All institutions – public and private – have Codes of Ethics that govern the behaviour of individuals who work for those institutions. We are all too aware that these Codes, from Congressional to Banking and all points in between are breached with relative impunity – with prosecution and sanctions imposed even less often than violent crimes in general across the length and breadth of the country. Crime pays.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich joins Maria Zeee to announce the groundbreaking news that Crimes Against Humanity trials are scheduled to begin in New Zealand through the truly independent Maori people.
No payments are being made to these lawyers or their associates, many have now worked years to bring the 'COVID EVENTERS' to justice and therefore scrutiny in a court of law. Nothing can stop the tsunami of exponential knowledge breaking now, we can only make it faster and help the momentum gain more coverage.
PLEASE SHARE WHAT YOU KNOW WIDELY.
Anagram
COVID EVENTERS=contrives deev
deev in British English
(diːv ) (in Persian folklore) a wicked and demonic supernatural creature. Collins English Dictionary.
NONE of those organizations follow any sort of code of ethics. They stopped doing so when they realized we'd allow them to get away with ANYTHING they pull on us. We've earned this for being soft and complacent. We're become a nation of subs and cucks in America.
This bioethics guide is an important one, too. Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a leading resource for global health policymaking ethical guidance. Nuffield Council is largely funded by Wellcome Trust (Glaxo-Wellcome), which until last year was led by Jerermy Farrar, who is now the WHO's Chief Scientist. Wellcome Trust was a Zero-Covid founding member, with Jeremy Farrar arguing for more extreme lockdowns mandates in the UK, he envied China's totalitarian approach, even resigned from the UK's pandemic response team because it wasn't totalitarian enough for him. Wellcome Trust is a peer global health influencer of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for those who aren't familiar with it. And Jeremy Farrar was one of the names revealed in Fauci's emails concerning the Wuhan lab origination theory. And, Fauci's wife is the NIH's Chief Bioethicist. So this topic of ethics you raise, bioethics, is a very, very, very important piece of what failed beginning in 2020. Blowing through all previous guardrails like your post explains. Here's another very important version of ethics guidance, about many subjects, including infectious disease, pandemics, vaccinations. They practice "The Stewardship Model" of our betters tending to their otherwise helpless or insolent charges:
Chapter 4 Case Study - Infectious Disease (p 51-77)
4.10
Selective vaccination to protect individuals who are vulnerable or at-risk: Examples include:
annual influenza vaccines for health professionals, elderly and disabled people; and vaccinations advised for people travelling to regions where specific infectious diseases are common. (p 54)
4.11
This may be achieved through the targeting of vaccinations at those who are particularly susceptible to ill health, as in the case of influenza vaccines, or through the protection offered by population immunity as it will clearly extend to the most vulnerable (p 54)
4.19
The paragraphs above illustrate that there is a wide range of different risks and benefits, affecting a variety of people, that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to introduce or change a particular vaccination programme. This may give rise to competing interpretations about whether or not a vaccination presents an acceptable balance of risks and benefits. So although a healthcare professional may be keen to enrol a person in a programme, taking the view that the risks are acceptable and that the benefits to the person concerned and/or others are substantial, the individual may be undecided, or not persuaded, for whatever reason. The fact that some healthcare professionals receive payments for meeting vaccination targets may further complicate such situations.35 Also, the interests of companies involved in the (expensive and potentially risky) business of developing and producing vaccines may need to be considered. Some are critical of the extent to which these industries influence debate and policies on vaccines, and are sceptical as to whether these interventions are genuinely offered on the basis of medical need only. One consultation respondent who took this viewpoint commented that:
“those who support vaccination most strongly are the drug companies, who stand to profit the most”. Mrs Esther Hollands (p 57)
4.21
While we are not aware of any countries that go as far as to force individuals to be vaccinated, there are several approaches that may be used to influence their behaviour. We consider three main types: quasi-mandatory programmes, in which individuals are required to be vaccinated unless they qualify for an exemption and where there are penalties for those who do not comply; (p 58)
4.23
Further questions may be asked over whether quasi-mandatory policies are just, as the punishments for refusal to vaccinate, such as fines or refusal of access to education may disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. (p 59)
4.25
Quasi-mandatory approaches tend therefore to shift the emphasis away from protecting the interests of the individual, and towards providing benefits to others. (p 60)
4.27
We identified two circumstances in which quasi-mandatory vaccination measures are more likely to be justified. First, for highly contagious and serious diseases, for example with characteristics similar to smallpox. Secondly, for disease eradication if the disease is serious and if eradication is within reach. (p 60)
4.29
On the basis of the value of community and stewardship considerations, it is in principle ethically justified to encourage individuals to take part in vaccination programmes when there is no, or only a small, personal benefit, but significant benefits for others. However, consent is essential, and there should be careful assessments of the benefits to be gained for the population and the possible harm that may result for the people who receive the vaccination. (p 60)
4.56 Control of Infectious disease (p 70)
4.58 Issues raised by quarantine and isolation (p 72)
4.63 Use of vaccines in control of infectious diseases
[this sentence is quite revealing: "the likely global scale of the disease would lead to demand for pandemic vaccines that is likely to far exceed their supply." They had to market, push, incentivize, implore, mandate them, they had to artificially create demand. Had the virus been dangerous the demand would've exceeded the supply. Revealing.] (p 73)
4.69 The importance of information in the case of an epidemic or pandemic
Downplaying the risk of the disease may lead to higher rates of infection. By contrast, a campaign that overstates the risks may lead to panic and lack of trust in healthcare professionals in the longer term.
