“Informed consent is a trap.” ~~Rudy Twomoon
SEN. MIKE FOLMER
On Jan. 8, 2018, Pennsylvania state Senator, Mike Folmer—a career politician from Lebanon, PA.—announced a proposed bill to require “informed consent” for vaccines in Pennsylvania.
INFORMED CONSENT BILL
Sen. Folmer is introducing “Informed Consent” legislation “to require patients to be given information before they consent to vaccinations.” Okay, wait a sec, what does he mean: “before they consent to vaccinations?” (Red flag!) Instead of informing “before they consent to vaccinations,” physicians should be informing “to make sure they refuse vaccinations.”
TWO TYPES of INFORMED CONSENT
Medical professionals can deliver two types of informed consent warnings: (A) to obtain the patient’s consent … or (B) to obtain the patient’s refusal. (No such thing as a “neutral” warning!) Fundamentally, all informed consent warnings should lead the patient, not towards consent, but rather, towards refusal.
CONSENT or REFUSAL?
Does Sen. Folmer’s bill seek to obtain “consent” or “refusal?” Folmer will predictably argue that his bill is “neutral”—but it goes without saying, there’s no such thing as a “neutral” warning! Presumably, the informers know and understand they’re delivering a “poison warning,” right?
REQUIREMENTS of SEN. FOLMER’S BILL
According to Sen. Folmer, his legislation would require patients to be informed of the “risks and benefits of vaccinations.” Okay, stop right there—the bill would require patients to be informed of risks and b-b-benefits of vaccination? But wait—hold your horses—there are NO benefits of vaccination!
THE MISEDUCATION of SEN. FOLMER
Sen. Folmer wants to inform patients of the “risks and benefits of vaccinations,” but this shows that he is woefully misinformed about vaccines—which confer no benefit of any kind whatsoever. #truthbalm
VACCINES CONFER NO BENEFITS
When it comes to vaccines, it’s 100% risk with 0% benefit. And this lopsided ratio—“all-risk/no-benefit”—is the same with all poisons. Sen. Folmer’s proposed bill—calling for patients to be informed of potential vaccine “benefits”—is misleading (if not downright fraudulent) because Folmer suggests that vaccines confer benefits, but this is simply untrue. No poison confers benefits, and all vaccines are poisons, therefore, no vaccine confers benefits. #baddabing #baddaboom
If Sen. Folmer’s bill ever became law, it would be struck-down in court as unconstitutional. Why?—because it’s too “vague.” The bill provides no details on the informing requirements—i.e., no physician can be sure of his or her “duties” to inform—and no patient can be sure of his or her “rights” to be informed.
NO INFORMED CONSENT ‘SPIEL’
Folmer’s bill provides no guidance on what type of informing the doctors are required to give—and it creates no expectation on what type of informing the patients are entitled to receive. For reasons unexplained, Folmer’s bill includes no script for physicians to read aloud to patients, i.e., no “informed consent spiel.”
YOU’VE BEEN CHALLENGED
Sen. Folmer—you’ve been challenged! Tell us the “informed consent spiel” that your bill contemplates! #ImyourHuckleberry
PHYSICIANS for INFORMED CONSENT
Everybody talks about “informed consent,” but nobody ever offers an “informed consent spiel.” For example, the shill group Physicians for Informed Consent fights for the general idea of informed consent—but they offer no specific verbiage—i.e., no “informed consent spiel.” #controlledOP
Then there’s Crystal Hunsacker, founder of the shill group Pennsylvania Medical Freedoms Association. On Facebook, Crystal’s cover pic appears to be an “informed consent spiel” (watermarks ‘n all)—but the fine print, naturally, is too fine to read! Crystal offers no specific verbiage for “informed consent”—because she’s just a cheerleader for the general idea of “informed consent.” #controlledAF
THE VAXXED BUSS
Just curious, if Suzanne Humphreys were to dispense an informed vaccine warning, would she steer the patients towards consent?—or towards refusal? What exactly would Humphreys say to would-be vaccinees? #quackquack
CLICK HERE: VACCINE WARNING for INFORMED REFUSAL!
We here present a most thorough and proper vaccine warning—intentionally calculated to obtain the patient’s refusal! “Vaccine Warning for Informed Refusal” …<click here>
If a physician—who knows and understands that vaccines are poison—ever attempted to deliver a real-world vaccine warning, then at some point during the warning, his or her Hippocratic conscience would surely kick-in—thus making it impossible for the informed consent charade to continue! #truthbalm
THE TWOMOON DOCTRINE
American naturalist and philosopher, Rudy Twomoon, writes: “Informed consent is a trap.” Indeed! Truer words were never written. The Twomoon Doctrine provides that—once a physician understands that vaccines are poison, then that physician could never ethically seek to obtain a patient’s consent—because poisoning patients, of course, is always unethical. Twomoon adds, “And even where the patient is foolish enough to consent, it’s still unethical to poison that patient!” #twomoon
‘DO NO HARM’
Physicians are ethically obliged to “do no harm.” However, if a physician—who understands that vaccines are poison—were to vaccinate a patient, then that physician has actual knowledge that he or she has “done harm”—in violation of every moral and ethical standard—by knowingly and purposely poisoning the patient—and that physician commits the crime of battery!
UNSINKABLE SHARON BROWN
Sharon Brown—who now litigates to halt California’s SB277—which requires mandatory vaccination of schoolchildren—explains, “The problem is white lab coats—who choose to ignore what we hold to be self-evident, i.e., that all vaccines are poison.” Indeed! White lab coats have become instruments of state oppression. The solution? Brown explains, “We must boycott all white lab coats.” #BoycottWhiteLabCoats
INFORMED CONSENT is WRONG
Informed consent laws are just plain wrong—because they presuppose that some folks may consent—and if they do consent—it’s only because they were inadequately informed in the first place. Truth is—vaccines remain unsafe regardless of whether the foolhardy consent. (Somebody meme that last sentence!)
INFORMED CONSENT is ATTEMPTED POISONING
No physician should ever attempt to exploit those foolish enough to consent. For this would be the equivalent of attempted poisoning! “And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers!” [Ezekiel 25:17] – Must-See Video Clip – Samuel L. Jackson
INFORMED CONSENT is PHARMA-SPEAK
We must reject their “informed consent” brainwashing slogan and instead use our own indigenous language—”informed refusal.” And you will recognize pharma’s handmaidens by how they ramble-on about “informed consent!” Just say NO to “informed consent”—and instead support “informed refusal!”
VACCINE ABOLITION SOCIETY
We cordially invite you to join us @ Vaccine Abolition Society! Who are we? We are free-thinkers! And we know and understand that “informed consent” laws make vaccines no safer. #truthbalm
MOMENT of TRUTH
No such thing as “safe” vaccines. Vaccines are weapons of war— designed to kill and injure—and there is no “safe” way to kill or injure.
THE ABOLITIONIST CREED
We say NO to vaccine choice—because choice kills babies!
We say NO to informed consent—because no right-minded person consents to poison!
We say NO to safe vaccines—because none exist!
And we demand vaccine abolition now!
VACCINE ABOLITION NOW
We are Abolitionists! We are devout! We are many! And we shall overcome!
Written, Produced, and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions
in association with Chapter Eleven Productions,
Fly-By-Night Management Services, and
Neurotica Entertainment Group
Copyright 2018 – Truth Hits I-Team
“Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the gov’t out of your body.” ~~TMP.