The Ongoing Battle for Consent

It's a good time to strengthen your boundaries as things are heating up again

As quickly as the story came out, it was disappeared behind a veil of word salad and gaslighting in the mainstream media.

“Boston University lab did not create deadly new COVID strain, experts say”

When a headline appears with “experts say” tacked on, it often turns out to be propaganda. Independent journalist, James Corbett calls this phenomenon, expertology.

Experts say don’t believe headlines that start with “experts say”.

This phrase implies, trust us, we are the experts.

Earlier this week the story was about Boston University scientists at a level 4 biosafety lab creating a new strain of COVID with an 80% mortality rate in lab rats. This was reported in the DailyMail and ZeroHedge.

According to the above articles, the group of BU researchers apparently combined the highly transmissible Omicron spike protein with part of the early COVID strain. They claimed the result was 5x more infectious than Omicron and killed 80% of the lab mice.

Grants were apparently given by NIH and NIAID. This means that someone in the government knew this was going on and when Washington heard the story start to come out, they quickly minimized and normalized it.

In the CBS expertology piece, they wrote:

The goal of this 2022 study was to determine why the Omicron variant of COVID-19 seems to cause less severe disease than the virus's original strain, and to figure out what component of the virus determined its severity. 

To do so, researchers compared original COVID, Omicron, and a version of the two combined: this is where the misinformation about a "new strain" developed. 

As I explored in a recent post, Information Control Is Reality Control, the term misinformation is often used as a signal that they’re erasing reality and re-writing history.

The mad scientists are still doing this dangerous role playing of God in the lab, while spinning it as something helpful.

Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.

We saw the irrational fear spread like wildfire around the world for a 99.9% chance of survival. Society barely survived the beta test intact, albeit bruised, battered, and deeply scarred with some seemingly irreversible damages to connection and cohesion.

What would happen to a pre-conditioned society if an agent with a much higher kill rate is introduced and the next level fear campaign is launched?

Bill Gates warned us they’re preparing for the next pandemic, “That one will get attention this time.”

Coincidentally (or not), there aren’t many willing human lab rats lining up for boosters. Many countries already purchased hundreds of millions of doses and it’s not selling. They can’t even give it away for free because people don’t want it.

Surely the low numbers of compliant jab recipients has nothing to do with the ongoing and increasing examples of people, especially those 18-40, who are dying or becoming gravely affected by adverse effects, even many months later as we are seeing now.

The keyword search for “died suddenly” suddenly became a trend in late 2021 and continues to spike in 2022, even with the intensified information control online. It’s interesting to note this search trend didn’t exist in 2020.

What was the one thing that changed in 2021?

Now in late 2022, the Boston lab announces what they’ve been up to and the cover story quickly follows. Will Boston be the next Wuhan? Coincidentally (or not), the city of Wuhan housed a level 4 biolab working on gain-of-function research with the same pathogen that apparently traveled around the world. The expertology reports say there’s no risk of it escaping the Boston lab.

Last year, in this short clip from Episode #92 of the Naturally Inspired Podcast with Tammy Cuthbert Garcia, I described how abusers sow chaos all around the target's life. In doing so, they get the target to become exhausted, confused and overwhelmed, trying to keep up with it all at once.

I explained how this is one of the tactics the enemy is using in this war on humanity. There are so many things wrong that we can get caught up arguing each point, losing focus of the central issue. The central issue is the one where the battle will be won.

All they need to do is switch out the 99.9% survival rate with something that has a 30% mortality rate. Now we are having a very different conversation.

The central issue, the conversation that we really need to have, is on the violation of consent.

This is a human rights issue. If we focus on consent, that’s where the conversation ends on all the mandates. We need to come back to this basic human rights issue.

The most basic human right is your power of choice, your ability to say yes or no.

This was also the core issue of the Nuremberg Code, as I wrote about in February:

The Violation of Consent

It is our personal choice, and personal responsibility, to consent or not to any medical treatment.

