"The manufacturing of the mRNA has resulted in many contaminants such as endotoxins, fragments of Simian Virus 40, e-coli and other toxins and has not been subject to any of the usual quality and compliance control checks. Neither the manufactures of the mRNA doses or the regulator have had prior experience of ensuring or testing for the quality of the doses made in large volumes which are an experimental gene modification treatment.
Thanks for the update on informed consent for Covid vaccination in Florida, Phillip, this is interesting.
In my opinion, there has been no valid consent for Covid-19 vaccination in Australia, because the population has been misinformed about the threat of ‘Covid-19’, and has been pressured, coerced, manipulated, and even mandated to submit to the Covid-19 injections.
I lay much of the blame for this dire situation at the feet of the medical profession - doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others should have said “We can’t do this, we can’t vaccinate under coercion, under mandates”. But they didn’t they say this… In the main, they went along with the Australian and state/territory governments’ mass population vaccination rollout without question.
This is a massive scandal which has resulted in the theft of personal autonomy and bodily integrity in a supposedly free country.
For more background, see for instance my formal complaint/notification to AHPRA about Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly:
Most Aussies don’t seem to have a clue about informed consent. They’ll just line up for all the vax’s, which will keep coming until most of us are dead! Or disabled at the least.
The big problem coming is the changes to WHO’s IHR’s, and the proposed treaty. I doubt people who follow substack etc are going to have these jabs, but then we can’t have “official” digital identity, and won’t be able to access our CBDC’s.
So then, what will we do? Not all of us own our own house, or can grow our own food, or know our local farmer.
There’s talk of a new major “disaster” coming, somewhere. If we all look out for info on that, maybe it will be averted. It’s probably meant to undermine America’s election. I don’t think they’ve got a hope of getting rid of the Demorats! Bad news, just keeps coming.
We need to tell as many people as we can, but don’t use fakebook or xmarks the WEF. I know all this is obvious. I have seen some good graffiti lately!
Phillip, I’d love to come to Sydney to hear you speak, but why Double Bay? I’m rural Vic(expecting to be burnt out this “summer”), can hardly afford to run my 1996 car! Hopefully there will be a video.
Thanks for this substack, Phillip thanks for making it free! I could write a heap more, but I have to log out now.
My daughter in UK asked how to get the jabs out of her system so I suggested here on subs and telegram as go-tos. I advised her to create a name like I have done for many years, in order to not compromise herself professionally or other.
I fear that the cover up is in full swing now 3 years and more beyond the COVID 19 release into the globe and still no admission of fault or wrong doing by any government or bureaucracy or pharmaceutical organisation and the PM and Labour Party no where to be seen on this issue. The mass take down of anyone who speaks out on the subject including now Russell Brand but also Tucker Carlson...it’s a sure sign that someone will be taken down off mainstream media if they stray and begin to question..the worst is the public have been left financially crippled while the large vaccine companies have become enormously rich without any redress, accountability or impunity this is shocking...while the long term affects of people with adverse affects or people who have lost jobs due to mandates is slowly being swept under the carpet as other reasons flood in to cover the real reasons for their absence....what the government is doing and what people require them to do is becoming a wide abyss of misrepresentation with no real connection between them both as the government appears to be totally owned or completely corrupt or just way out of touch with the issues facing the working class or middle class...will civil disobedience or protest be our only option to stem the tide against what seems to be a coordinated attack on our life and our way of living?... it shocking and the worst of it all...many think that the gains of the last years on properly and housing prices will be enough for them to insulate themselves against this storm....I see a summer of great unrest! Many hold onto what has got them through past headwinds...I fear that this storm is only starting!
You are right on David. I’ve heard Brand is WEF, he’s married to the Jemima who used to be married to Imran Khan. Her maiden name is Goldstein, or something like that. We can’t trust Russel Brand. Oh,I’ve also seen video of him being very chummy with Yuval Noah Hariri, filmed by Harari’s husband. Yuk!!!
Numerous comments posted on social media reflect the widespread community misunderstanding about informed consent. Top journalists, politicians, radio and television personalities often reveal that they, too, do not understand the concept of informed consent.
For example, how many times have you listened to or read commentators talking about people being “GIVEN their informed consent"?
BUT THERE'S MUCH MORE TO "INFORMED CONSENT" - CONSIDER WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING
How many readers have received what are effectively "accept-or-be-cancelled" letters from their banks advising them that their bank has unilaterally:
(a) decided not to process customers' transactions of >$10,000 that are related to crypto currencies (like bitcoin)?
(b) reserved for their bank the right to refuse to process any transactions that, IN THE BANK’S OPINION, may result in loss or harm for either the customer or the bank?
(c) reserved for the bank the right to limit - or refuse outright - withdrawals or deposits of cash?
The closing sentence of the September 18 article linked below reports that "Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, also announced in June that cheques would be entirely phased out in Australia by 2030":
Does any bank customer remember giving their voluntary and uncoerced INFORMED CONSENT for their bank to decide - unilaterally - who their customers can transact with? - and for how much? ... or was the "choice" for the customer to either accept the new terms or have the relevant bank accounts closed?
Does anyone remember giving Labor Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, the right to unilaterally phase out cheques in Australia?
MACQUARIE BANK
I respectfully suggest that readers of Phillip's substack also read this September 18 article....
.... AND THEN ASK THEMSELVES: "if all banks follow Macquarie Bank's example and if all banks reserve the right - AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION - to not process customer transactions that THEY (the banks) DO NOT APPROVE OF:
1. How will customers withdraw their own funds from their bank and from the banking system if, at some time in the future, they happen to decide that their own bank is facing imminent financial difficulty or that the banking system itself and/or the currency might be at serious risk of imploding?
2. What does this mean in the future for the concept of "A RUN ON THE BANKS"?
3. In legal terminology, a cheque is a "promissory note" which is effectively an instruction to the cheque issuer's bank to hand over to the bearer of the cheque, a specified amount of the issuer's cash at bank. BANKS ARE NOT USUALLY AWARE OF THE REASONS for someone using a cheque to pay someone else some of their money - BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO BE.
So, if cheques (as well as cash) are phased out, what are the privacy implications for bank customers?
And, what does this mean for the whole concept of all promissory notes, bills of exchange and for PRIVATE FINANCIAL PROMISES in general?
