I'm now delighted to introduce Mr. Julian Gillespie, who's a lawyer and a former barrister. Julian is currently closely involved in the federal court judicial review case involving vaccine mandates. He's deeply involved with issues relating to the oppressive approach that the government has taken with management of COVID-19 in the community. He's an excellent communicator and is at the heart of the pushback against the vaccine and mandated injections. He notes that once the doctor patient relationship was considered significant, based on trust and faith. That meant that a patient could have total faith and trust in what their doctor would tell them. Now that trust is damaged, because many doctors feel bound to tell their patient what the government has told the doctor to say. Not to do so may cost that doctor their career, their whole profession, if AHPRA decides to intervene and deregister that doctor for not following the government line. Freedom of speech is also under direct attack. Julian Gillespie is one of those lawyers leading the fight back. Thank you for appearing today and over to you. Thank you, Mr. Gillespie.
Doctors and the regulators should have followed their core principles/code of conduct but did not. These things are based on law. Despite the regulatory threats and the pandemic situation there was a legal obligation to follow proper principles of informed consent, especially considering the jabs are experimental.
In the argument outlined here Mr Gillespie is saying that there was a breach of legal procedures when it comes to the patients ('tort law'), and so people can sue for damages.
However, I would argue that what happened more directly falls into the category of a crime against humanity (something Mr Gillespie does hit on in the second clip). The basic point is that no one can be threatened or tricked ('safe and effective') into taking an experimental medicine. The risks need to be explained, including the right to refuse. This basic idea of informed consent is something that comes from common sense and the Nuremberg Code that is also written into existing International Human Rights Laws, such as the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics.
By coercing or tricking people into taking the jabs the regulators, and the doctors following their decrees, have committed a very serious crime. This is the legal argument that was used in the UK to help shut down their 'vaccination' program. Note: If people were taking the jabs thinking they had been properly safety tested they were tricked, and if the only reason they were taking them was because their job was on the line they were coerced.
Below is part two, with the following introductory text:
Now we have Julian Gillespie back again, this time to talk about government manipulation. He spoke in his first session about the doctor-patient relationship being destroyed. Now he's going to talk about the government manipulation that orchestrated that, and then he'll go on and talk straight after that about new legislation and Declaration of demand, which is going to be very, very interesting. Over to you, Mr. Gillespie, and thank you once again for coming.
[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, August 30, 2022.]
No comments:
Post a Comment