Medical megascandals such as their decades of militantly willful vaccine assaults and injuries of children, their racially targeted suppression of vitamin D, their profitable exploitation and battery of birthing and domestically abused women and of course their wholesale sexual torture, forcible amputation and lobotomy of innocent american boys under false pretexts remain virtually unknown to the public, while these mercenaries for hire continue rampaging across the countryside with total impunity.
A more open and shut case of institutional bigotry, racism, sexism and child abuse can hardly be imagined than that practiced by the proud eugenicists of american medicine, yet liberals obsess over statues of long-dead civil war generals and conservatives worry about prayer in schools. Meanwhile these betray-o-matic predator drones are pushing us ever closer to economic catastrophe, after which their tyrannical reign can continue indefinitely. Outlawing vitamin D supplements would be first on their agenda. This is mind control.
No doubt these doctors’ privileged position in society precludes familiarity with the realities faced by commoners, such as the inside of prison cells. They need a more “liberal” education than what they received in medical school.
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for mandating a coronavirus vaccine, and outlined strategies for how Americans could be FORCED to take it.
The paper warns that an immediate mandate for the vaccine would spark too much resistance and backlash, so the writers suggest that at first it should be voluntary.
However, it suggests that if not enough people are willing to get the vaccine within the first few weeks of it’s availability, it should be transformed into an obligation, with penalties put into place for refusal.
The paper outlines “six trigger criteria” that need to be met before the vaccine is made mandatory, and that it should be rolled out to specific demographics of the population first.
“Only recommended groups should be considered for a vaccination mandate,” initially, according to the paper, which cites “high risk groups” as the first set of people.
“[T]he elderly, health professionals working in high-risk situations or working with high-risk patients…persons with certain underlying medical conditions,” as well as those in “high-density settings such as prisons and dormitories” should be mandated to get the jab, the paper says.
It also suggests that active-duty military service members should be among the first that are forced into the vaccination.
The paper proclaims that “noncompliance should incur a penalty” and notes that it should be a “relatively substantial” one.
It suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders,” should be issued, but that fines should be discouraged because they can be legally challenged, and “may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”
The paper also suggests that government health authorities should avoid making public their close relationship with vaccine manufacturers, to quell public mistrust.
Jon Rappoport joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the rollout of total medical tyranny in America.
The prospect of denying freedom of movement to those who refuse to vaccinate has been floated recently in the UK, where government health officials have also suggested that the jab should be made mandatory.
In the US, calls have been made to make any vaccination mandatory with the likes of the New York Times expressing concern that half of Americans would refuse to take it.
In Canada, a poll recently revealed that 60 per cent think that when a vaccine for coronavirus becomes available it should be made mandatory.
In addition, Canada’s current Chief Public Health Officer appeared in a recently resurfaced 2010 documentary in which she advocated using mandatory “tracking bracelets” for people who refuse to take a vaccine after a virus outbreak.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
— Dr. Marcia Angell, 2009 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
“The case against science is straightforward: Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, â€œpoor methods get resultsâ€. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of â€œsignificanceâ€ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.”
— Richard Horton, editor in chief of Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
“Cruelty in Maternity Wards: Fifty Years Later
“Fifty years have passed since a scandal broke over inhumane treatment of laboring women in U.S. hospitals, yet first-person and eyewitness reports document that medical care providers continue to subject childbearing women to verbal and physical abuse and even to what would constitute sexual assault in any other context. Women frequently are denied their right to make informed decisions about care and may be punished for attempting to assert their right to refusal. Mistreatment is not uncommon and persists because of factors inherent to hospital social culture. Concerted action on the part of all stakeholders will be required to bring about systemic reform.
Keywords: abuse of childbearing women, dysfunctional hospital social systems, patient safety, post-traumatic stress disorder
“Cruelty in Maternity Wards” was the title of a shocking article published just over 50 years ago in Ladies’ Home Journal in which nurses and women told stories of inhumane treatment in labor and delivery wards during childbirth (Schultz, 1958). Stories included women being strapped down for hours in the lithotomy position, a woman having her legs tied together to prevent birth while her obstetrician had dinner, women being struck and threatened with the possibility of giving birth to a dead or brain damaged baby for crying out in pain, and a doctor cutting and suturing episiotomies without anesthetic (he had once nearly lost a patient to an overdose) while having the nurse stifle the woman’s cries with a mask.
“The article shook the country and triggered a tsunami of childbirth reform that included the founding of the American Society for Psychoprophylaxis in Obstetrics, now known as Lamaze International. Nonetheless, as Susan Hodges (2009) recently noted in her guest editorial published in The Journal of Perinatal Education, despite enormous differences in labor and delivery management, decades later, inhumane treatment remains distressingly common. American childbearing women still suffer mistreatment at the hands of care providers, ranging from failure to provide supportive care to disrespect and insensitivity to denial of women’s right to make informed decisions to common use of harmful medical interventions to outright verbal, physical, and even sexual assault. Furthermore, the more extreme examples are not aberrations but merely the far end of the spectrum. Abuse, moreover, results from factors inherent to the system, which increases the difficulties of implementing reforms.
“ABUSE IN CHILDBIRTH: PARALLELS WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE
“According to domesticviolence.org (an online resource devoted to helping individuals recognize, address, and prevent domestic violence), domestic violence and emotional abuse encompass “name-calling or putdowns,” “keeping a partner from contacting their family or friends,” “actual or threatened physical harm,” “intimidation,” and “sexual assault” (“Domestic Violence Definition,” 2009, para. 2). In all cases, the intent is to gain power over and control the victim. One could add that perpetrators, obstetric staff or otherwise, feel entitled to exert this control on grounds of the victim’s inferior position vis-a-vis the perpetrator as the following illustrate: …” — J Perinat Educ. 2010 Summer; 19(3): 33-42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920649