WRITTEN BY: SUZANNE HAMNER
**Disclaimer – This is not legal or medical advice. This is for informational purposes in order to educate individuals about informed consent in connection with medical procedures and/or treatments. If you believe you have been denied informed consent and injured, please consult an attorney in your State practicing in the appropriate field of medical malpractice.**
As a graduate of a “dinosaur” school of nursing (hospital diploma program) back in the day, our professors/instructors drilled the concept and importance of informed consent into the heads of us young nurses as a part of the curriculum covering law and ethics. Moreover, these same professors/instructors informed soon-to-be graduates that no one would consent to any medical procedure or treatment if the individual took the time to read the “informed consent” form.
Naturally, our professors/instructors required each of us to read the various informed consent forms for various procedures/treatments in order to understand what risks were involved for patients when choosing to undergo medical intervention. There were informed consent forms for anesthesia, medical diagnostic and treatment procedures – complex and routine, and yes, even vaccinations. After reading these forms for consent, the professors/instructors were correct – none of us would consent to any type of medical intervention knowing what was in that form.
- Informed Consent: Medical Information About The CONvid-1984 Vaccine You May Not Know About (Video)
- Bill Gates On Board With GMO Mosquitoes To Administer Vaccines Bypassing Informed Consent
- Bill Will “Legalize” Vaccination Of 11-Year-Olds Without Parents’ Consent
- Company That Knew Asbestos Was In Its Baby Powder Now Distributing Experimental COVID Injections
Certain interventions did not require written informed consent, but a verbal form of consent. This was required for less invasive and non-invasive procedures. Law and ethics were drummed constantly into our heads to avoid problems in the future. At the time, in the particular program awarding the diploma, we were informed that when a patient said “no”, regardless of circumstance, it meant “no” and any further action upon the patient could be considered assault and battery.
Being educated in the “system”, reading the informed consent forms for medical diagnostic and treatment procedures before giving consent became a requirement for me. While many nurses and doctors would provide patients with a full disclosure, it was discovered many would not. The “right” and need to fully read these consent forms produced ire, frustration, and impatience in the doctors and nurses who had to wait for me to finish reading. Ire, frustration, and impatience increased with the asking of any questions. Why would this happen? Should not all patients be afforded this opportunity? Yes, all patients should; however, the “need” to maintain the schedule at the facility was more important.
In obtaining subsequent education, after many years of nursing practice, law and ethics were not as rigorously covered. In fact, many States altered their nurse practice act to “allow” certain violations that would previously be determined assault and battery. It was a disappointment to find the nursing profession abandoning the long held traditions beginning with Florence Nightingale to soothe the ravage beast of government.
Fast forwarding to today, individuals should be aware that any doctor or nurse is still required to obtain “informed consent” and failing to do so is grounds for a claim under medical malpractice. But, what is informed consent?
“Informed Consent”, in both legal and medical terminology, is the fully informing of patients of the risks involved in any proposed medical procedure or treatment by the doctor. If the doctor fails to obtain informed consent and the patient is injured, the patient could have legal grounds to sue the doctor for medical malpractice, even if the injury was a standard risk in that situation.
Most medical procedures or treatments involve some risk. It is the doctor’s responsibility to give the patient information about a particular treatment or procedure so the patient can decide whether to undergo the treatment, procedure, or test. This process of providing essential information to the patient and getting the patient’s agreement to a certain medical procedure or treatment is called informed consent.
Doctors typically require patients to sign a consent form detailing the risks of any given treatment or procedure. But signing a form alone does not necessarily prove that the patient gave informed consent. The doctor must actually discuss the procedure and risks with the patient. And the patient must understand, to the extent possible, the risks he or she faces.
Whether or not a patient gave his or her informed consent to a treatment is crucial in the law of medical malpractice. If a doctor does not get a patient’s informed consent, and the patient would not have opted for the treatment if he or she knew about the risks, the patient may be able to sue the doctor for medical malpractice.
Interestingly enough, doctors are not required to disclose all possible harms or risks that could occur – only the most important. But, what is considered to be important. The State courts use one of two standards to make that determination.
The first standard concerns the doctor – the courts consider if another competent doctor would have informed the patient about the risk. This would involve whether the risk was significant and likely to occur. If the court uses this standard, expert testimony is required.
The second standard concerns the patient – the courts consider or question if a reasonable patient in the “plaintiff’s position” would chose to undergo the procedure or treatment if being made aware of the risk. This standard focuses on the patient and does not require expert testimony; however, if the situation is complicated, expert testimony may be prudent. Under this standard, the doctor is expected to inform the patient of “realistic alternatives” to the recommended procedure or treatment.
Remember, this is not legal advice – just general information. Always consult with an attorney in your State if you believe you have been denied informed consent and have been injured as a result.
There are times when informed consent may be waived. As an example, emergency treatment involving saving a life may not afford the time for the physician to obtain informed consent. In the case of saving a patient’s life, patients cannot sue for lack of informed consent even if the patient would not have consented to the procedure or treatment. There are others so always check with an attorney.
Since medical malpractice is “highly regulated by a set of complicated rules” that vary by State, it is always best to consult with an attorney.
With that said, what does this have to do with today? In this day and age with CONvid-19, there is plenty of reason for patients to be proactive in their own medical care and ensuring doctors and nurses are fully disclosing risks involving testing, injections, and treatments for COVID-19.
What types of questions should you ask? What answers should you hear?
First of all, testing using the RT-PCR test should not be done due to the test is not diagnostic in nature; does not indicate whether someone is sick or not; and, has a high false positive rate. But, if it is “required” by a facility or physician for some treatment, this is the first point a choice has to be made which will be based on the treatment being sought.
A few simple questions should help with determining how knowledgeable the doctor is about the testing in order to obtain informed consent.
1. What is exactly involved in testing – nasal swab, oral swab or anal swab?
With the nasal swab, the cotton tipped swab is inserted via the nasal passage back to the cribiform plate – the thin bone separating the brain from the nasal cavity. Too much pressure exerted on the plate can cause rupture exposing the brain that can result in various injuries. It can also damage the nasal mucosa causing bleeding, which would contraindicate its use in individuals on anti-coagulants – medications that decrease platelet aggregation and/or limit the clotting ability of the blood.
The oral swab involves rubbing the inside of the cheek with a cotton tipped swab in order to obtain a sample for testing. This is the least invasive and least injurious of the three methods of testing.
Performing an anal swab requires the “tester” to insert a cotton tipped swab into the rectum, rubbing the inside of the canal, to obtain the test sample. This is the most invasive and can produce a vagus nerve response – contraindicated in individuals with cardiac problems, and/or aggravate hemorrhoids, causing bleeding. This would also be contraindicated in patients taking medications to prevent platelet aggregation or blood clotting since mucosal damage could occur leading to bleeding.
Doctors, testers, and nurses should inform individuals of these possibilities.
2. Who performs the test – trained personnel or untrained, and the testers qualification?
Untrained personnel should NOT be performing any testing. Trained personnel should be specifically instructed and proficient in the technique of the procedure. This is done through facility and agency training and demonstration of proficiency to the individual providing instruction. If this is not met, the individual should not be performing the procedure.
3. Does this make use of RT-PCR technology and what is the accuracy of the test?
Currently, all testing is being done using RT-PCR or “PCR” testing. False positive rates can reach into the 90th percentiles.
4. Is this test “diagnostic” in nature?
No, the test is not diagnostic.
The creator of the RT-PCR test, Kary Mullis, indicated the RT-PCR test is NOT diagnostic in nature and should NOT be used in that manner. Doctors, nurses and others performing the test should know this. This “test” does not determine “viral load” – the theory that enough microbes are in your system that would make you ill – nor is the “test” specific for any type of microorganism. It will multiply whatever it finds – frequently human genome 8: primary assembly, which will match the computer formulated genome of COVID-19
The pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these “injections” have hijacked the term “vaccine”. According to the Taber’s Medical Dictionary, these injections do not meet the standardized medical definition for a vaccine. The Taber’s Medical Dictionary online contains this warning – “Because vaccines may cause side effects, all those who receive them should carefully review federally mandated Vaccine Information Sheets before they are immunized“. And, it is written in RED – a warning.
- Webster’s Changes “Vaccine” Definition & The CDC’s Zombie Apocalypse
- Nurse & Nutritionist Kate Shemirani: Experimental COVID Injection Doesn’t Fulfill Legal Requirement & Definition For A Vaccine, But Does Fulfill Definition Of A “Device” (Video)
- #AskTheExperts – Doctors, Nurses & Health Care Professionals From Around The World: “The COVID Vaccine Is Neither Safe Nor Effective” (Video)
- Dr. Carrie Madej On Hydrogels, DARPA Implantable Biosensors & The Coming Vaccine
- A History Of Vaccines To The Present Pfizer COVID Vaccine & Their Dangers With Dr. Carrie Madej
- Dr. Carrie Madej Confirms In Most Recent Video What Many Of Us Said About Coronavirus Vaccine
- #AskTheExperts – Shemirani, Corbett, Madej & Kaufman – The Vaccine Rollout Has Begun, Here’s What You’re Not Being Told!
These injections use an experimental mRNA technology that has only been given emergency use authorization by the Federal Drug Administration, not approval. Moreover, all trials were not completed, some were not done – including animal trials, and no long term studies were ever done on humans. Moderna admitted their “injection” was defined as an “operating system”, not a vaccine.
Since this “treatment” remains experimental in nature, this “injection” violates the Nuremberg code because it is not being disclosed to patients this injection is still in experimental stages. Emergency Use Authorization does not equal approval for use.
1. What is contained in this “injection”? Do not use the term “vaccine” since that terminology has been hijacked.
The individual administering this “treatment” should know what is in the solution he or she is injecting into the body. If they do not know, they cannot accept informed consent because they cannot explain what is in the “Vaccine” Information Sheet, aka the package insert. Remember, the pharmaceutical companies do not disclose all ingredients particularly when a formula is “proprietary”. You can also request to read the package insert.
