If there’s a silver lining to suffering the “slings and arrows” of outrageous government, it’s that one can practice and hone his ability to redirect anger into constructive activity.
Such might be the case when discovering that, during a speech at Stanford, Thursday, former President Barack Obama openly stated a truism that, a year ago, might have gotten others yanked from “social media” if they had said the same thing.
Recorded, Obama’s comment was released by Disclose TV’s Twitter account and quickly went viral, in part because he said:
Despite the fact that we have now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide. Around one-in-five Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk... rather than get vaccinated. People are dying because of misinformation.
Which requires a lot of unpacking.
First, these aren’t traditional “vaccines,” and the CDC changing its terminology in the midst of its pandemic panic-mongering will not change this fact. These are mRNA (messenger Ribonucleic Acid) gene vector injections that inspire the body to create a protein that is alien to what the human body is supposed to make.
Secondly, and one of the core misdirections of his entire psyop, we must take note of Obama reiterating the absurd and illogical concept that an effective “vaccine” protects anyone other than the individual who took it (my seatbelt protects ME - not you).
And then there’s the nagging little detail that many of us mentioned before Donald Trump’s tax-fed, unconstitutional “Operation Dwerp Speed” foolishness: the fact that the jabs not only would lose whatever “effectiveness” they might have had in fighting a virus with a near 100 percent survivability rate across all quintiles combined, but that it would prove to be less effective than (duh) naturally acquired immunity.
On every level, Obama’s claims are frustrating and fallacious, repeating nonsense as if he’s chanting in some kind of government ritual sacrifice.
And sacrifice it has been.
The only thing Obama gets right is that billions of people worldwide were turned into lab rats, unwitting test subjects in a clinical trial for an experimental synthetic cocktail, and we have no idea how long that will last.
Not even the test subjects to which Obama so blithely refers were unable to be informed subjects, nor could the people delivering the shots be completely certain as to what was in them, because the onsite “vaccine insert” pages were left blank and required people to refer to online info that, itself, had to be "updated" as the rollout occurred.
By definition, this means no one could truly give informed consent.
Experimenting on people without their informed consent is immoral, a crime forbidden by the First Plank of the 1947 Nuremberg Code, which states, in part:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
This was reiterated in a 1970 court case.
As Boston University Professor of Health Law George J. Annas stated in a lengthy piece published by EvolveToEcology noted last year:
The prosecutors at Nuremberg spent much of their post Nuremberg lives trying to establish ‘a permanent Nuremberg’ court to try war crimes and crimes against humanity. This effort ultimately became the International Criminal Court, which opened in 2002. Among the crimes over which the court has jurisdiction are ‘grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions’ (including biological experiments) and ‘torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments.’ That the United States has yet to formally join the International Criminal Court remains a human rights scandal. Oversight of human experimentation has primarily been predicated not on international criminal law but on local peer review in an ethics and domestic civil law context. With the publication of Henry Beecher’s 1966 article on abusive post-Nuremberg experiments in the United States, the movement toward federal regulation of human experimentation began.
Neither could anyone give his or her consent to pay for this vast exercise in anti-constitutional robbery to pay the giant phama corps that produced these things.
But if you dared to raise any of these questions, you ran the risk of being booted by social media.
If you raised concerns about possible COVID "vaccine" side-effects, Facebook shut you down. If you said that the government’s “masking” and lockdown edicts were not only unconstitutional, but not helpful to “stop the spread,” you were like an apostate to the COVID Cult.
So, now, Obama can stand at the Stanford pulpit and, even while spouting more propaganda, partially admit the truth.
Thanks to the unbalanced and unconstitutional Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a typical vaccine takes up to 10 years to go through animal testing and long-term human safety trials. Afterward, Human test subjects must give informed consent.
With the mRNA COVID injections, none of those criteria were met, as Obama has admitted.
Will anyone be brought to task for this theft and experimentation?