contributions cannot be classed as tax. The Welfare Fund was owned by the contributing workers, not by government, which was expressly forbidden to even touch the Fund. Obviously, means testing was illegal.

    Government now claims that Australian age pensions have always been means tested, which is an outright lie.

    Menzies manipulated the trustees of the Fund and invested this in the Snowy River Scheme. The corporations who buit that never paid it back, or the interest. Menzies’s mates.

    If Government can steal a trillion pounds off the workers, and illegally apply means tests to the worker’s own welfate fund, they will most certainly force vaccinations on us.

    What we need to do is force this to the High Court. They, too, are owned by the banker elite, but even HC judges cannot declare a theft to be legal. As long as we can find original copies of the Social Services Act, they are forced to interpret on that basis.

    This would put the major parties on the back foot and make voluntary vaccinations an easier prospect.

  20. Fritz, wow thanks for the vid on Sashastone.
    He is bang on the money.
    I feel the same as his message highlights, we need to PUSH BACK and push back HARD.
    As a collective, we need to take ACTION by taking to the streets in the MASS, they can’t arrest everyone.
    Time IS running out, we need to stop these DICTATORS in thier tracks.
    1st of Sep, there is a mass protest planned.
    We need to attend in NUMBERS and show that we the PEOPLE will not accept this Tyranny.
    Spread the word on MASS.

  21. I’m not a great fan of high profile U.S commentator / radio personality Mark Levin ( he’s a war-monger, neocon apologist etc), but he gets it right in this interview with Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine :

    Harvey Risch must now feature among the honour role of those coming out in support of HCQ and alternative, low-cost remedies for Covid.

    Risch is also associate editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, editor of the International Journal of Cancer, and a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

    He has been outspoken in defense of hydroxychloroquine, administered correctly, as a treatment for COVID-19.

    This is an excerpt from an article Dr. Risch wrote last month :

    “As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals.

    I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

    I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

    On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.” That article, published in the world’s leading epidemiology journal, analyded five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

    Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread scepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.”

    Also, some of what Risch said in the video interview :

    “”In fact, the science is so one-sided in supporting this result that it’s stronger than anything else I’ve ever studied in my entire career. The evidence in favour of hydroxychloroquine benefit in high-risk patients treated early as outpatients is stronger than anything else I’ve ever studied.”

    Risch goes on to recall that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has resolutely denied any benefit from hydroxychloroquine, was similarly obstructionist (the similarity is almost eerie) in 1987, in the face of the AIDS epidemic.

    At that time, there was a drug (Bactrim) that worked better than AZT and was very inexpensive, and which had an excellent record of treating the particular kind of pneumonia that was then the leading killer of people with AIDS. But the testimonies of countless frontline AIDS physicians meant nothing to Fauci, who — in defiance of the scientific consensus — discouraged its use. As many as 17,000 people died unnecessarily. You need to hear Dr. Risch, a mild-mannered academic, tell the story.”

    Risch coming out in defence of HCQ is a big deal.

    He not only does that but says : ‘ tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily’ and to top it off doesn’t beat around the bush by saying that Fauci’s actions during the AIDS crisis amount to CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

    If tha statement weren’t true, it would be a libelous statement and Risch could be sued.

    This guy has the bona fides – he is one incredibly well credentialled medical professional and his words have real gravitas.

  23. Hide, run and hide, or protest and fight, does it matter, will it alter the out come, the earth living is really turning into a tyranny, yes it is frightening and scary, but has it not been that way for a lot of people for a lot of years,? Look at the recent deaths in West Papua the lockdowns etc. Here is to all the people who speak the truth and take actions to stop this bullshit. I love yours all.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.