It is against the Nuremberg Code for humans to be forced, coerced, or deceived into any act involving the sanctity of one's body. This is a basic standard of ethics and human rights.

To dismiss the Nuremberg Code is to stand against human rights.

Consent is actually the very first principle of this historical document that was written after WW2 when a group of people carefully chose the words that they would use to warn future generations so the same thing didn’t happen again. Here is how they defined consent.

Notice how many violations of this core principle have taken place in the recent years.

The 10th principle is also completely disregarded as millions of people around the world have suffered or died as a result of these ongoing experimental injections.

We need to look at the epicenter of the problem and put that fire out so the rest of the fires start to extinguish themselves.

Consent is the core issue being attacked, manipulated and exploited since 2020 with the scamdemic and all the shenanigans that are following.

The most basic human right is being discarded. It needs to be reclaimed if we want to liberate ourselves and future generations from modern slavery.

Society has seemingly made some progress in terms of understanding sexual consent during the last decade. Yet have we not learned that consent also involves bodily autonomy in a non-sexual context?

Here's a short comedy skit I did in 2021 to show the ridiculous and escalating arguments of coercion being used in the vax campaign by public health officials, some medical professionals and laypeople who are enablers of the psychopaths in charge.

The first tenet of the Nuremberg Code was: The Voluntary Consent of the Human Subject is Essential.

In 2020, governments talked a lot about what's essential and not. Your small business wasn't essential, but massive corporations were essential. Buying clothes for your kids wasn't essential, but buying alcohol was. Buying seeds to grow food wasn't essential, but ordering fast food from massive corporations was. Of course the rules varied by locality, but the absurdity was ubiquitous.

Governments did NOT bring your human right to consent into the conversation about what's essential.

You were forced to stay home.

You were forced to wear a mask in public.

You were forced to let your loved ones die alone.

You were forced against visiting your loved ones in care homes.

You were forced to take a fraudulent PCR test in order to travel or work.

You were forced to choose between your education, job and livelihood or taking an experimental injection.

You were forced to take more experimental injections when you were told that one "immunization" wasn't enough to actually become immune.

Of course you could’ve declined to consent at any point in the above campaign instead of allowing your health, self-worth and human rights to be degraded. Even if you regret your past choices, you can start making new choices now.

Anyone paying attention in 2020 realized that the experimental injections weren't being tested for transmissibility, and anyone paying attention in 2021 realized many of the public officials assuring you that if you get jabbed you won't get sick or make others sick, later got the alleged virus, often multiple times, after allegedly getting all the updated so-called "effective" injections.

For those in the back of the room that still haven't realized it was all a sham, in one of the biggest bombshells of the year, Pfizer admitted openly in front of the EU Parliament recently that they never tested the experimental injections for stopping the transmission.

“We had to really move at the speed of science”, she said. This is a new euphemism for lying to the public. Not only was the vaxpass premise based on a lie, but they used this lie in order to coerce people into something they might not otherwise have consented to if they had known the truth.

Everything you were told about how you have to take the injections as your brother's keeper, for the benefit of society, because you care about others, and if not then you’re anti-social... IT WAS ALL A BIG LIE.

They knew all along they were lying but they did it anyway because they believed they should get away with it. So far, they were right about that.

Even after admitting this lie to the entire world, it’s as if nothing is happening. The mainstream media isn't reporting it, with the exception of Tucker Carlson. Fortunately many alternative media sources are talking about it.

We need to talk about it. The elephant is getting too big for the room.

Have you been training your mind, body and soul to decline the next targeted campaign that’s going to aim to coerce your consent?

Maybe another pathogen is their next big line of attack. Or it could be something else affecting access to food, energy, finances, information, travel, working, studying or another essential aspect of human life.

It’s important to strengthen your boundaries and practice owning your right to consent.

You have the right to say no.

You have the right to set boundaries.

You have the right to decide what is done to your body and not.

You have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if that treatment could save your life.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.

No is a complete sentence.

When setting boundaries and saying no to toxic people, one must learn not to give explanations for the boundaries.

