The Attorney at Law, Deana Pollard Sacks, has recently made an opening statement, raising awareness about the unprecedented situation with regards to the mandatory COVID-19 vaccines and condemning the crimes against freedom of choice and human dignity. The experimental vaccines have been mandated in numerous countries worldwide, despite the indisputable evidence that it is not safe and effective for everybody. In fact, this vaccine is not safe for the majority of people long-term because of the risks of induced viral mutation and adaptation of the viral genome responsible for the proteins involved in the suppression of key innate immune mechanisms, and we are aware that such vaccines do not help the human organism improve their innate immune mechanisms and outcompete the respiratory virus evolutionarily. Imagine if eventually, a new variant will be selected and that will cause more severe disease for both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated people? Would it be only then when society will finally get over these immature divisions based on one medical act and finally work on improvements with regards to scientific research.
Mrs. Deana Pollard explained in a detailed way the fundamental human rights that all countries must abide by, and she quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence to highlight the obligation that human beings have the right to control their own possession and control of their person, free from any restraint and control from others. Afterward, she reminded the audience about the United States’ Supreme Court’s explanation in 1891, during the Botsford case, that medical liberty is inalienable and no right is held more sacred or guarded more by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference from others. She then quoted Justice Cardozo’s statement made in 1914 and highlighted that every human beings of an adult age and with a sound mind have the right to determine what shall be done with their own bodies, and a surgeon who performs an operation without the consent of his patient commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. She then highlighted the fact that the same kind of statements have been reiterated in courts all around the world over the decades and mentioned that in 1990, in the Cruzan case versus the Missouri Ministry of Health, the same Supreme Court stated that each competent individual has the right to reject medical treatment. Chief Justice Rehnquist said during the Cruzan case that Anglo-American law starts with the premise of thorough going self-determination and follows that each human being with a sound mind is considered to be the mass surgeon of his body and he may allow or prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment on his own body.
The Jacobson versus Massachusetts case in 1902 contested the law of a mandatory vaccine during the smallpox pandemic with a 5 old $ fine for everybody refusing to get vaccinated. The contestant believed that the constitutional rights and freedom protected him from paying the 5 old $ fine, and he seeked legal action after he paid the fine, wanting his money back. The smallpox vaccine had been in use worldwide for a century, and showed a high degree of efficacy and it was significantly weakening the effects of the pandemic that is deemed as one of the worst in the history of mankind. There was a great need to vaccinate because more than half of the inhabitants of villages were dying of smallpox. After a very careful investigation of the entire context in which Jacobson received and paid the fine, the Supreme Court ruled that he would not receive the money back. It is essential to mention that the smallpox vaccine was not experimental, that up to 60% of people in villages were dying of smallpox when the outbreaks began, and over 90% of babies were dying of the disease. Compare such a tragedy with a 0.5-1% mortality rate among the general population, with voluminous discrepancies in age and underlying health condition, and also add the fact that hospitals used an exaggerated number of DNA amplification cycles in their PCR testing systems, thereby bringing a significant number of false positive test results. As a result, many hospital patients who died because of their co-morbidity were put as dead from COVID-19.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 vaccines are not actually vaccines because not even boosters are stopping infection and transmission, and people still experience significant and severe symptoms following reinfection. People now are not being fined with $100-$150 for refusing the COVID-19 vaccines, but they are no longer allowed to access their workplace, freely move and participate in society. Such losses are much greater than such a fine, which had been given to people who refused a safe and effective vaccine during a pandemic that was rapidly spreading and killing around 40-60% of infected people, depending on their age, health condition and access to treatment. People who received such a vaccine did not become sick again and those who refused it for personal choices very often did not have their livelihoods taken from them. Furthermore, recent statistical data have shown that people aged 40 and below are at a higher risk to develop myocarditis post-vaccine than to develop the heart condition after natural infection, and an Israeli news article has mentioned data that people who received the two-dose mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine are 133 times more likely to develop myocarditis than people who did not. Likewise, the benefit to risk ratio is also too small to claim that enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination laws and allowing private business to oblige employees to receive such a medical act is constitutional and benefits all members of society.
Likewise, the situation continued to evolve and not in our favour, and now the risks of developing COVID-19 complications for people who received two doses of the vaccine are significantly higher than those who did not receive a dose. People who had been infected prior to their vaccination are even more likely to develop complications following reinfection with a future variant within the next 6-12 months.
A general reminder of why a Trial of the Century is needed
- They overinflated the numbers of COVID-19 hospital patients and deaths, and induced unnecessary fear that contributed to a greater societal anxiety.
- They very often kicked out patients with other morbidities from hospitals and monopolised COVID-19.
- They caused millions of people with diseases that required treatment to die because they were refused it.
- They used an erroneous treatment scheme, proposed and in some areas even imposed by the WHO.
- They censored all scientists and doctors who proved their independent treatment schemes were saving many lives.
- They suppressed all information containing indisputable evidence that many specific prophylactic and therapeutic agents were saving many lives and caused almost zero significant side effects.
- They locked down entire communities at a very low risk from developing severe disease and dying from COVID-19, for over 12 months.
- They caused epidemics of suicides among young people, prevalently in those with anxiety disorders and depression.
- They deprived people of work and contact from others for a long time, causing a pandemic of anxiety and depression.
- They did not allow the loved ones of care home residents to visit them anytime during the lockdowns.
- They banned peaceful and non-disruptive protests and sent hundreds and thousands of riot police officers at the protests, who then brutally dispersed the crowds and arrested hundreds of people. In some cases, the police brutality caused blood shedding. For example, police officers in Australia and the Netherlands opened fire on peaceful protestors using rubber bullets, wounding a number of them and causing severe distress.
- They made people wear face masks indoors and outdoors, and caused psychological harm to people who did not want to wear a mask through police brutality and massive fines.
- They psychologically coerced people to receive an experimental and controversial medical act, which has caused the deaths of over a million people around the world so far.
- They pushed an experimental and controversial medical act to minors and children, although they are at a higher risk of adverse events and death than adults.
- They put tens of millions of lives at risk long-term by misinforming people about the long-term risks of the vaccine and telling people it was the only way to restore normalcy.
- They undermined the world economy by funding several trillions of USD for the experimental vaccine, masks and lockdown measures. They caused the greatest inflation since the middle ages.
- They banned travel for people who did not want to take a PCR test and then for people who refused to receive an experimental medical act.
- They split the society into two, causing the greatest division in modern history.
- They lied to the public to fulfil their agenda by all means, no matter if it even means the death of millions of people.
Link to the Israeli news paper: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321238
3 thoughts on “The Nüremberg Trial 2.0: Updates”
What powers does the Nernberg 2.0 have to stop the assault on freedom and to stop the mandatory actions of governments forcing vaccination on those that don’t want to be vaccinated, can they protect our rights to medical privacy
I do believe that the Nurnburgtrial lying ahead will give a new view on the rights of cirizens.
We are a toyball of presidents, ministers with ill meanings, ministers and presidents, just acting in favour of criminals like Bill Gates and Frau Von der Leijen, who is not representing we the people, but is acting out of falsely obtained power. Von der Leijen is the worst President even of the European Unon, her husband is a big player in medicine, he has his own corporation and his medical plant is intertwined with the public task of his wife. She never should have been chosen as President of the EU, to much intertwinement, so corruption can and has happened. Frau von der Leijen is not the right person for our EU, she has to be replaced by a neutral, a real neutral person.
Top site ,.. amazaing post ! Just keep the work on !