njama

@samuel28
Initiative Citoyenne be n’en cite qu’un extrait, mais cet article est complétement dans notre actualité politique française et vaut son pesant de cacahuètes !

Judy Wilyman, Newsletter 159 : Mandatory and Coercive Vaccination Policies Violate Constitutional Rights - Declares Swedish Parliament
12 May 2017

he Swedish Parliament has recently stated (10 May 2017) that adopting mandatory or coercive vaccination policies in government legislation violates the public’s constitutional rights and Sweden will not be using coercion to mandate any vaccines in government policy. If this is the case for Sweden it should clearly be the case for all countries. Sweden has recognised the influence that pharmaceutical companies are having on academic research and mainstream journalism through funding arrangements and the professional regulations for medical practitioners and other health professionals. It is also a result of the conflicts of interest that many politicians have with pharmaceutical companies including Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and his wife. 

My PhD thesis provides the scientific evidence and arguments that demonstrate unequivocally that vaccines did not create herd immunity to control infectious diseases. This historical fact is also stated by Professor Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year 2003, in her research titled ’Child Health Since Federation’.

Reference :
Stanley FJ. 2001. Centenary Article : Child Health Since Federation. In Yearbook Australia 2001. Canberra : Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS Catalogue No. 1301.0]. pp368-400. 

Professor Fiona Stanley is also a member of the Australian Academy of Science (AAS). In Chapter 7 of my PhD thesis ’The Evidence Underpinning Claims about Vaccines’ I have provided a discussion of the lack of evidence provided by the AAS to support it’s claims of safety, efficacy and necessity for the recommended schedule of vaccines. Further, the scientific evidence showing the plausible causal links between vaccines and autism can no longer be ignored and the false claims made by politicians and UOW academics, such as Professor Alison Jones, that this link has been discredited, is endangering human health.

If coercive measures such as the financial incentives used in the Australian governments No Jab No Pay Social Welfare Policy are resulting in unproven and unnecessary vaccines (drugs) being mandated for healthy people in government legislation then this is a crime against humanity. 

In my previous Newsletter 158 Professor Fiona Stanley’s Public Health Comments I used quotes from Fiona Stanley’s 2001 research to prove that vaccines did not control infectious diseases and therefore there is no legitimate public health purpose for mandating any vaccine in any government policy. This is particularly the case when governments carry no liability or accountability for the decisions that they make about vaccines/drugs in government policy. It is also the case when the Australian government can ignore the Nuremberg Code that is an international human rights covenant designed to prevent governments experimenting on the human population with drugs.

In Australia our Human Rights Commission did not address the public’s concerns in 2015/16 about breaches of informed consent in medical practice by doctors who are paid to vaccinate. This allowed the Australian government to pass Social Welfare legislation that discriminates against healthy people even though there was no legislation or regulation in any Health Act in Australia in 2016 to make vaccines mandatory. 

Australians do not have a Bill of Rights so there is no accountability for breaching human rights in Australia when the Human Rights Commission does not address the public’s concerns. This allows powerful lobby groups to influence Australian politicians with industry-funded research on vaccines. Greg Hunt, the Federal Minister for Health, demonstrated this with the unbalanced claims that he made about vaccines in his Australian Immunisation Register Amendment bill on 23 March 2017. He presented biased claims including anecdotal emotional evidence about the benefits of vaccines without mentioning any of the serious risks of vaccination that are listed in the medical journals or on the package inserts. Australian doctors are breaching the Ethical Code of Medical Practice by not presenting these risks to consumers before they give consent to vaccination. This code of ethics is stated in the Geneva Convention that was adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) and is incorporated into the medical practice of Australian practitioners. There is no informed consent to vaccination if doctors are prevented from providing the risks of vaccination as stated in the medical journals and if they do not provide the ingredients of vaccines to parents before they inject vaccines into the tissues of infants and children. 

Powerful industry funded lobby groups are presenting non-objective information to politicians and this is described in Chapter 6 of my PhD thesis that is published on the University of Wollongong website. UOW is standing by this thesis because it provides evidence-based research.