4. Will the new arrangements make it easier for governments and bureaucrats to use the banking system to surveil and covertly spy on citizens?
5. Will the new arrangements make it easier for governments and bureaucrats to use the banking system to single out and punish (or "cancel") those who publicly question or challenge the government's agenda or permitted narrative? Remember, Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau used the banking system to enforce mandates and regulations against Canadians who refused to submit to the experimental gene therapy injections and against truckers and those who supported the truckers' challenge to Trudeau's tyranny?
6. How do the changes relate to the WEF's promise that "you will own nothing and you will be happy" and to the implementation of the "GREAT RESET" that the WEF said is coming soon?
7. How do the banking changes made so far relate to the CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES being rolled out worldwide - including by the Reserve Bank in Australia?
8. What will happen if, one day, the government and/or the Reserve Bank announces that all conventional currency (cash on hand and bank balances) MUST be exchanged for their equivalent in CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY ...or else the conventional currency will EXPIRE AND HAVE NO VALUE?
... Or if an announcement is made in the future by government and or the Reserve Bank that all bank balances will automatically (unilaterally) be converted to their CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY EQUIVALENT?
... Would that cause a "RUN ON THE BANKS"?
...WOULD A "RUN ON THE BANKS" EVEN BE POSSIBLE if banks have the right - IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION - to refuse customer payment instructions that they (the banks) believe may result in loss or harm to the customer OR THE BANK?
...Given the banking changes already being made, what ability would bank customers and holders of cash have to resist?"
It would not be surprising if some people feel like they are being rounded up and corralled - perhaps in preparation for a GREAT RESET of some kind or another - when others (elected or not) can decide their fate - whether that fate is to be financially neutered or perhaps to be COMPULSORY ACQUIRED - no doubt for what others (elected or not) decide is "fair compensation".
Like the coerced gene therapy experiments, are we just expected to SHUT UP, SUBMIT or FACE THE CONSEQUENCES?
Many probably believe that (like government COVID-19 policy impacts on the relationship between patients and their doctors) GENUINE INFORMED CONSENT should also be required before GOVERNMENTS and BANKS implement such fundamental changes to the banking system … that inevitably IMPACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND THEIR BANKS and BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND THEIR OWN MONEY.
It's great that you are thinking proactively and your 4 suggestions make sense to me.
Those who know and understand the risks inherent in what is going on would all love to implement your #3 but - as with experimental mRNA injection risks - VERY FEW KNOW and even fewer UNDERSTAND the inherent risks. So, I would respectfully suggest to you (a) that your #3 underestimates the sophistication and power of those who are orchestrating the changes and (b) that #3 is easier said than done.
IMHO, your #4 is wishful thinking, especially given the massive vested interests and power of those who are already opposing and trying to inhibit the widespread use of crypto. But crypto currencies are not a fix-all solution because (a) even many well-educated and savvy people still don't understand how they work and (b) my understanding of crypto currencies is that, to fulfil their potential, they are totally dependent on a functioning Internet and people who want to use them having unfettered access to the Internet. Governments can quite easily constrain peoples' Internet access and, in the event of serious conflict, EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons are likely to be one of the first weapons deployed against sophisticated countries - and even existing EMP technology weapons can cause very widespread and permanent destruction of electronic infrastructure on which the Internet itself depends. Incidentally, total Internet dependency is also a vulnerability of a banking system that is 100% digital - which we now know is what Macquarie Bank aspires to. All of our other big banks seem to be headed in the same 100% digital and CBDC direction - and one can only wonder why our intelligence agencies have not been sounding warning bells to government and to the community about that two-sided vulnerability.
I think a distinction needs to be made between people "whining on social media" and people having an extended social media "conversation" - where they express their fears and concerns and try to inform each other about possible solutions to the problems that concern them.
But most of all, we need leaders and, ideally, A LEADER FOR RIGHT NOW, who understands (a) the very serious, insidious and inexorable erosion of our freedoms taking place, and (b) who also understands the likelihood that the erosion will continue and accelerate if a principled leader does not have the ability and the courage to confront those whose stated goal is to replace - not just the banking system - but our whole society ...with something they assure us, without evidence, will be better.
Thankfully, there are still a few good people in our Australian Parliament, in America and in Europe who speak the truth fearlessly. They are all leaders in their own way and, with our help, one of them in each continent will soon step up to become A LEADER FOR RIGHT NOW.
thanks for your response. no options are without pain nor risk, as it doing nothing which also remains an options. you outline some risks that appear very real and are well articulated.
of course there is a distinction between whinging and having a conversation and learning - totally agree. I wish there was more of the later and the former doesn't seem to accomplish much except perhaps to allow the social media watchers and sentiment scorers to ascertain how "hot" a population is around a particular subject. Well, it also leads some to feel like they've contributed to a solution so they can feel satisfied they've done something instead of nothing. but we all know the true results.
agreed #3 is easier said than done. that's the point. less is done because it is hard, has a cost, is risky, isn't easy. how many have worked their whole lives to create a safety net for themselves only to see it at risk. that's scary. it leads to fear. and we know how that goes - what is just and right gets trampled for what feels safer for me.
respectfully, it's likely no savior will lead us all from this. this is wishful thinking and only likely to lead to a less satisfying conclusion. when a leadership vacuum is formed surely something will fill the emptiness - but it's just getting a new boss same as the old boss, or dictatorship perhaps (very easy to manage, and they usually start out so promising), or there are leaders who have been leading themselves and their communities who step up. A LEADER = A SAVIOR? think there's a book called the bible that mentions something like that. seem to recall that didn't end well depending on your viewpoint. sure there are a few who call out the inconsistencies and craziness from within the system and they deserve kudos. but a whole population looking to be led is unlikely to get us to some promised land of justice and abundance for all. I wish you well and am glad I left australia when I had the chance. it's a beautiful country with wonderful people, too many of whom seem quite content to toe the line and be short poppies.
I certainly don't think of a leader in this context as being "a saviour" ... just (IMHO) one essential component to articulate and coordinate a coherent response - and one that (again IMHO) is missing right now. I agree with you: that it would be a big mistake to invest all our hopes in any one individual - and to think any one individual can single-handedly turn back the tide and "fix it".
Where did you go to when you left Australia? Are the same issues being faced there? If yes, are you more confident about the way they are being tackled there? Why? Is there something we learn from that?
But, in any case, thanks again for sharing your insights to date.
our issues are global, and there are organizations striving to unify all "solutions" to one place. I am fortunate to be in Mexico, where regardless of what the intelligentsia does the great mass of people distrust single sourced solutions and prefer to live with less interference in their lives. And there is some
competition with the government which while also causing some tensions for sure, also leads to some stability which is business friendly.
The people are lovely and the climate and environment are beautiful.
Hi R.S., I read the Gateway Pundit article and all your text. My bank has said we will no longer be issued chequebooks, but we can use our remaining cheques. We’ll see.
Pretty much everything you’ve said, and the article, have been forecast to happen. It is a complete disgrace. The bankers are treating us like the cattle they think that we are.
I don’t know what can be done about all this-I believe every Aus. bank will follow suit. They want to steal our money, and call our assets, like property, “tokens”. The best thing to do is raise awareness VERY strongly, before the banks freeze our money and assets because we are saying things they don’t “agree” with.
This is all coming centrally, of course, with BIS sitting at the apex of the bank pyramid.
Catherine Austin Fitts says to use cash as much as possible (so the banks can’t track what we are buying-they need data about us), also she says to be friendly with your neighbours/community/farmers, so we can trade with them. She says to use smaller banks/credit unions-but she’s in America-we don’t really have small banks here anymore.
She says she is Christian (as am I, trying to be), so she is not sweating about “stuff” she owns, she has given away a ton of stuff.
I know this is small comfort compared to everything you’ve raised R.S., but I know it’s coming, and apart from telling as many people as we can about this form of tyranny, I really don’t have any other answers. We could complain to our banks, and gov’t, but I know that won’t do any good.
We’re all going to be in the same boat, but some of us have more to lose than others.
Thank you very much, rrodynmac, for reading my long comment right through and for writing such a thoughtful reply.
I'm very aware that, despite my efforts to be succinct, many of my comments on Phillip's substack end up being long ones and I hope Phillip doesn't mind that.
I'm just trying to bring a multitude of thoughts and information that I have encountered together, to commit it all to writing (in case I get hit by a bus before we can make right what is so terribly wrong) and to share it.
Although I didn't specifically say so this time, there is always an implied standing invitation - to any reader who thinks that what I have written is incorrect or misleading - to correct any errors of fact and to argue their alternative point of view - hopefully also providing evidence in support of it.
No need to thank me R S, I wasn’t really much help! I’m always interested to know what my fellow Aussies are going through in this time of crisis(es), and how much we collectively know.
I’m by no means an organiser of people or any sort of leader, but I’m willing to help out in any way I can. It just happens to be that I know a fair bit about Klaus Schwab’s great reset, and most things that are going on concerning it. There’s a LOT going on, but the looming bank crisis is certainly one of the most disturbing.
You said it about the Canadian trucker thing-we we’re all cheering them on, then Trudeau froze the bank accounts, and that was the end of that. THAT is the scary part-if “they” have control of our money-what can we do? I will never knowingly take any jab, so all this, and with WHO dictating health policy for all member states, I’m going to be out in the cold.
But it’s not just me, there’s my husband who suffers a few serious health problems (but won’t go to any hospital of course, they house the enemy), and my son, who is an adult with autism & type 1 diabetes. Insulin dependent of course, and microscopy has shown bad things in insulin.
I’m not complaining, although it may seem that way, but I know there are so many people, every way you turn, who are worse off than us.
I didn’t think your post was too long, but some people may hesitate to read it all. And I couldn’t pick any mistakes. But I don’t go looking for mistakes, I’m just looking for possible answers, i.e.-what can we do? How can we organise against all this? I’m in rural Victoria, cold and miserable right now, but in a few weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised to be in the middle of a bushfire. “They” don’t want people living in the sticks-they want us all in their sterile non-stop surveillance 15 minute cities.
And there’s meant to be another “pandemic” soon-either Marburg or bird flu. I’m guessing bird flu, because, and I think this is funny-our insurance policy, out of the blue, said they wouldn’t be covering “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Humans”-and that’s our house and contents insurance! Is that a dead give away, or a red herring?!!
Don’t get hit by a bus, we need you, you know things! That’s all from me for now.
"I’m guessing bird flu, because, and I think this is funny-our insurance policy, out of the blue, said they wouldn’t be covering “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Humans”-and that’s our house and contents insurance! Is that a dead give away, or a red herring?!!"
WOW!!!!
In lots of ways, the insurance industry may end up being our canary in the coal mine:
I wonder if anyone has tried recently to increase the life and permanent disability insurance cover for young people of working age.
If what Ed Dowd has written about global excess deaths is even halfway correct, the life insurance industry (globally) is probably fully aware by now that the correlation of excess deaths with the timing of the rollout of the experimental mRNA COVID-19 jabs might be more than just coincidental.
If life insurance premiums on ostensibly healthy young people of working age start going through the roof - or if (increased) life cover of ostensibly healthy but COVID-19 jabbed young people is just refused outright - that will most likely be a sign that the incredibly clever and very well-informed life insurance industry statisticians and researchers have concluded that, in the case of the experimental mRNA COVID-19 jabs and excess deaths, CORRELATION is most likely also an indication of CAUSATION.
R S, I do write some bombshell statements sometimes without realising it! Avian flu non-coverage on our house & contents insurance is a bit Wow!!!
I haven’t read Ed Dowd’s book, but I get the gist of it. You are most certainly right about life insurance premiums/coverage.
I don’t know anyone with life insurance, but you bring up some really important points. It certainly would be interesting to hear people’s experience in this regard.
I’m sure the life insurance people have taken the ill effects of the jab into consideration. I just wish we had proof, from people who have sought life insurance.
Then again, maybe life insurance companies will be underwritten by Rothschilds, or BlackRock, Vanguard etc. So unlimited funding for now, maybe. But they don’t want ordinary people having much money.
Without a survey or some such, I don’t know. I don’t go on other social media like Facebook or X(twitter) etc to set up an anecdotal type survey. Good thinking though, someone may see these posts and come up with something to probe this topic.
I’m over and out for this day now-a bit sleepy so I’ll toddle off now.
from the beginning of time the medical profession have been experimental witch doctors acting without any consent let alone informed consent. The hypocratic oath was always smoke and mirrors and a poor attempt at putting lipstick on the experimenter pigs
Completely agree Phillip. Consent to medical treatment is a critically important aspect of healthcare treatment. But the one often overlooked, is the right to REFUSE medical treatment. This is sometimes called informed refusal (though this phrase is deliberately misleading - see below). The principle, established in common law, is that a competent adult (one who has the capacity to make their own decisions) has the lawful right to refuse medical treatment even if this results in their death, or would cause it to happen sooner.
Attached to this principle, which is also fundamental to medical ethics, is another important point. An adult with decision-making capacity need not demonstrate the rationale or reasons for their refusal of medical treatment, and importantly, the decision/s do NOT need to make sense to anyone else, including doctors, relatives, or friends etc. This means that the competent adult does not need to be fully informed about their refusal of medical treatment. For example, their decision to refuse medical treatment could be based on religious, cultural, or any other grounds that are important to the competent adult.
This exceptionally important principle, entrenched in common law, has somehow been lost in the morass of decision-making under the totalitarian approach to coercing (read forcing or entrapment) every person to take one of the experimental Covid injections. Unless there's been some sleight of hand in the trickery under "emergency use" legislation, (as I haven't looked it up), this fundamental principle is the absolute right of every single person. Even if someone has no or limited capacity for decision-making, their lawful substitute decision-maker or guardian can make these decisions on their behalf (this includes for children).
The right to refuse medical treatment was mostly confined to end-of-life situations, which is perhaps why it has been overlooked. Last time I looked, injections would fit within the definition of health care, so they can be lawfully refused, FOR ANY REASON (providing the adult has capacity for decision-making). Under law, these decisions must be respected and followed. For the governments, health authorities, corporations, etc to override the fundamental right of people to refuse medical treatment is nothing other than diabolical tyranny and must be resisted.
I believe you meant to write "decision/s do NOT need to make sense to anyone else..." in your second paragraph, as otherwise it doesn't track. can you confirm?
Great travesties against humanity have been conducted in the last three years. It is disgraceful that people's wishes and rights have been violated, essentially by governments. Democide indeed! At law, your friend, if she was the lawful substitute decision-maker, could have refused the medical treatment on his behalf (provided he had lost capacity for decision-making). This happens all the time when people at the end of life require life-sustaining measures (eg. intubation etc) to keep alive. The right of refusal is absolute. Only the courts could override this, but it would require hearings, evidence of the person's best interests, coercion etc etc. Advance Health Directives or living wills are not entirely necessary if someone can (lawfully as their substitute decision-maker) speak on behalf of the person who has lost capacity for decision-making.
I went to a government mass vaccination centre and wasn't told anything about the risks of the Covid vaccine or what to do if I experienced an adverse event. It was literally jab and go (after 15 mins waiting time to make sure you didn't collapse immediately).
Misinformation - Disinformation - your leader (Biden) says so and being a physician as well as being a truck driver previously, means he knows better than all of you.
Informed consent was suspended under the State of Emergency. For Americans, it is the PREP Act. All rights (including human rights) are null and void during these conditions. I thought that should be obvious by now. People really need to wake up and stop being in denial about this. The way to solve it is stop allowing endless 'emergencies' that legally (yes, legally) nullify our rights. It is not moral but it is legal. Hence why we keep losing because people cannot grasp this concept.
Does informed consent at any level exist any more?
It's worth noting that if someone gets diagnosed with something apparently infectious that requires quarantine, like covid, and that disease drops their blood oxygen level below a certain level, then that person is isolated from any form of support to help them make decisions. I was locked up in ICU for 14 days, totally isolated, and I was also unable to talk on the phone, so unable to get any help. With a blood oxygen of 80 for the first 11 of those days, can anything I said be considered "informed", and yet there was no request from the hospital staff that someone advocate for me. At that level I was not actually functioning at my best intellectually - what a surprise. I was required to give permission for everything they did - REQUIRED - with all sorts of implications. I had to give permission for every aspect of the the 2 hourly observations, such as taking my blood pressure. I asked them if I could give a blanket permission for that so I could stay a bit sleepy and they refused. I had to sit up, lift my own arm and co-operate. which means for 14 days I got no sleep. The medicines in the drip I NEVER gave any kind of consent for - I did not even know what they were. Occasionally after that they wanted to add a drug in tablet or needle form, for which I had to give consent. Eventually I just started saying no to everything at which stage they started threatening me with DEATH if I did not obey. "We're just trying to save your life." I heard every day while I was there. So NOTHING that happened to me had informed consent. Everything had reluctant and coerced consent.
So bear in mind that when someone is apparently close to death in hospital, and has no advocates helping them think things through, any form of consent means nothing at all. It is all coerced.
Also I was also never given any alternatives to what they had on offer - so that component of informed consent was never implemented. I had become very belligerent (no sleep does that to you) by the time they offered me anticoagulants, after about a week tied to the bed unable to exercise. I asked for alternatives as a component of informed consent. When they told me there were none, I told them I would take garlic if they offered it. They didn't. I refused the anti-coagulants, so every time they came in to do observations, they brought the anti-coagulants back in with them and pressured me to take them - every single time. I was far from sure I was doing the best thing to refuse them (as a preventative - at that stage I had no known blood clots) but just got more and more bloody minded the more they bullied me. Call it a personality fault.
There is NO pretense any more of informed consent, at any level of hospitalisation that comes with forced quarantine.
Seems to me that this should be added also:
"The manufacturing of the mRNA has resulted in many contaminants such as endotoxins, fragments of Simian Virus 40, e-coli and other toxins and has not been subject to any of the usual quality and compliance control checks. Neither the manufactures of the mRNA doses or the regulator have had prior experience of ensuring or testing for the quality of the doses made in large volumes which are an experimental gene modification treatment.
Thanks for the update on informed consent for Covid vaccination in Florida, Phillip, this is interesting.
In my opinion, there has been no valid consent for Covid-19 vaccination in Australia, because the population has been misinformed about the threat of ‘Covid-19’, and has been pressured, coerced, manipulated, and even mandated to submit to the Covid-19 injections.
I lay much of the blame for this dire situation at the feet of the medical profession - doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others should have said “We can’t do this, we can’t vaccinate under coercion, under mandates”. But they didn’t they say this… In the main, they went along with the Australian and state/territory governments’ mass population vaccination rollout without question.
This is a massive scandal which has resulted in the theft of personal autonomy and bodily integrity in a supposedly free country.
For more background, see for instance my formal complaint/notification to AHPRA about Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly:
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf
And my complaint to AHPRA about the AHPRA 9 March 2021 Position Statement and the reckless disregard for voluntary informed consent.
https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/reckless-disregard-for-voluntary-informed-consent-the-ahpra-position-statement-9-march-2021.pdf
More on my website: https://vaccinationispolitical.net
I shared your comment with this substack on my telegram. Thank you.
Most Aussies don’t seem to have a clue about informed consent. They’ll just line up for all the vax’s, which will keep coming until most of us are dead! Or disabled at the least.
The big problem coming is the changes to WHO’s IHR’s, and the proposed treaty. I doubt people who follow substack etc are going to have these jabs, but then we can’t have “official” digital identity, and won’t be able to access our CBDC’s.
So then, what will we do? Not all of us own our own house, or can grow our own food, or know our local farmer.
There’s talk of a new major “disaster” coming, somewhere. If we all look out for info on that, maybe it will be averted. It’s probably meant to undermine America’s election. I don’t think they’ve got a hope of getting rid of the Demorats! Bad news, just keeps coming.
We need to tell as many people as we can, but don’t use fakebook or xmarks the WEF. I know all this is obvious. I have seen some good graffiti lately!
Phillip, I’d love to come to Sydney to hear you speak, but why Double Bay? I’m rural Vic(expecting to be burnt out this “summer”), can hardly afford to run my 1996 car! Hopefully there will be a video.
Thanks for this substack, Phillip thanks for making it free! I could write a heap more, but I have to log out now.
Also, why are most of us having our full names on our posts here, I can’t get my “handle” to be displayed? Anyone know?
My daughter in UK asked how to get the jabs out of her system so I suggested here on subs and telegram as go-tos. I advised her to create a name like I have done for many years, in order to not compromise herself professionally or other.
Thanks Jade!!
I fear that the cover up is in full swing now 3 years and more beyond the COVID 19 release into the globe and still no admission of fault or wrong doing by any government or bureaucracy or pharmaceutical organisation and the PM and Labour Party no where to be seen on this issue. The mass take down of anyone who speaks out on the subject including now Russell Brand but also Tucker Carlson...it’s a sure sign that someone will be taken down off mainstream media if they stray and begin to question..the worst is the public have been left financially crippled while the large vaccine companies have become enormously rich without any redress, accountability or impunity this is shocking...while the long term affects of people with adverse affects or people who have lost jobs due to mandates is slowly being swept under the carpet as other reasons flood in to cover the real reasons for their absence....what the government is doing and what people require them to do is becoming a wide abyss of misrepresentation with no real connection between them both as the government appears to be totally owned or completely corrupt or just way out of touch with the issues facing the working class or middle class...will civil disobedience or protest be our only option to stem the tide against what seems to be a coordinated attack on our life and our way of living?... it shocking and the worst of it all...many think that the gains of the last years on properly and housing prices will be enough for them to insulate themselves against this storm....I see a summer of great unrest! Many hold onto what has got them through past headwinds...I fear that this storm is only starting!
You are right on David. I’ve heard Brand is WEF, he’s married to the Jemima who used to be married to Imran Khan. Her maiden name is Goldstein, or something like that. We can’t trust Russel Brand. Oh,I’ve also seen video of him being very chummy with Yuval Noah Hariri, filmed by Harari’s husband. Yuk!!!
Mr Altman, Do you perhaps know what is happening with the Class Action of 500 people in NSW? The lawyer may be Tony Nicolic.
Numerous comments posted on social media reflect the widespread community misunderstanding about informed consent. Top journalists, politicians, radio and television personalities often reveal that they, too, do not understand the concept of informed consent.
For example, how many times have you listened to or read commentators talking about people being “GIVEN their informed consent"?
BUT THERE'S MUCH MORE TO "INFORMED CONSENT" - CONSIDER WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING
How many readers have received what are effectively "accept-or-be-cancelled" letters from their banks advising them that their bank has unilaterally:
(a) decided not to process customers' transactions of >$10,000 that are related to crypto currencies (like bitcoin)?
(b) reserved for their bank the right to refuse to process any transactions that, IN THE BANK’S OPINION, may result in loss or harm for either the customer or the bank?
(c) reserved for the bank the right to limit - or refuse outright - withdrawals or deposits of cash?
The closing sentence of the September 18 article linked below reports that "Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, also announced in June that cheques would be entirely phased out in Australia by 2030":
Does any bank customer remember giving their voluntary and uncoerced INFORMED CONSENT for their bank to decide - unilaterally - who their customers can transact with? - and for how much? ... or was the "choice" for the customer to either accept the new terms or have the relevant bank accounts closed?
Does anyone remember giving Labor Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, the right to unilaterally phase out cheques in Australia?
MACQUARIE BANK
I respectfully suggest that readers of Phillip's substack also read this September 18 article....
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/it-begins-australias-fifth-largest-bank-announces-digital/
.... AND THEN ASK THEMSELVES: "if all banks follow Macquarie Bank's example and if all banks reserve the right - AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION - to not process customer transactions that THEY (the banks) DO NOT APPROVE OF:
1. How will customers withdraw their own funds from their bank and from the banking system if, at some time in the future, they happen to decide that their own bank is facing imminent financial difficulty or that the banking system itself and/or the currency might be at serious risk of imploding?
2. What does this mean in the future for the concept of "A RUN ON THE BANKS"?
3. In legal terminology, a cheque is a "promissory note" which is effectively an instruction to the cheque issuer's bank to hand over to the bearer of the cheque, a specified amount of the issuer's cash at bank. BANKS ARE NOT USUALLY AWARE OF THE REASONS for someone using a cheque to pay someone else some of their money - BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO BE.
So, if cheques (as well as cash) are phased out, what are the privacy implications for bank customers?
And, what does this mean for the whole concept of all promissory notes, bills of exchange and for PRIVATE FINANCIAL PROMISES in general?
4. Will the new arrangements make it easier for governments and bureaucrats to use the banking system to surveil and covertly spy on citizens?
5. Will the new arrangements make it easier for governments and bureaucrats to use the banking system to single out and punish (or "cancel") those who publicly question or challenge the government's agenda or permitted narrative? Remember, Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau used the banking system to enforce mandates and regulations against Canadians who refused to submit to the experimental gene therapy injections and against truckers and those who supported the truckers' challenge to Trudeau's tyranny?
