Patient rights are not a “scientific” issue

Malone News

Patient Rights are not a "Scientific" issue

I am beautiful pisted off now...

Read more

Robert W Malone MD, MS

Patient rights are not a “scientific” issue

And they are neither negotiated nor contextual

I admit it. I'm so pissed.

I just spoke to a chat area with a “colleague” who presents himself as “a doctor who has been a public wellness officer in uniform for 30 years.” He criticized Florida's Major Surgeon, Dr. Joe Ladapo, MD. MPH, for deciding to abolish the Florida State vaccination obligation. The prosecution referred to Joe making this decision based on ‘policy’ alternatively than ‘science’. Specifically, his comment that intrigued me was: “I hear that the vaccination recommendations are becoming more and more policy-based and little science. Polio and another viruses could detonate in Florida. I inactive believe that we should present only our technological assessments to the public, not political speculation. individual somewhere must find the last credible technological protection."

These comments fundamentally parrot the current communicative promoted by the former, resigned "driver" CDC. And besides by the harmonised propaganda orcs of dead media impersonating reporters. You know who I'm talking about. Demonic, literally.

Indeed, this argument boils down to the question whether the State has the right to order its citizens to carry out medical procedures. This is not a question of ‘science’. It's a substance of medical ethics. What are the fundamental rights of the individual?

What are the basic pillars of medical ethics and human rights?

What we are seeing is simply a long-standing debate. Delayed and prevented during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilized as weapons fear, propaganda, harassment, crowdstalking (including crowdstalking funded by CDC) and gaslighting, both against the global human population and those who opposed the obsessive, irrational, fear-driven mass psychosis that occurred. And now a increasing wave of opposition is headed by Dr. Joe Ladapo, the Maha movement and its leaders.

I am saying that the right to control one's own individual and physical integrity is simply a fundamental human right and we must not take it on the basis of debated epidemiological analyses carried out by the followers of the cult of vaccination.

I'm saying that mandatory vaccinations are fundamentally unethical. The vast majority of doctors, not to mention graduates of 3 years of master's degree in public health, do not realize vaccines, immunology or the complexity of pathogen-host interaction. Their position is usually based on simple conviction, having features of spiritual catechism. All vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines defend lives. Injection into all arm. The principles of this catechism are infinite. But this is not “science”.

Catechism (/ˈkætəˌkɪzəm/; from Old Greek: κατηχέω, “teach orally”) is simply a summary or lecture of doctrine.

Who's the anti-vaccine? This word became a weapon in the hands of supporters of the cult of vaccination and the pharmaceutical industry, which actively supports this cult.

Merriam-Webster defines “antivaccinationococcal” as “person against the usage of vaccines or provisions requiring vaccinationIt’s okay. ” This definition, which includes both opposition to vaccination obligations and vaccines themselves, applies at least from 2018 erstwhile the word was first added to the dictionary.

If you argue a state that requires its citizens to execute medical procedures (vaccinate), imposing them without their consent, then you too, like me, are virtually referred to as an anti-vaccinated animal. So wear this description proudly if you believe that you and your children have the right to decide what medical procedures you accept.

What are the basic pillars of medical ethics?

Six Principles of Medical Ethics

1. Patient welfare. Doctors must act in the best interests of the patient. Single. 1 peculiar patient. Not in the best interests of society. Not to service as many people as possible. Only the patient they're dealing with at this peculiar moment.

2. No harm done. In short, no harm done. This does not mean that any patients can be harmed for the sake of the public.

3. Autonomy. PATIENT has the right to choose whether to accept medical procedure or intervention. Not society, and even so no "public wellness official" has the right to make decisions on behalf of the patient. PATIENT He has a choice. The doctor and the "public wellness officer" may give the patient honest, actual and nonsubjective information on risks and benefits, but PACJENT has the right to decide whether to accept the procedure. This is called A WITNESS OF COMPLIANCE, and if you disagree with it, you have no right to engage in medical activities in any way. There is no peculiar “disablement of vaccination” or “exception” for this fundamental human right.

4. Justice. There should be no “multi-level” or “special” medical care for any who are denied others. Treatment options should reflect the nature of the disease. There should be no discrimination on the grounds that the patient has accepted or rejected another medical procedure. For example, it is unethical to refuse organ transplantation to those who refused a genetic vaccine against COVID-19.

5. Dignity. Both the doctor (or another healthcare professional) and the patient have the right to be treated with dignity. Unlike hostile arrogance, for example.

6. Truthfulness and Honesty: Patients deserve to know the full fact about illness and treatment, as far as possible by a doctor or wellness care professional. No lies about masks, social distance, or lockdown effectiveness. No cover-up of adverse events. No lies about biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, organization variation, forgery. I could trade that forever. I wrote a full book on lies about COVID-19. Like many others. Talk to Scott Atlas about it.

These are the basics. They do not comply with the NEGOTIATIONS. They are not ‘scientific’. This has nothing to do with “science” and everything with human rights. They are. fundamental principles of medical ethics after planet War II. They don't depend on the situation. They do not vanish simply due to the fact that individual announces “an emergency medical case” or an emergency in public health.

Apparently my colleague, who is referred to as “a doctor who has been a public wellness officer in uniform for 30 years”, disagrees. seemingly late retired members who have referred to themselves as "the CDC's management" besides disagree with these fundamental principles. seemingly many of those who mention to themselves as "public wellness officials" and "public wellness experts" disagree with that, too. Apparently, the legislators who have passed the government on "allowance for emergency use", which served to justify the legal circumvention of these fundamental principles, besides disagree.

However, this is not negotiable. That's what I say, and I fishy that's what millions of people who play a key function in the increasing bottom-up "Make America Healthy Again" movement.

It's not politics. This is not “science”. These are fundamental human rights.

Yeah, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna tolerate it anymore.

I hope you're as pissed as I am.

It cannot be allowed to keep a communicative that these issues are political or technological in nature.

I call for 2 concrete actions.

[I propose 2 circumstantial laws].

1. The President's executive regulation clearly stating that compulsory vaccinations and medical procedures are prohibited, as well as supporting informed consent and the fundamental right of man to decide whether to accept a medical procedure or not.

2. Specific government that clearly states that the US national government rejects the work to carry out medical examinations and vaccinations and advocates the basic rule that people have the right to informed consent to all medical treatments.

Be like Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

Have courage.

Stand up for your medical ethics and your right to choose.