Informed Consent: The Elephant In The Room

Updated from February 2017

In a free society, we are told that informed consent happens with every conscious decision. Consent equals choice.

Many people do not realize that everything in life is ‘an offer to contract.’  We either consent to the offer or we do not. If the offer is not clear, it is not consent. With valid consent, both parties have ability to “opt-out,” and each also has the ability to terminate the agreement if obligations go unfulfilled.

Does government offer informed-consent?

No.

Whether the offer relates to war, laws, taxes, education, vaccines, pollution, or mandates, people often feel coerced into going along with the program.

When food is genetically-modified and sold as “healthy” without the science to validate it, it is served up without informed-consent.  When vaccines are sold as “safe and effective” with numerous studies claiming otherwise, they are deployed without informed-consent. Ironically, both examples point to “science” as the reason to believe the authorities.

What happened to true informed consent? 

Exemption Ruse

Since 2017, when SB277 became law in California to remove vaccine exemptions, 103 similar bills in 30 States followed. This action created a vaccine mandate and a debate that played out in the media, by design.

However, no one warned people to understand the ruse of exemptions.

An exemption is a pass to do something you already have the right to do. You are requesting permission from government to make a choice that you already possess. Thus, asking permission of government to opt out from any government-imposed health mandates, you agree to bypass birthrights.

Remember, bodily autonomy is a BIRTHRIGHT. You come into this world alone. You leave this world alone, without government approval. Therefore, an exemption or an Exemption Act, is a form of entrapment known as Color of Law, an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law.

Unless you do your own research, no one is going to tell you about the adverse effects listed on the vaccine package inserts. No one will explain how the vaccine schedule for children went from five vaccines in 1962 to 74 doses in 2022. Similarly, no one is responsible or accountable if and when a vaccine fails. Just sign on the dotted line and roll up your sleeve.

Under the law, 42 U.S. Code 300 Standards of Responsibility, vaccines makers are immune to lawsuits for any damages resulting from their products:

(1)No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

Without informed consent, you may not have all the information. You may not live in a free society. But knowing you have inherent rights means nothing can be forced upon you.  

Just beware of the ‘awareness exercise.’

The Awareness Exercise

The 2016 film,”Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” was dubbed the most controversial film in America. The film came out in time to counter California’s vaccine mandate, Senate bill 277, or SB277.

The film revealed corruption at the highest levels of CDC, showing the suppressed science that links autism to the MMR vaccine. Vaxxed had been screened in hundreds of theaters, reached millions of people, was live-streamed, and is sold on DVD. The film premiered in Europe despite censorship in some areas. In 2019, Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth was released.

In 2016, the Vaxxed tour bus traveled around the country, documenting stories of vaccine damage and death in its wake. The Vaxxed team also met with lawmakers to plead for an end to mandates. Yet, begging for permission from the same politicians who created the problem provided no real solution. Thus, government mandates continued, unabated.

Did the Vaxxed phenomenon accomplish its goals and objectives? What exactly were those objectives? To raise awareness? To remove mercury from vaccines? To end mandates? To promote a documentary? 

In 2015, one year before the bus tour, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., authored the book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, where he argued for the removal of mercury from vaccines. However, in 2015, all FDA-approved, CDC-recommended vaccines also contained carcinogens (formaldehyde), antibiotics, monkey viruses, human fetal tissue cells, aluminum, inorganic matter, and nano particles.

In 1999, the Academy of Pediatrics had recommended the removal of Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines, only to see it added to flu shots at higher levels.

In 2018, RFK Jr. brought a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regarding vaccine safety that resulted in no formal actions against the DHHA.

The lawsuit proved that the DHHS failed to submit a single biannual report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety, as required by  The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, in exchange for allowing vaccine makers immunity from injuries and deaths from their products.

As expected, there were no consequences for the DHHS failures. Instead, over the last two decades, there has been a 300% increase in the number of CDC-recommended childhood vaccines, with no controlled trials on the multiple vaccines given at once.

While RFK Jr. and the Vaxxed tour did bring awareness to the subject of injectable toxins, nothing changed in “vaccine science.” Fast forward to 2023, Kennedy, portrayed as “antivaxxer” in the media, is now running for the 2024 presidency stating he is “provaxx.” Could this contradiction be a distraction? Is he running as a chaos agent? 

Meanwhile, rights are still ignored under the ruse to provide “safe and effective” Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) mRNA vaccine mandates and boosters. How did humanity come to these crossroads?

Engineering Consent

Consent is engineered through a war of ideas, a war of science, a war over control, and a war on freedom.  No where is this seen more clearly than through vaccine mandates.