Any explanation will be interpreted by the toxic entity as an opening to continue negotiating your boundaries or a justification for bulldozing your "no". Many of us have the habit of naming explanations to justify our boundaries, yet this is a trap.

We ought to be careful when setting boundaries by not adding on clauses that can be manipulated and used as future fodder for tyranny.

The point is, they can't mandate any medical procedures because that’s a violation of consent.

They can't force people to do something to their bodies that people don’t want to be done to them. It is a grave violation of human rights.

Here are some examples of doctors who are fighting for the truth about the experimental injections. I’m very grateful for the brave work they’ve been doing to raise awareness about the dangers of these injections and other medical topics during the recent years. I also want to urge caution about how we use language around the concept of consent.

The Florida Surgeon General has made some important statements about the dangers of the experimental injections. Dr. Joseph Ladapo said:

How can you force people to take a vaccine, in order to stop transmission when that vaccine is not effective at stopping transmission?

Dr. Ladapo is right that it doesn’t make any medical sense. However, I believe that the statement should end with, “How can you force people to take a vaccine?”

The clause, “in order to stop transmission when that vaccine is not effective at stopping transmission”, leaves an opening to the future abuse of human rights under the premise that another vaccine stops transmission. Even if it were effective at stopping transmission, that doesn’t give anyone the right to abuse another person’s human right to say no.

Another example was when Dr. Peter McCullough said:

Until something is proven to be safe, in no way should it be mandated.

It’s true that something unsafe shouldn’t be mandated. However, the clause, “until something is proven safe”, is not a valid justification for forcing a person to do something to their body, or their child’s body, that they do not consent to. This again leaves an opening for the future abuse of human rights.

In both of these examples, an unnecessary clause was added. Added clauses are explanations for boundaries (ie: the above clauses which were based on safety and efficacy). These kinds of clauses should be avoided lest they be used against us in the future.

When we are caught up arguing safety and efficacy, we still miss the mark on the core issue.

Safety and efficacy are important and valid points that have everything to do with whether or not a person might choose to consent. It’s true that the injections proved to be neither safe nor effective, however these explanations leave an opening for negotiating our human rights with future mandates. Abusers are always looking for a loophole or technicality with which to justify their abuse.

Now that we’ve seen the level of corruption, lies and malfeasance on behalf of drug companies, media and government, this is a great opportunity to re-evaluate the so-called “normal” childhood vaccine mandates. Nowadays children are receiving significantly more injections than in the 1980s when I grew up. This is not normal.

The CDC just voted unanimously to add the COVID shots to the schedule of childhood vaccines. This is reckless endangerment of children and child abuse.

Of course, the immediate PR campaign begins in the news. “No, the CDC isn’t requiring children to get the COVID vaccine for school”.

Next, it will be up to states and schools to decide if they will comply with CDC recommendations or if they will go rogue and do what they think is best. Prepare to watch the “don’t blame us” endless circular argument of evading responsibility.

Yet there may be a silver lining as Dr. Mark McDonald expressed

Perhaps we should celebrate. The government school system is as much of a failure, and a harm to children, as the indefensible farce of the “vaccine” program. All Americans would benefit if they would both collapse. Then we could return to real medicine and real education, something we have been deprived of for far too long.

Has the CDC Finally Gone Too Far?

It’s important for parents to recognize that you have the right to not consent to having your kids jabbed. If parents are unable to win that battle in the schools, then you have the option to pull them out of school and homeschool instead. This is a form of empowerment, and an alternative to victimization.

Homeschooling may not be ideal for many families yet it’s an opportunity for people who share similar values to work together on neighborhood homeschool pods and other innovative, collaborative solutions. On the bright side, it might end up being the best decision so the kids won’t be exposed to the increasing level of neo-Marxist indoctrination that’s being served in schools these days.

The CDC Unanimously Voted (15-0) to Add C19 Jab to Childhood Vaccine Schedule: Now What?

Remember you have a choice. If you made choices you regret in the past, work on forgiving yourself and making it right. That includes making new choices moving forward.