Please note that I would like to make a correction to my previous newsletter 158. Professor Fiona Stanley holds a medical degree and her expertise is in public health (social medicine). She holds a Master of Science (Social Medicine). This is the study of infectious diseases in the environmental, political and cultural context in which they occur and this is traditionally studied in the Social Sciences. Similarly I hold a Master of Science (Population Health) degree completed in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Wollongong (UOW) in 2006. In 2011 I started my PhD investigating the science and politics of vaccination policies in the School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication. In 2014 the UOW re-structured its Faculties and Schools and removed public health from the Faculty of Health Sciences. It was placed in a new faculty called the Faculty of Social Sciences but this faculty did not include the traditional Social Sciences (SS). The traditional SS that includes my research is now taught in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts. This re-structure of the disciplines is being used by lobby group activists to try and reduce the credibility of my health research.

Dr. Judy Wilyman (Educator and Health Researcher)
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Social Science, Media and Communication (re-named the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry in 2014).

http://mailchi.mp/f0e7aadc2afc/newsletter-159-mandatory-vaccination-policies-violate-constitutional-rights-swedish-parliament-declares?e=fec8337d3c

@samuel28

et où sont vos milliers de morts ?

Mandat "La décision du 8 février 2017 du conseil d’État qui a enjoint
la ministre de la SANTÉ à mettre sur le marché le D.T. polio seul doit être exécutée."

Jacqueline Bergel-Hatchuel, AVOCATE

http://www.avocat-bergel.com/mandat2.php

Faut-il rappeler au Premier Ministre et à Mme Buzyn que les épidémies ignorent les frontières ! quel sens aurait un absolutisme français ici qui voisinerait avec un relativisme de recommandations vaccinales chez nos voisins ? Mr Edouard Philippe compte-t-il CONVAINCRE tous ses collègues €uropéens d’établir une même dictature vaccinale chez eux ?

Le parlement suédois déclare que les politiques de vaccination obligatoires et coercitives violent les droits constitutionnels -

« La situation actuelle est aussi le résultat de conflits d’intérêts que de nombreux politiciens ont avec les compagnies pharmaceutiques… »

« Ma thèse de doctorat fournit les preuves scientifiques, ainsi que les arguments qui démontrent, sans équivoque, que les vaccins n’ont pas été capables de créer l’immunité de groupe pour lutter contre les maladies infectieuses. Ce fait historique a également été souligné par le professeur Fiona Stanley. (*) »

http://initiativecitoyenne.be/2017/05/suede-le-parlement-declare-les-obligations-vaccinales-inconstitutionnelles.html

Comme le rappelait le Profeseur Joyeux, la ministre devait choisir entre 3 solutions :
1. Obéir à l’Empire vaccinal en imposant par une nouvelle loi l’extension de l’obligation vaccinale contre 8 maladies supplémentaires.
2. Imposer la re-fabrication du DTP, sans Aluminium car la nocivité de cet adjuvant est démontrée.
3. Considérer les français comme adultes et supprimer les obligations vaccinales comme vient de le décider la Suède dont le Parlement a jugé les obligations vaccinales anti-constitutionnelles
L’option 1. a été retenue par le ministère, mais comme je le démontrais dans mon commentaire précédent ce choix ne répond pas à la demande du Conseil d’État, ou que très partiellement. Or si l’Article L3111-1 Modifié par LOI n°2017-220 du 23 février 2017 - art. 4 (V) * énonce que  Mme Buzyn n’a pas prérogative à décider des obligations vaccinales, il lui autorisait de suspendre celles obligatoires en vigueur :

* La politique de vaccination est élaborée par le ministre chargé de la santé qui fixe les conditions d’immunisation, énonce les recommandations nécessaires et rend public le calendrier des vaccinations après avis de la Haute Autorité de santé.

Un décret peut, compte tenu de l’évolution de la situation épidémiologique et des connaissances médicales et scientifiques, suspendre, pour tout ou partie de la population, les obligations prévues aux articles L. 3111-2 à L. 3111-4 et L. 3112-1.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr ...