How Obama Took Over The Biden Administration

Disclaimer – This is for informational and educational purpose only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.

There is no doubt about it now – much of the politically connected and government dependent “scientific industrial complex”, the “medical industrial complex”, “the military industrial complex”, and the “indoctrination industrial complex” (public schools, universities, international non-governmental organizations, private non-profit foundations) believe and act as though the people of the world are occupants of Auschwitz. Anyone working for these big four categories are participants in crimes against humanity. The horrors that took place at Auschwitz by Dr. Mengele and his “assistants” have been well documented and reported by survivors. It is unfortunate the entities listed above have chosen to follow in his infamous footsteps. All of Mengele’s “experiments” were done without informed consent and so has much that has been done to the united States population, not to mention the world.

The skies are littered with chemtrails. Did you give your consent to be showered from above and breathe in unknown chemicals? Were you ever informed of the contents, risks, adverse effects, or “benefits” of the spraying of unknown chemicals across the sky? No one was allowed informed consent. What about the release of GMO mosquitoes in Florida and Texas? There was no informed consent. It is the same with schemes to block out the sun and ban oil, coal and natural gas; the use of GMO foods, fake meat, food coverings and additives; implementation of non-pharmaceutical CONvid-1984 countermeasures; additives to drinking water; recommending childhood and adult vaccines; and the CONvid-1984 injection. One can think of almost anything nowadays that is being done without the informed consent of the individual/people. Any “mandate” issued by any entity/person essentially denies individuals informed consent. Even receiving medical treatment today is relatively void of informed consent.

People have been inactive when it comes to informed consent to the point that airborne modified mRNA “vaccines” are being created for release to the populace, without informed consent. The Mengele’s are at work. Soon, we will be “vaccinated” by chem trails. But, this isn’t about the latest Frankensteinian creation; it is about informed consent and why it is imperative you demand your right to it for everything. And, you do have an unalienable God-given right to informed consent recognized, guaranteed, and protected under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America.

First, what is informed consent? According to the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics, informed consent is “the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.” The AMA considers informed consent to be fundamental in both ethics and law.

In other words, without informed consent, except in very specific circumstances, no treatment or intervention is to be performed on an individual unless informed consent is given.

A paper housed at the National Institute of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine states informed consent “is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention.”

Not only is informed consent a right, but informed consent involves a process. Granted, this encompasses medical treatments and interventions. But, ask the following questions:

1. Should I know what is in my food and water or anything I consume? Do I have a right to know?
2. If there are chemicals, additives, or harmful substances in anything I consume, should I know what they are and be informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives? Do I have a right to know?
3. Should I know if there are harmful substances being sprayed across the sky, what those harmful substances are and the risks and “benefits” of breathing those substances? Do I have a right to know?
4. Should those who are using additives, chemicals, or harmful substances provide information to the public before putting these substances in items I will consume? Do I have a right to know and refuse?
5. Was I offered the option to refuse without suffering consequences/punishment against me? Do I have a right to refuse?

Look at the controversy over public water fluoridation. Did those approving fluoridation of the public water system obtain informed consent to add additional fluoride that individuals will consume? Probably not. It was more than likely done by a “recommendation” from a government entity after being “pushed” by a private organization, then “regulated” by another government entity – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all under the guise of “protection and safety.” The same conclusion can be made with food additives and processed foods, or anything you put in your body or recommended actions, such as following non-pharmaceutical countermeasures.

Did anyone tell you that part of the risk of wearing a commercial ear loop mask could result in microparticles being deposited in your lungs, high carbon dioxide levels in your blood, or breathing in other particles trapped in the mask? Did anyone tell you that masks do not work in the community setting but only work for what the devices were designed to do – protect against blood and body fluid splatter (wearer) and protect against drool and spittle contamination on the area of the body being affected by medical intervention (patient)? Did anyone tell you that individuals with certain existing medical conditions should not wear masks?

Informed consent also applies to “Do Not Resuscitate” instructions.

You can ask the simple five questions of yourself with any other scenario previously discussed to determine whether or not you were provided informed consent.

Second, informed consent has a process. What is that process?