[And a framework of] prior public debate to explore the ethical, professional and practical implications of an influenza pandemic, condition public expectations and ensure that decisions are made in an inclusive and transparent way."(p 76)
The entire 225 pages is basically a masturbatory exercise in how enlightened and ethical they are for giving voice to individual liberty, balanced with collective public health needs. Oddly, always siding with totalitarianism when down to brass tacks. They give lots of wiggle room in their words to allow for it under ethical guidelines, not meant to be firm barricades protecting individual liberty, or even consent. Suggested. But negotiable. Ethics!! As written by well-meaning totalitarians.
Why is Washington DC so corrupt...because they all believe they will never be held accountable for massive breaches of ALL Laws and Ethics....they are protected by the far left liberal judicial system within that geographic region. If they lie, cheat and/or steal they will be rewarded by those Courts...the reason why the Dems are so mad they can not control the Supreme Court too....did I mention these same unelected folks will take our tax dollars and then cry default.
Talk about breach of conduct? I don’t think they read their own code of ethics!!! Let’s start over. Get rid of all the bad players!
Thanks PH. ETHICS? GOVTURDS? Oxymoron?
Thanks Samantha. Which it wasn’t so.
Yet, Substack is definitely filling in this void.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - BREAKING! Crimes Against Humanity Trials Begin in New Zealand!
https://rumble.com/v2rka62-dr.-reiner-fuellmich-breaking-crimes-against-humanity-trials-begin-in-new-z.html
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich joins Maria Zeee to announce the groundbreaking news that Crimes Against Humanity trials are scheduled to begin in New Zealand through the truly independent Maori people.
No payments are being made to these lawyers or their associates, many have now worked years to bring the 'COVID EVENTERS' to justice and therefore scrutiny in a court of law. Nothing can stop the tsunami of exponential knowledge breaking now, we can only make it faster and help the momentum gain more coverage.
PLEASE SHARE WHAT YOU KNOW WIDELY.
Anagram
COVID EVENTERS=contrives deev
deev in British English
(diːv ) (in Persian folklore) a wicked and demonic supernatural creature. Collins English Dictionary.
NONE of those organizations follow any sort of code of ethics. They stopped doing so when they realized we'd allow them to get away with ANYTHING they pull on us. We've earned this for being soft and complacent. We're become a nation of subs and cucks in America.