6. How do the changes relate to the WEF's promise that "you will own nothing and you will be happy" and to the implementation of the "GREAT RESET" that the WEF said is coming soon?
7. How do the banking changes made so far relate to the CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES being rolled out worldwide - including by the Reserve Bank in Australia?
8. What will happen if, one day, the government and/or the Reserve Bank announces that all conventional currency (cash on hand and bank balances) MUST be exchanged for their equivalent in CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY ...or else the conventional currency will EXPIRE AND HAVE NO VALUE?
... Or if an announcement is made in the future by government and or the Reserve Bank that all bank balances will automatically (unilaterally) be converted to their CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY EQUIVALENT?
... Would that cause a "RUN ON THE BANKS"?
...WOULD A "RUN ON THE BANKS" EVEN BE POSSIBLE if banks have the right - IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION - to refuse customer payment instructions that they (the banks) believe may result in loss or harm to the customer OR THE BANK?
...Given the banking changes already being made, what ability would bank customers and holders of cash have to resist?"
It would not be surprising if some people feel like they are being rounded up and corralled - perhaps in preparation for a GREAT RESET of some kind or another - when others (elected or not) can decide their fate - whether that fate is to be financially neutered or perhaps to be COMPULSORY ACQUIRED - no doubt for what others (elected or not) decide is "fair compensation".
Like the coerced gene therapy experiments, are we just expected to SHUT UP, SUBMIT or FACE THE CONSEQUENCES?
Many probably believe that (like government COVID-19 policy impacts on the relationship between patients and their doctors) GENUINE INFORMED CONSENT should also be required before GOVERNMENTS and BANKS implement such fundamental changes to the banking system … that inevitably IMPACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND THEIR BANKS and BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND THEIR OWN MONEY.
Would not the primary options to the continued breakdown of banking practices be to:
1) remove funds from offending institutions.
2) seek institutions with customer centric policies, creating a competitive advantage for this sort of behavior?
3. Demand, strive for and achieve legislative change removing regulatory allowance of such behaviors?
4. Move entirely to cash or cash alternatives (crypto)
We seem to be a culture that has moved to whining on social media as sufficient to create change. Only real word actions will do so.
When deposits slow, when transaction volume slows, when only the barest of minimum is done within the banking system then where is its power?
Thank you for your reply.
It's great that you are thinking proactively and your 4 suggestions make sense to me.
Those who know and understand the risks inherent in what is going on would all love to implement your #3 but - as with experimental mRNA injection risks - VERY FEW KNOW and even fewer UNDERSTAND the inherent risks. So, I would respectfully suggest to you (a) that your #3 underestimates the sophistication and power of those who are orchestrating the changes and (b) that #3 is easier said than done.
IMHO, your #4 is wishful thinking, especially given the massive vested interests and power of those who are already opposing and trying to inhibit the widespread use of crypto. But crypto currencies are not a fix-all solution because (a) even many well-educated and savvy people still don't understand how they work and (b) my understanding of crypto currencies is that, to fulfil their potential, they are totally dependent on a functioning Internet and people who want to use them having unfettered access to the Internet. Governments can quite easily constrain peoples' Internet access and, in the event of serious conflict, EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons are likely to be one of the first weapons deployed against sophisticated countries - and even existing EMP technology weapons can cause very widespread and permanent destruction of electronic infrastructure on which the Internet itself depends. Incidentally, total Internet dependency is also a vulnerability of a banking system that is 100% digital - which we now know is what Macquarie Bank aspires to. All of our other big banks seem to be headed in the same 100% digital and CBDC direction - and one can only wonder why our intelligence agencies have not been sounding warning bells to government and to the community about that two-sided vulnerability.
I think a distinction needs to be made between people "whining on social media" and people having an extended social media "conversation" - where they express their fears and concerns and try to inform each other about possible solutions to the problems that concern them.
But most of all, we need leaders and, ideally, A LEADER FOR RIGHT NOW, who understands (a) the very serious, insidious and inexorable erosion of our freedoms taking place, and (b) who also understands the likelihood that the erosion will continue and accelerate if a principled leader does not have the ability and the courage to confront those whose stated goal is to replace - not just the banking system - but our whole society ...with something they assure us, without evidence, will be better.
Thankfully, there are still a few good people in our Australian Parliament, in America and in Europe who speak the truth fearlessly. They are all leaders in their own way and, with our help, one of them in each continent will soon step up to become A LEADER FOR RIGHT NOW.
thanks for your response. no options are without pain nor risk, as it doing nothing which also remains an options. you outline some risks that appear very real and are well articulated.
of course there is a distinction between whinging and having a conversation and learning - totally agree. I wish there was more of the later and the former doesn't seem to accomplish much except perhaps to allow the social media watchers and sentiment scorers to ascertain how "hot" a population is around a particular subject. Well, it also leads some to feel like they've contributed to a solution so they can feel satisfied they've done something instead of nothing. but we all know the true results.
agreed #3 is easier said than done. that's the point. less is done because it is hard, has a cost, is risky, isn't easy. how many have worked their whole lives to create a safety net for themselves only to see it at risk. that's scary. it leads to fear. and we know how that goes - what is just and right gets trampled for what feels safer for me.
respectfully, it's likely no savior will lead us all from this. this is wishful thinking and only likely to lead to a less satisfying conclusion. when a leadership vacuum is formed surely something will fill the emptiness - but it's just getting a new boss same as the old boss, or dictatorship perhaps (very easy to manage, and they usually start out so promising), or there are leaders who have been leading themselves and their communities who step up. A LEADER = A SAVIOR? think there's a book called the bible that mentions something like that. seem to recall that didn't end well depending on your viewpoint. sure there are a few who call out the inconsistencies and craziness from within the system and they deserve kudos. but a whole population looking to be led is unlikely to get us to some promised land of justice and abundance for all. I wish you well and am glad I left australia when I had the chance. it's a beautiful country with wonderful people, too many of whom seem quite content to toe the line and be short poppies.
More interesting thoughts. TY.
I certainly don't think of a leader in this context as being "a saviour" ... just (IMHO) one essential component to articulate and coordinate a coherent response - and one that (again IMHO) is missing right now. I agree with you: that it would be a big mistake to invest all our hopes in any one individual - and to think any one individual can single-handedly turn back the tide and "fix it".
