Did mass coercion make informed consent to the Covid jabs impossible?
‘I had my shots but I’m not having any more’ is a phrase I’ve heard more than once.
A little over a year ago – I know, it feels longer – thousands marched the streets of Australia protesting the mandates. I was one of them.
In many cases, the mandates were facilitated through emergency powers enacted by the state governments. But some sectors (for example Universities) and employers (for example airlines) brought the mandates in all by themselves.
It makes me wonder, if the government and employers tried it on again, how many would march the streets in protest now?
This is an important question as none of the legislative powers that made the ‘mandate nightmare’ possible have been wound back. And only a handful of workers have successfully defeated the mandates.
Meanwhile, the mandate hangover continues…
I recently received a call from a worker who was ‘mandated’ to have a booster. They wanted to discuss options.
‘Just say no,’ I offered. A simple option, possibly not without consequence, but one I would place top of my list. Saying ‘no’ in the current climate is far more likely to be accepted than it was twelve months ago. And I know people who have successfully done so, without losing their jobs.
But there’s something more important at stake: who owns your body?
I asked the caller, ‘Do you really want to continue to work for an employer who is going to require you to have a jab every six months just so you can earn a living?’
It’s a question we should all ask because under those conditions, there is no bodily autonomy (that is, your employer owns your body) and it’s impossible to give legally valid informed consent. Being coerced into having a jab, to keep your job, is not informed consent. It’s the antithesis of informed consent.
In considering the requirements for legally valid informed consent – which can only be given voluntarily and in the absence of undue pressure, coercion, or manipulation – it becomes clear that anyone ‘mandated’ is unable to give informed consent. Why? Because mandates and informed consent are mutually exclusive. If someone is being told they have to have a jab to keep their job then informed consent is not possible, regardless of whether they are willing to receive it for those reasons.
Many understood this, and the seriousness of the new ‘no jab, no pay’ territory we were entering. Tragically, thousands of people walked from jobs and careers that spanned decades, in what might be the biggest government-enforced-mass-exodus of a skilled working population. Even more tragically, hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, were coerced into having the jab to keep their job. And let’s not talk about those who were injured or worse.
This, in a so-called ‘free’ country.
Informed consent was not just ‘impossible’ for the mandated. I have serious doubts about whether anyone in Australia gave informed consent to the Covid injections.
Let me explain.
During the Covid years, Australians were subject to politicians and medical technocrats who told us how miserable our lives were going to be if we didn’t get vaccinated. The disgust was tangible, and the message was clear. Somehow we allowed Australian authorities to subject us to the ‘largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever’ despite treaties, agreements, and codes of conduct that are supposed to protect against such things. I believe the ’95 per cent’ Covid ‘vaccination’ rate was achieved through undue pressure, coercion, and manipulation of the Australian population.
Were you told you wouldn’t be able to attend weddings, funerals, birthdays, social events, schools, or community services if you didn’t get vaccinated? Undue pressure.
Were you told that you would be unable to work, return home, travel, visit sick relatives, enter a hospital, or obtain medical care if you didn’t get vaccinated? Coercion.
Were you told it was your duty, your social contract, and a way to ‘love your neighbour’ by getting vaccinated? Manipulation.
‘The vast majority of people taking vaccines did it under duress,’ said Dr. Peter McCullough on his recent visit to Australia. ‘They did it under duress. They had to try to keep their job or maintain their position … and my heart is broken that so many people have taken the vaccine, and so many have been harmed.’
This same pattern of pressure, coercion, and manipulation was seen around the world.
In the UK, the Lockdown Files revealed how the government employed military-grade psyop-style strategies to make sure they ‘frightened the pants off everyone’ into compliance.
‘You’ve got to look at the definition of coercion,’ explains UK Doctor of Psychology Christian Buckland. ‘The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “It’s the threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions… and those threats include psychological pressure and social ostracism.”’
Buckland continues, ‘This is really important because the (Lockdown Files) prove that psychological pressure was applied to the public. That means any consent to immunisation that was given, whether they asked you or didn’t, or if you agreed or didn’t agree … was not valid.’
‘So what?’ you may ask. Well, if consent was not valid then who is accountable?
Buckland explains, ‘One of the most important questions that is going to emerge from this issue is going to be one of accountability and liability for all the people who have been greatly injured or been left bereft, because of the Covid vaccine. Because they gave their consent for an injection that they couldn’t give consent to. There has to be some form of accountability, based on the fact that no one could give informed consent.’
This issue of informed consent is about so much more than bodily autonomy. It is inextricably linked to medical freedom… and more.
‘Your medical freedom is inextricably linked to your social freedom and your economic freedom,’ says Dr McCullough. ‘When that medical freedom is broken, and you begin to do things to your body for other reasons, outside of medicinal reasons, it infringes upon these other circles of freedom, and this can cascade down. We have to bring ourselves out of this.’
We, the people, need to re-draw the line in the sand. The line where the government ends and our bodily autonomy begins. The ‘informed consent’ line.
Informed consent isn’t some optional extra in medical ethics. It is foundational in medicine and foundational to freedom.
Without it, we lose far more than the right to refuse an experimental jab.