Those who own the narrative, control the outcome. These hidden engineers speak through operatives at the highest levels of government, medicine, education, religion, and the media. They control the media and information networks, employ the best behavioral scientists and public relations firms and have virtually unlimited funds. Ultimately, they also control the minds of the masses through influential celebrities.

Controlling minds is the science of Social Engineering. Going back to Ed Bernays, the father of Propaganda, social engineers understand well that behavior can be molded  by the media, including social media, through attitudes and public opinion. 

The goal is to homogenize the population into a Hive Mind and bring about a state where a foundation of human rights no longer exists. In such mind-meld, people beg for rights from the State without realizing that rights do not come from government.

Rights are not gifts from government. Government can only grant benefits and privileges. Benefits and privileges can be abolished, amended, modified or expanded at the whim of the State. True rights are granted by the Creator, at birth. 

In America, Social Engineering is referred to as “Public Relations.” The people are convinced to follow the trends: what to eat, what to watch, what to think. They are guided to march in lock step along side “organized chaos.” This exercise in obedience training is known as psychological operations, “PsyOps” to manage whole populations as “The Herd.” 

Scientism, The New Religion

Social Engineers fuel the Age of Post-humanism, an Age that describes humanism without the optimism. Post-humanists do not recognize nature’s God because science is the only god. Science is the final word because “the science is settled.” Science is sanctified as the only from of true knowledge. And before you can say the new religion, science magically becomes “Scientism,” where edicts are handed down by scientist-priests.

One of Scientism’s mantras: “vaccines are safe and effective.” However, when scientists are asked to point to the science, it does not exist, because there is no need to prove anything.

Social Engineers succeed by dividing the masses into “pro” and “anti” camps, and letting them debate the science while rights are quietly removed.

Science becomes a tool of deception, a PsyOps. The vaccine debate is manufactured to eliminate freedom.

Social engineers frame the debate under “Public Health” and “safety,” even though there is no such thing as Public Health. There is only individual health with individual choice.  The debate of Pro vs. Anti distracts from the freedom to choose. The word, choice, is never uttered. 

In the name of science, the media declares that all “anti-vaxers” are “deniers” who put the “Public Health” at risk. They are the professionals at managing chaos and emotions. The Pro-Anti strategy is also applied to genetically-modified foods (GMOs), Climate Change, abortion, and geo-engineering.

How We Fail The Test

Unless humanity reclaims its POWER to embody inherent rights, humanity fails the test and sets itself backwards. Protecting Rights, not science, is paramount, lest freedom is out-voted by the non-critical thinkers. In a Democracy, majority rules. In a democratic Republic, the individual is protected.

The reason the film, Vaxxed, was not the savior of the people, the country, or inherent rights, is because postmodernists own the narrative. As long as the debate is mired in the science, to “demand the removal of mercury from vaccines,” or to insist on “vaccine safety testing,” the bus to freedom is going nowhere fast.

We have played the fool, again and again, thinking that arguing the science is the answer to securing rights. In 2017 and 2019, prior to the COVID pandemic officially being called a live exercise, one of the Vaxxed team members, RFK Jr. continued to use the same ‘pro-anti’ script.

I am pro vaccine. All my kids are vaccinated.

I believe vaccines should be safety tested. 

We shouldn’t be mandating medical interventions for unwilling Americans unless we know precisely that that vaccine is helping people rather than hurting them. 

Words have meaning and must be discerned, lest wordsmiths use them against your better judgment. Is there such thing as a safe vaccine? Are unwilling Americans considered deniers?

In the Age of Information, ignorance is not an option.

Beware of the Science Debate. Science is debatable by its nature. Thus, to debate the science is self-defeating, as science can only show an association between the variables studied. True science explores a thesis – a question. Science asks questions. It does not produce outcomes. As science evolves, it settles nothing. And the postmodernists know this. So, as people continue to fall for awareness exercises, nothing changes. 

For instance, history shows that science once concluded that asbestos was safe for humans. Doctors pushed Marlboro cigarettes as healthy. According to the science, Thalidomide was prescribed to women as safe, until it was removed from the market for causing birth defects. When Dupont removed the toxin BPA from its plastic products, they replaced it with another toxin BPS.

If social engineers can convince people to think and believe that science is the bastion of truth, they can convince them not to see that they are standing at the bottom of a deep hole they dug themselves. 

As long as scientists control the narrative, consent is engineered. Critical thinking is replaced with Group Think, in the Hive Mind. Without the ability to analyze and demand that rights be protected, informed-consent is no longer important because the decision has been made for us. “Beliefs” replace evidence.