Where did you go to when you left Australia? Are the same issues being faced there? If yes, are you more confident about the way they are being tackled there? Why? Is there something we learn from that?
But, in any case, thanks again for sharing your insights to date.
our issues are global, and there are organizations striving to unify all "solutions" to one place. I am fortunate to be in Mexico, where regardless of what the intelligentsia does the great mass of people distrust single sourced solutions and prefer to live with less interference in their lives. And there is some
competition with the government which while also causing some tensions for sure, also leads to some stability which is business friendly.
The people are lovely and the climate and environment are beautiful.
Very interesting. TY. I wish you well, too ...and also your Mexican neighbours.
here's a wrinkle as well: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/09/when-authorities-believe-their-citizens-will-become-dangerous.html
TY
Hi R.S., I read the Gateway Pundit article and all your text. My bank has said we will no longer be issued chequebooks, but we can use our remaining cheques. We’ll see.
Pretty much everything you’ve said, and the article, have been forecast to happen. It is a complete disgrace. The bankers are treating us like the cattle they think that we are.
I don’t know what can be done about all this-I believe every Aus. bank will follow suit. They want to steal our money, and call our assets, like property, “tokens”. The best thing to do is raise awareness VERY strongly, before the banks freeze our money and assets because we are saying things they don’t “agree” with.
This is all coming centrally, of course, with BIS sitting at the apex of the bank pyramid.
Catherine Austin Fitts says to use cash as much as possible (so the banks can’t track what we are buying-they need data about us), also she says to be friendly with your neighbours/community/farmers, so we can trade with them. She says to use smaller banks/credit unions-but she’s in America-we don’t really have small banks here anymore.
She says she is Christian (as am I, trying to be), so she is not sweating about “stuff” she owns, she has given away a ton of stuff.
I know this is small comfort compared to everything you’ve raised R.S., but I know it’s coming, and apart from telling as many people as we can about this form of tyranny, I really don’t have any other answers. We could complain to our banks, and gov’t, but I know that won’t do any good.
We’re all going to be in the same boat, but some of us have more to lose than others.
Thank you very much, rrodynmac, for reading my long comment right through and for writing such a thoughtful reply.
I'm very aware that, despite my efforts to be succinct, many of my comments on Phillip's substack end up being long ones and I hope Phillip doesn't mind that.
I'm just trying to bring a multitude of thoughts and information that I have encountered together, to commit it all to writing (in case I get hit by a bus before we can make right what is so terribly wrong) and to share it.
Although I didn't specifically say so this time, there is always an implied standing invitation - to any reader who thinks that what I have written is incorrect or misleading - to correct any errors of fact and to argue their alternative point of view - hopefully also providing evidence in support of it.
No need to thank me R S, I wasn’t really much help! I’m always interested to know what my fellow Aussies are going through in this time of crisis(es), and how much we collectively know.
I’m by no means an organiser of people or any sort of leader, but I’m willing to help out in any way I can. It just happens to be that I know a fair bit about Klaus Schwab’s great reset, and most things that are going on concerning it. There’s a LOT going on, but the looming bank crisis is certainly one of the most disturbing.
You said it about the Canadian trucker thing-we we’re all cheering them on, then Trudeau froze the bank accounts, and that was the end of that. THAT is the scary part-if “they” have control of our money-what can we do? I will never knowingly take any jab, so all this, and with WHO dictating health policy for all member states, I’m going to be out in the cold.
But it’s not just me, there’s my husband who suffers a few serious health problems (but won’t go to any hospital of course, they house the enemy), and my son, who is an adult with autism & type 1 diabetes. Insulin dependent of course, and microscopy has shown bad things in insulin.
I’m not complaining, although it may seem that way, but I know there are so many people, every way you turn, who are worse off than us.
I didn’t think your post was too long, but some people may hesitate to read it all. And I couldn’t pick any mistakes. But I don’t go looking for mistakes, I’m just looking for possible answers, i.e.-what can we do? How can we organise against all this? I’m in rural Victoria, cold and miserable right now, but in a few weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised to be in the middle of a bushfire. “They” don’t want people living in the sticks-they want us all in their sterile non-stop surveillance 15 minute cities.
And there’s meant to be another “pandemic” soon-either Marburg or bird flu. I’m guessing bird flu, because, and I think this is funny-our insurance policy, out of the blue, said they wouldn’t be covering “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Humans”-and that’s our house and contents insurance! Is that a dead give away, or a red herring?!!
Don’t get hit by a bus, we need you, you know things! That’s all from me for now.
"I’m guessing bird flu, because, and I think this is funny-our insurance policy, out of the blue, said they wouldn’t be covering “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Humans”-and that’s our house and contents insurance! Is that a dead give away, or a red herring?!!"
WOW!!!!
In lots of ways, the insurance industry may end up being our canary in the coal mine:
I wonder if anyone has tried recently to increase the life and permanent disability insurance cover for young people of working age.
If what Ed Dowd has written about global excess deaths is even halfway correct, the life insurance industry (globally) is probably fully aware by now that the correlation of excess deaths with the timing of the rollout of the experimental mRNA COVID-19 jabs might be more than just coincidental.
If life insurance premiums on ostensibly healthy young people of working age start going through the roof - or if (increased) life cover of ostensibly healthy but COVID-19 jabbed young people is just refused outright - that will most likely be a sign that the incredibly clever and very well-informed life insurance industry statisticians and researchers have concluded that, in the case of the experimental mRNA COVID-19 jabs and excess deaths, CORRELATION is most likely also an indication of CAUSATION.
R S, I do write some bombshell statements sometimes without realising it! Avian flu non-coverage on our house & contents insurance is a bit Wow!!!
I haven’t read Ed Dowd’s book, but I get the gist of it. You are most certainly right about life insurance premiums/coverage.
I don’t know anyone with life insurance, but you bring up some really important points. It certainly would be interesting to hear people’s experience in this regard.
I’m sure the life insurance people have taken the ill effects of the jab into consideration. I just wish we had proof, from people who have sought life insurance.
Then again, maybe life insurance companies will be underwritten by Rothschilds, or BlackRock, Vanguard etc. So unlimited funding for now, maybe. But they don’t want ordinary people having much money.