2. What are the side effect or adverse reactions to this “injection”?
Currently, there are over 400 documented side effects, including anaphylaxis (life threatening) and death, surrounding this injection. Individuals administering this injection should provide a list or be able to articulate the most serious side effects of this injection, along with percentage of occurrence.
3. What are the contraindications to taking this “injection”?
Individuals administering this injection and doctors should be able to explain medical conditions or other incidences where it is NOT advisable to receive this injection. Some would include pregnancy – known or possibility, previous reactions to “injections”/vaccines, autoimmune disorders, compromised immune systems, possible interactions with other medications, chronic health conditions such as diabetes, neurological disorders, endocrine system disorders, and heart disease to name a few, and liver and/or kidney disease. This list is not all inclusive. Your physician should be able to tailor the answer based on your medical history. And, you should be asked about your medical history and any prior allergic reactions to medications and/or injections. Remember, all medications are processed in the liver and excreted through the kidneys.
4. Does this have the potential to cause alterations in DNA?
Currently, it is postulated from varied experts in the medical profession that this injection has the potential to alter DNA. Because there have not been any long-term studies, there is no proof this injection does not alter DNA.
5. Is this injection safe?
This injection nor any vaccine has been proven to be safe and effective.
6. Will this injection prevent COVID-19 as well as its spread and transmission?
The COVID-19 vaccines do not have data demonstrating efficacy in preventing infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trials were designed to study symptom reduction. [Emphasis Mine.]
Table 23 on page 37 of the Moderna clinical trial compares the symptom differences of fever, headache, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea/vomiting and chills between the vaccine group and placebo group after each dose in the 18 – 64 age group with a significant greater symptom percentage in the vaccine group….
This Moderna data does not demonstrate a reduction of symptoms in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. “Fully vaccinated” results in more COVID symptoms in 81.9% of subjects.
Table 19 on page 39 of the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, compares the symptom differences of pain, fatigue, pyrexia, chills, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, diarrhea, and nausea between the vaccine group and placebo group after the second dose in the 16 years and older age group with a significant greater symptom percentage in the vaccine group.
These injections do not prevent COVID-19, its spread or transmission. Remember, this injection causes your own body to manufacture the “spike protein”, which the immune system attacks. Your immune system is attacking something your own body makes – the definition of an auto immune disorder.
Tabers Medical Dictionary (1986) defines “autoimmune disease” as “Disease in which the body produces disordered immunological response against itself….” This definition is available in the online version if you have a subscription. The definition here is courtesy of the hard copy.
7. What happens if getting COVID-19 after getting the injection?
The possibility exists that individuals who take the injection could develop “Antibody Disease Enhancement” (ADE) or what some term as pathogenic priming. This has been discussed at length by Dr. Lee Merritt and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (also here and here) in videos readily available at The Sons of Liberty Media. ADE causes the immune system to aggressively attack the natural microorganism, which can cause conditions that lead to death. One condition associated with ADE is a multi-organ inflammatory response, which is fatal.
1. Are there other treatments for COVID-19 besides the injection?
Yes, there are. America’s Frontline Doctors, whose members include Dr. Simone Gold and Dr. Lee Merritt, discuss Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Zithromycin. Studies have also shown that Ivermectin with Zinc and Zithromycin are effective as well. Quercetin as well is a lysosomal therapeutic agent, which Dr. Lee Merritt discusses.
Remdesivir and Regeneron are experimental in nature; therefore, these new medications are not being considered as alternatives.
2. Are there ways to help prevent contracting COVID-19?
Yes. Many individuals suffering from the illness termed COVID-19 have been shown to have low Vitamin D levels. Dr. Lee Merritt discussed this on The Sons of Liberty Media Radio Show with Tim Brown. Check out that video for more information. Dr. Merritt’s website also contains the eight supplements everyone should take.
- Dr. Lee Merritt On Experimental “Operating System” Injections: We’re Going To See A Lot Of Deaths
- Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: How The Depopulation COVID Vaccines Will Start Working In 3-6 Months
- Dr Sherri Tenpenny: FDA Has Broken The Law At Least Twice Concerning COVID Injections (Video)
- The Vaccine Interview You Really Should Hear To Educate Yourself With Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (Video)
These are just a few questions to get you started on obtaining informed consent. Another part of informed consent is to be informed yourself in order to know whether the answers given to you coincide with known legitimate scientific research and study results. Again, remember that non-pharmaceutical interventions (masks, social distancing, quarantining and isolation when healthy) have not been proven to mitigate transmission or spread of any flu, cold, or coronavirus. In fact, eight studies on mask-wearing to prevent transmission of flu, cold or coronavirus have not shown to be effective – one study went back to 2009. The manufacturers of masks even contained the same message as a warning on the box, which has been reported to no longer be listed on the package.
Only when knowing all the information can one give informed consent. Without proper informed consent, doctors and others can be held legally responsible for injury occurring as a result. As always, check with an attorney and your State’s medical malpractice laws since the statute of limitations does apply.
Be vigilant and do your own research.