Finding Clarity

We must wake from a deep sleep to ask the questions that bring clarity. What is the focus of the vaccine message by self-appointed leaders? Can any outcomes be measured?

Is the focus on mercury in vaccines a ruse when vaccines also contain aluminum adjuvants and other toxins? What about conflicting CDC policies? Media misinformation?  Where is the message to first protect inherent rights?

Did the Vaxxed team ignore freedom and rights, by design, in leading the masses in an emotional rescue exercise using an endless debate of the science?

If these so-called leaders call themselves “pro-vaccine,” are they pawns of the Postmodernists strategy to distract the Herd and undermine the greater cause of preserving choice?

Chastising the media on its biased reporting becomes an exercise in futility when the media owns the narrative. So, engaging with the press is also a failed endeavor when the mainstream chooses not to report.

In 2017, did anyone notice the elephant in the room during a presentation to the Press Club by The World Mercury Project?  The elephant being informed consent? 

Did “pro-vaccine” attorney Robert F. Kennedy pay lip service to human rights? Did Minister Tony Mohammad talk about informed-choice? Did the father of two children, Del Bigtree, remind us of freedom to choose? Did celebrity Robert De Niro say anything about anything? What about district attorney, Nico Lahood? Was their presentation reported by the mainstream news?

No. No. No. No. No. And no. 

While the circus performed “to raise awareness” and argue the science of mercury in vaccines, what happened to the elephant?

How far does awareness go beyond a “feel good” experience for “anti-vaxxers?” Has the movement broadened its scope beyond its base since 2017?Were the priorities of the Vaxxed team first to secure freedom, and then to debate the science?

No.

In 2023, any objectives to end mandates have not been met. On the contrary, mandates have expanded throughout the world. In 2020, Social Engineers showed themselves as celebrity influencers who proudly got the latest jab.

Deconstruct the PsyOps

We can no longer rely on others to do the thinking and talking for us. We have all been hypnotized under the construct of social engineering, allowing celebrities to take the spotlight. Taking a page from the book, The Art of War, we must know the enemy, and the enemy is us.

What we are here to discern is that there are no leaders or saviors. We save ourselves and lead by our own initiative. The era of sitting at the feet of gurus is over. Each of us must reclaim responsibility to find our own answers.

When it comes to rights, the most basic right of private property begins with the Self. You own your body as you own your soul. The State does not. A refusal to recognize this simple truth translates into the abolition of all private property by extension. Going forward, discernment is key.

We can start by asking the following questions:

1. Is the argument framed in scientific terms, as a ruse?
2. Is the debate set up for the audience to side with you or the panel of science experts?
3. Is the issue a Human Rights issue under a Public Health cover?
4. Is fear or coercion behind pro-science arguments to fulfill the end game of mandates? Fear drives people toward authority, by design.
5. Is the movement about “awareness” or action?

Create Solutions and Measure Outcomes:

1. Do not engage in PsyOps exercises. Know the enemy. Understand behavior.
2. Do not focus on negative (anti) arguments but rather affirmative goals.
3. Stay away from exclusive and divisive (pro vs anti) movements. 
4. Do not beg the State for rights (i.e., parental rights, gender rights) that they cannot grant. 
5. Create objectives to measure success. 
6. Do not pander to the existing base or preach to the ‘choir.’ Instead activate the choir.
7. Take the “Public” our of Public Health.
8. Broaden the base. Be all-inclusive (i.e. “vaccine neutral”) to engage others who appreciate all rights.
9. Create a new paradigm … i.e., “The Power of Choice Movement.”
10. Frame the issue as Human Rights or Inherent Rights first, science and policy second. Everyone agrees that Human Rights are the foundational principle.
11. Control the narrative. Those who control the narrative control the outcome.
12. Identify tools already in Place (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights) and use them in defense of free choice.
13. Understand that Natural Law is above Man’s laws.
14. Frame the desired outcome as the preservation of Individual Rights.
15. If governmental power is based on your consent, it stands that if you can consent to something, you can also withdraw your consent.

As debates and mandates continue, the foundational mission must be one of power, using birthright to object to coerced vaccination.

Without informed-consent, the freedom to choose may not exist.

Fortunately, everyone has an inherent right to refuse vaccines without government approval.  It comes down to POWER … who has it, who doesn’t .. and how to reclaim it. However, if people had the power to refuse, we would not be looking for saviors or begging politicians for rights we already embody. We would not still be having this discussion. 

Related Articles:

• Vaccine Debate: Ruse to Eliminate Freedom
• The Ruse of Exemptions: When Government Calls The Shots
• Taking the Public Out of Public Health
• Closing the Playbook on Tyranny