Without a survey or some such, I don’t know. I don’t go on other social media like Facebook or X(twitter) etc to set up an anecdotal type survey. Good thinking though, someone may see these posts and come up with something to probe this topic.
I’m over and out for this day now-a bit sleepy so I’ll toddle off now.
Oh,P.S.-We’ll have no privacy.
from the beginning of time the medical profession have been experimental witch doctors acting without any consent let alone informed consent. The hypocratic oath was always smoke and mirrors and a poor attempt at putting lipstick on the experimenter pigs
Completely agree Phillip. Consent to medical treatment is a critically important aspect of healthcare treatment. But the one often overlooked, is the right to REFUSE medical treatment. This is sometimes called informed refusal (though this phrase is deliberately misleading - see below). The principle, established in common law, is that a competent adult (one who has the capacity to make their own decisions) has the lawful right to refuse medical treatment even if this results in their death, or would cause it to happen sooner.
Attached to this principle, which is also fundamental to medical ethics, is another important point. An adult with decision-making capacity need not demonstrate the rationale or reasons for their refusal of medical treatment, and importantly, the decision/s do NOT need to make sense to anyone else, including doctors, relatives, or friends etc. This means that the competent adult does not need to be fully informed about their refusal of medical treatment. For example, their decision to refuse medical treatment could be based on religious, cultural, or any other grounds that are important to the competent adult.
This exceptionally important principle, entrenched in common law, has somehow been lost in the morass of decision-making under the totalitarian approach to coercing (read forcing or entrapment) every person to take one of the experimental Covid injections. Unless there's been some sleight of hand in the trickery under "emergency use" legislation, (as I haven't looked it up), this fundamental principle is the absolute right of every single person. Even if someone has no or limited capacity for decision-making, their lawful substitute decision-maker or guardian can make these decisions on their behalf (this includes for children).
The right to refuse medical treatment was mostly confined to end-of-life situations, which is perhaps why it has been overlooked. Last time I looked, injections would fit within the definition of health care, so they can be lawfully refused, FOR ANY REASON (providing the adult has capacity for decision-making). Under law, these decisions must be respected and followed. For the governments, health authorities, corporations, etc to override the fundamental right of people to refuse medical treatment is nothing other than diabolical tyranny and must be resisted.
I believe you meant to write "decision/s do NOT need to make sense to anyone else..." in your second paragraph, as otherwise it doesn't track. can you confirm?
Yes, you are correct! Good pick up. My mistake. There should be a NOT there. Will try to re-edit.
Great travesties against humanity have been conducted in the last three years. It is disgraceful that people's wishes and rights have been violated, essentially by governments. Democide indeed! At law, your friend, if she was the lawful substitute decision-maker, could have refused the medical treatment on his behalf (provided he had lost capacity for decision-making). This happens all the time when people at the end of life require life-sustaining measures (eg. intubation etc) to keep alive. The right of refusal is absolute. Only the courts could override this, but it would require hearings, evidence of the person's best interests, coercion etc etc. Advance Health Directives or living wills are not entirely necessary if someone can (lawfully as their substitute decision-maker) speak on behalf of the person who has lost capacity for decision-making.
Great summary
I went to a government mass vaccination centre and wasn't told anything about the risks of the Covid vaccine or what to do if I experienced an adverse event. It was literally jab and go (after 15 mins waiting time to make sure you didn't collapse immediately).
Misinformation - Disinformation - your leader (Biden) says so and being a physician as well as being a truck driver previously, means he knows better than all of you.
Like father like son - birds of a feather
Phillip.... this is an excellent article.... do I have your permission to acknowledge you and repeat this word for word in my own Substack?
You should be able to cross-post with or without introductory comment.
Thanks Geoff, I will do.
THANKYOU for everything you do and say for the health and future well being of our kids 🙏🏾🩵🙏🏾
And to think we are building a mRNA facility in Melbourne where the marketing is spewing out “safe and miraculous “ 🤯
Informed consent was suspended under the State of Emergency. For Americans, it is the PREP Act. All rights (including human rights) are null and void during these conditions. I thought that should be obvious by now. People really need to wake up and stop being in denial about this. The way to solve it is stop allowing endless 'emergencies' that legally (yes, legally) nullify our rights. It is not moral but it is legal. Hence why we keep losing because people cannot grasp this concept.
Does informed consent at any level exist any more?
It's worth noting that if someone gets diagnosed with something apparently infectious that requires quarantine, like covid, and that disease drops their blood oxygen level below a certain level, then that person is isolated from any form of support to help them make decisions. I was locked up in ICU for 14 days, totally isolated, and I was also unable to talk on the phone, so unable to get any help. With a blood oxygen of 80 for the first 11 of those days, can anything I said be considered "informed", and yet there was no request from the hospital staff that someone advocate for me. At that level I was not actually functioning at my best intellectually - what a surprise. I was required to give permission for everything they did - REQUIRED - with all sorts of implications. I had to give permission for every aspect of the the 2 hourly observations, such as taking my blood pressure. I asked them if I could give a blanket permission for that so I could stay a bit sleepy and they refused. I had to sit up, lift my own arm and co-operate. which means for 14 days I got no sleep. The medicines in the drip I NEVER gave any kind of consent for - I did not even know what they were. Occasionally after that they wanted to add a drug in tablet or needle form, for which I had to give consent. Eventually I just started saying no to everything at which stage they started threatening me with DEATH if I did not obey. "We're just trying to save your life." I heard every day while I was there. So NOTHING that happened to me had informed consent. Everything had reluctant and coerced consent.
So bear in mind that when someone is apparently close to death in hospital, and has no advocates helping them think things through, any form of consent means nothing at all. It is all coerced.
Also I was also never given any alternatives to what they had on offer - so that component of informed consent was never implemented. I had become very belligerent (no sleep does that to you) by the time they offered me anticoagulants, after about a week tied to the bed unable to exercise. I asked for alternatives as a component of informed consent. When they told me there were none, I told them I would take garlic if they offered it. They didn't. I refused the anti-coagulants, so every time they came in to do observations, they brought the anti-coagulants back in with them and pressured me to take them - every single time. I was far from sure I was doing the best thing to refuse them (as a preventative - at that stage I had no known blood clots) but just got more and more bloody minded the more they bullied me. Call it a personality fault.
There is NO pretense any more of informed consent, at any level of hospitalisation that comes with forced quarantine.