This bioethics guide is an important one, too. Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a leading resource for global health policymaking ethical guidance. Nuffield Council is largely funded by Wellcome Trust (Glaxo-Wellcome), which until last year was led by Jerermy Farrar, who is now the WHO's Chief Scientist. Wellcome Trust was a Zero-Covid founding member, with Jeremy Farrar arguing for more extreme lockdowns mandates in the UK, he envied China's totalitarian approach, even resigned from the UK's pandemic response team because it wasn't totalitarian enough for him. Wellcome Trust is a peer global health influencer of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for those who aren't familiar with it. And Jeremy Farrar was one of the names revealed in Fauci's emails concerning the Wuhan lab origination theory. And, Fauci's wife is the NIH's Chief Bioethicist. So this topic of ethics you raise, bioethics, is a very, very, very important piece of what failed beginning in 2020. Blowing through all previous guardrails like your post explains. Here's another very important version of ethics guidance, about many subjects, including infectious disease, pandemics, vaccinations. They practice "The Stewardship Model" of our betters tending to their otherwise helpless or insolent charges:
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2007
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
Chapter 4 Case Study - Infectious Disease (p 51-77)
4.10
Selective vaccination to protect individuals who are vulnerable or at-risk: Examples include:
annual influenza vaccines for health professionals, elderly and disabled people; and vaccinations advised for people travelling to regions where specific infectious diseases are common. (p 54)
4.11
This may be achieved through the targeting of vaccinations at those who are particularly susceptible to ill health, as in the case of influenza vaccines, or through the protection offered by population immunity as it will clearly extend to the most vulnerable (p 54)
4.19
The paragraphs above illustrate that there is a wide range of different risks and benefits, affecting a variety of people, that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to introduce or change a particular vaccination programme. This may give rise to competing interpretations about whether or not a vaccination presents an acceptable balance of risks and benefits. So although a healthcare professional may be keen to enrol a person in a programme, taking the view that the risks are acceptable and that the benefits to the person concerned and/or others are substantial, the individual may be undecided, or not persuaded, for whatever reason. The fact that some healthcare professionals receive payments for meeting vaccination targets may further complicate such situations.35 Also, the interests of companies involved in the (expensive and potentially risky) business of developing and producing vaccines may need to be considered. Some are critical of the extent to which these industries influence debate and policies on vaccines, and are sceptical as to whether these interventions are genuinely offered on the basis of medical need only. One consultation respondent who took this viewpoint commented that:
“those who support vaccination most strongly are the drug companies, who stand to profit the most”. Mrs Esther Hollands (p 57)
4.21
While we are not aware of any countries that go as far as to force individuals to be vaccinated, there are several approaches that may be used to influence their behaviour. We consider three main types: quasi-mandatory programmes, in which individuals are required to be vaccinated unless they qualify for an exemption and where there are penalties for those who do not comply; (p 58)
4.23
Further questions may be asked over whether quasi-mandatory policies are just, as the punishments for refusal to vaccinate, such as fines or refusal of access to education may disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. (p 59)
4.25
Quasi-mandatory approaches tend therefore to shift the emphasis away from protecting the interests of the individual, and towards providing benefits to others. (p 60)
4.27
We identified two circumstances in which quasi-mandatory vaccination measures are more likely to be justified. First, for highly contagious and serious diseases, for example with characteristics similar to smallpox. Secondly, for disease eradication if the disease is serious and if eradication is within reach. (p 60)
4.29
On the basis of the value of community and stewardship considerations, it is in principle ethically justified to encourage individuals to take part in vaccination programmes when there is no, or only a small, personal benefit, but significant benefits for others. However, consent is essential, and there should be careful assessments of the benefits to be gained for the population and the possible harm that may result for the people who receive the vaccination. (p 60)
4.56 Control of Infectious disease (p 70)
4.58 Issues raised by quarantine and isolation (p 72)
4.63 Use of vaccines in control of infectious diseases
[this sentence is quite revealing: "the likely global scale of the disease would lead to demand for pandemic vaccines that is likely to far exceed their supply." They had to market, push, incentivize, implore, mandate them, they had to artificially create demand. Had the virus been dangerous the demand would've exceeded the supply. Revealing.] (p 73)
4.69 The importance of information in the case of an epidemic or pandemic
Downplaying the risk of the disease may lead to higher rates of infection. By contrast, a campaign that overstates the risks may lead to panic and lack of trust in healthcare professionals in the longer term.
[And a framework of] prior public debate to explore the ethical, professional and practical implications of an influenza pandemic, condition public expectations and ensure that decisions are made in an inclusive and transparent way."(p 76)
The entire 225 pages is basically a masturbatory exercise in how enlightened and ethical they are for giving voice to individual liberty, balanced with collective public health needs. Oddly, always siding with totalitarianism when down to brass tacks. They give lots of wiggle room in their words to allow for it under ethical guidelines, not meant to be firm barricades protecting individual liberty, or even consent. Suggested. But negotiable. Ethics!! As written by well-meaning totalitarians.
cc: Peter
You Broke The World Bob.
If Not You - Solely
You And Yours Like You.
This Is Our Home.
.
Why is Washington DC so corrupt...because they all believe they will never be held accountable for massive breaches of ALL Laws and Ethics....they are protected by the far left liberal judicial system within that geographic region. If they lie, cheat and/or steal they will be rewarded by those Courts...the reason why the Dems are so mad they can not control the Supreme Court too....did I mention these same unelected folks will take our tax dollars and then cry default.
:(
Injustice and corruption are promoted, celebrated, and encouraged. :(
Great work, Peter, exposing these b*stards!