According to the AMA, the process of informed consent occurs as follows:

The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention. In seeking a patient’s informed consent (or the consent of the patient’s surrogate if the patient lacks decision-making capacity or declines to participate in making decisions), physicians should:

1. Assess the patient’s ability to understand relevant medical information and the implications of treatment alternatives and to make an independent, voluntary decision.
2. Present relevant information accurately and sensitively, in keeping with the patient’s preferences for receiving medical information. The physician should include information about:
   1. the diagnosis (when known);
   2. the nature and purpose of recommended interventions;
   3. the burdens, risks, and expected benefits of all options, including forgoing treatment.
3. Document the informed consent conversation and the patient’s (or surrogate’s) decision in the medical record in some manner. When the patient/surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record.

In emergencies, when a decision must be made urgently, the patient is not able to participate in decision making, and the patient’s surrogate is not available, physicians may initiate treatment without prior informed consent. In such situations, the physician should inform the patient/surrogate at the earliest opportunity and obtain consent for ongoing treatment in keeping with these guidelines.

Informed consent is more than just saying “yes” to a recommendation or signing your name to a consent form. The NIH paper goes a bit further in the process for informed consent to include a legal standard.

The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention.  Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient’s right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient’s understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent “in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record.” The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient’s understanding of elements 1 through 4. [Intervention can be medications, vaccines, and/or non-pharmaceutical countermeasures.]

It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation.

Adequacy of Informed Consent

The required standard for informed consent is determined by the state. The three acceptable legal approaches to adequate informed consent are (1) Subjective standard: What would this patient need to know and understand to make an informed decision? (2) Reasonable patient standard: What would the average patient need to know to be an informed participant in the decision? (3) Reasonable physician standard: What would a typical physician say about this procedure? [Emphasis Mine. States are charged with enactment of informed consent legislation, not the federal government as indicated in The Constitution for the united States of America, Article IV, Section 4 and the Tenth Amendment.]

Many states use the “reasonable patient standard” because it focuses on what a typical patient would need to know to understand the decision at hand. However, it is the sole obligation of the provider to determine which approach is appropriate for a given situation. [Emphasis Mine]

Both have exceptions to informed consent which centers around emergencies. However, the NIH paper explains it best.

Several exceptions to the requirement for informed consent include (1) the patient is incapacitated, (2) life-threatening emergencies with inadequate time to obtain consent, and (3) voluntary waived consent.  If the patient’s ability to make decisions is questioned or unclear, an evaluation by a psychiatrist to determine competency may be requested. A situation may arise in which a patient cannot make decisions independently but has not designated a decision-maker. In this instance, the hierarchy of decision-makers, which is determined by each state’s laws, must be sought to determine the next legal surrogate decision-maker. If this is unsuccessful, a legal guardian may need to be appointed by the court.

The take-away in all of this is one simple statement – It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. This one statement makes it clear that punitive consequences are prohibited by “providers”, which could extend to State public health authorities, employers, State agencies, and others enforcing (mandating) recommendations coupled with punitive measures/consequences for exercising informed consent.

Informed consent is never negated for any reason, period. It is a right of the individual to exercise body autonomy and maintain control over their actions and decisions. Remember, “life-threatening emergencies with inadequate time to obtain consent” applies only to a single individual, not the masses. It cannot be negated, usurped, or denied or applied to the masses because of inconvenience due to a pandemic, climate change, using food additives or coverings, producing GMO food or animals, pushing fake meat, spraying of chemtrails, use of any vaccine or medical intervention (including oral medications), use of non-pharmaceutical countermeasures, schemes to block out the sun, chemicals, or adding fluoride to water.

What about children? Children cannot give informed consent. Once again, the NIH paper explains it.

Children (typically under 17) cannot provide informed consent.  As such, parents must permit treatments or interventions. In this case, it not termed “informed consent” but “informed permission.”  An exception to this rule is a legally emancipated child who may provide informed consent for himself. Some, but not all, examples of an emancipated minor include minors who are (1) under 18 and married, (2) serving in the military, (3) able to prove financial independence or (4) mothers of children (married or not). Legislation regarding minors and informed consent is state-based as well. [Emphasis Mine]

Parents provide “informed consent” permission for their children unless the child falls into one of the categories mentioned or determined by state law. It is important to know your state’s laws determining minor children and informed consent. Most parents would agree that children under the age of 18 are ill-equipped to provide informed consent due to lack of experience with life situations. While State laws may allow children who are 18 years of age to provide informed consent, parents know whether or not their child, at 18, is capable or not of doing so.

It is important to fully understand informed consent and the process by which it is obtained. In order to see where this is going in the next two parts of the series, references will be made to the informed consent process. Part two of the series will cover how we are already living in Auschwitz.