RadioDAUGHTER

My daughter Annabel has this week been making the case on talkRADIO against compulsory Covid jabs being required for travel.

Quite right too.

We do not know how many people have been killed by covid vaccinations, and by the other consequences of covid hysteria. We will probably never know, with any accuracy. This is the sort of information that governments go to considerable lengths to make it as difficult as possible to access.

But what we do know is that we need more people like Annabel, speaking out for humanity and common sense.

It is also fair to add that we do not know how many people’s lives have been saved by the vaccines. But again, there are aspects of this that we do know. Those whose lives have been saved are overwhelmingly people in old age, or whose health is already severely compromised, whose remaining life expectancy now relatively short. For those people, taking the vaccine is likely to be a very sensible choice. Conversely, those who have been killed by the vaccine, although very probably fewer in number, are typically much younger, no material risk at all of dying from Covid. They have taken the vaccine because they have been coerced into doing so by governments, refusing them their ordinary human privileges – such as freedom to move about – unless vaccinated. In very large measure, they have been lied to by governments, who tell them that taking the vaccine is necessary for the protection of others. In fact, as the governments well know, the vaccines do not prevent people from getting Covid, nor from passing it on (although they are, at least in the short term, reasonably effective mitigating the severity of the disease if a person gets it).

Understandably, in the talkRADIO piece, Kevin O’Sullivan suggests that coercing people who are at no risk of dying from Covid into taking the vaccine – which does carry risk – is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath.  But that is doubtful; the “First do no harm” bit that is so often quoted does not appear as such to be in the Hippocratic oath itself,  although there is a prohibition on doing harm to patients in the context of dietary regimes.[1] More cogently, the use of coercion and misinformation by governments does appear to be contrary to the Nuremberg Code of 1947, and in particular articles 1, 2 and 6 of that code.[2]

Annabel should keep persuading on this topic.

---

[1] I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

[1]

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
   
   The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.