Hospitals in Australia are increasingly refusing access to unvaccinated support persons, for example, an unvaccinated father is not allowed to accompany his wife at the birth of their child. What if the mother insisted that her husband must be present by her side; would the child and the mother be refused care and allowed to die in the car in case of complications? This coercive vaccine policy is one of the most criminal yet. Perhaps ‘freedom protesters’ would do better to protest in front of the offending hospitals rather than the Parliament. Any hospital director or doctor who treats patients this way is participating in a crime against humanity, is not fit to provide healthcare, and should be dismissed and prosecuted.

Will this policy affect grain supplies? If unvaxxed farmers cannot sell their grain, that could have a profound impact on food supply in general, since grain is used in the production of meat and many processed foods. https://thewest.com.au/stories/unvaxxed-farmers-to-be-barred-from-cbh-sites/

One of the core principles in martial arts is that you are always only fighting the person holding the weapon, not the weapon. The focus should always be on the agency controlling the weapon, never on the weapon itself. Play the player, not the ball.

https://ocla.ca/canadian-covid-care-alliance-releases-critical-report-on-pfizer-trials/ Or Download the full report here: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CCCA-Pfizer-Trial-Breakdown-The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-Dec.-15-2021.pdf

https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/287 You can also add racial supremacism to the list of features of this movement, based on the outrageous claim that indigenous Australian tribes uniquely possess seven-strand DNA, and “white” people have only two-strand DNA. Crucially, not a single tribal elder has spoken out against this extremist ideology while it was brewing for years, actively endorsed by local councils and other government departments.

The essence of rational consciousness is self-worth, a continuous affirmation of our value as an instance of rational agency. Whenever we act intentionally we confess that our agency has value to us, but our agency is not individually self-sufficient. It is socially reflexive; the degree of our consciousness depends on relating to other instances of rational agency as also valuable. Rational agency is the source of all value, and nothing else has value apart from the value bestowed by rational agency. It follows that no race, culture, nation, tribe, association or fraternity has value in its own right, none at all, and focussing on any of these attributes as the primary makers of value, as sources of pride, is ignorance, a path to self-nihilation. The only standard by which to measure and consistently cultivate value is the degree of rational agency, which is consciousness.

https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/degrees-of-agency-and-the-ontological-limit-of-self-interest/

Are you learning yet? Source: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/31/old-parliament-house-fire-protesters-linked-to-anti-vaccine-and-conspiracy-groups

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10360471/Melbourne-man-sets-fire-screaming-Dan-Andrews-Covid-vaccine-mandates.html

There is not even one saline placebo controlled randomised study comparing longevity and all cause morbidity between vaccinated and all-vaccine-free people. There is another level to this question: 1) even if vaccines increased longevity in the past, would the same resources put into development of cures for the same diseases produce an even better outcome? If yes, then vaccines were an inferior medical intervention. 2) Even if vaccines extended longevity in the past, when poverty and malnutrition was the social norm, are they still contributing to extending the longevity under modern living conditions? Probably not, because if that were the case the industry would love to refute any doubters with rigorous controlled studies.

Because the risk of a cure applies only when you get sick, whereas the risk of the preventive applies even if you would remain healthy.

The main restriction is that I am blocked from posting anywhere with the exception of my own channel.

If your employer or educational institution would ask you to “speak to your GP” in case you have any doubts about Covid vaccines.

This offers you a possible defence strategy. You could respond that GPs are only qualified to advice on medical concerns, not on ethical concerns, and it would be unethical for you to acquiesce to medical coercion (the withholding of social and economic opportunity by means of vaccine mandates) even if you think that Covid vaccination is medically beneficial, because by doing so you would be giving up the right to free medical consent not just for yourself but for future generations. Without that right all other rights can be medically subverted.

You could also go to your GP and ask whether the Dr is free to give you independent medical advice on Covid vaccines, specifically, advice would be independent only if the Dr is permitted to express professional opinion in disagreement with the official position of AHPRA. It can be proven by citing AHPRA webpage that this is not the case, therefore the Dr is not allowed to give you independent professional advice on this question. Ask the Dr to write you a letter, stating that the Dr is not allowed to give professional advice on Covid vaccines. This way, the recommended process of gaining medical consent cannot be reasonably fulfilled, ie, you are unable to obtain independent medical advice from a registered medical professional, and since the employer could not do so either, then the institutional policy/mandate has failed the test of due diligence about informed consent. You could ask for exemption on these grounds.

In the case of vaccine mandates, doctors do not administer the procedure if consent is not given; rather, economic or social sanctions are imposed on those who did not consent to the medical procedure. This amounts to coercion, and coercion in regard to medical consent negates the possibility of consent, which must be voluntary. For the same reason, coercion to engage in sex amounts to rape even if no physical force was used but the coerced person complied with the sexual demands out of fear of consequences. It follows that vaccine mandates preclude the possibility of valid consent in principle, and amount to intentional bodily harm, even if complied with without the use of physical force. And yet this is precisely the point that all institutions imposing the mandates simply ignore.

Ironically, I have not heard this argument being explicitly raised in ANY of the court proceedings against vaccine mandates. Another ignored argument is the fact that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by coercing employees and students to engage in an activity where a certain percentage of participants are expected to die as a direct result of their participation. So my main question is: why have ALL lawyers who are so prominent on Telegram ignored these obvious lines of legal attack? I have shared these arguments on their channels to no effect except being banned by some for asking this question.

The existing restrictions, including mandatory self-isolation, are the Crisis. To solve this crisis all we need is to remove all restrictions and simply ignore Covid. Within a month, everyone will have had the Covid Cold. (Nevertheless, the majority of the population would benefit from more brutal lockdowns, because most people can evolve only through suffering. I am in a Nietzchean mood today.)