Posted on Nov 27, 2021
World’s First Vaccine Murder case against Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla filed in India’s High Court...
535
9
7
4
4
0
"Petitioner has sought prosecution of AstraZeneca’s (Covishield) manufacturer Bill Gates, his partner Adar Poonawalla and other Government officials and leaders involved in the murder of a 23 year old man, who lost his life because of vaccination. The deceased took the Covishield vaccine by believing in the false narrative that the vaccine is completely safe and also owing to the compliance requirement set by the Railways that only double vaccinated people would be allowed to travel."
World’s First Vaccine Murder case against Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla filed in India’s High Court...
Posted from indianbarassociation.in
India
Health
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
I understand this is an Indian site writing in English, so the language is a bit wonky.
But even then, the claims are outrageous. Murder? Unless Indian law - which descended from British law just like ours did - is so RADICALLY different that the word doesn't even have the same meaning, murder is ridiculous.
Deliberate intent? Malice aforethought? Not likely.
And execution? Please.
Now, the concept - that side effects were known in suppressed - I can see that. But that still doesn't constitute murder. Negligent, or maybe even reckless, homicide, maybe. Murder? Try again.
But even then, the claims are outrageous. Murder? Unless Indian law - which descended from British law just like ours did - is so RADICALLY different that the word doesn't even have the same meaning, murder is ridiculous.
Deliberate intent? Malice aforethought? Not likely.
And execution? Please.
Now, the concept - that side effects were known in suppressed - I can see that. But that still doesn't constitute murder. Negligent, or maybe even reckless, homicide, maybe. Murder? Try again.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Eugenics is a population control tool. bill gates is known to advocate for population control. Why do some people feel the need to defend the words eugenicists speak?
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Cpl (Join to see) - What words am I defending? I don't see me defending any statements anywhere on this thread. Please clarify.
I am not saying no wrongdoing. I am saying there is no case for murder, no case for the death penalty, as this article attempts to say.
I am not saying no wrongdoing. I am saying there is no case for murder, no case for the death penalty, as this article attempts to say.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
What's the point of your response if its not to decry the message or defend bill gates? The message is that bill gates is promoting a experimental shot he helped promote through an "element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion..." You do recall the Nuremburg Code right? The techniques used by the manufacturers, promoters, and the governments violate the very idea of human rights. We used to try people for human rights violations, what happened?
From the charges:
"The company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices."
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
From the charges:
"The company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices."
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Cpl (Join to see) - Because the message is stupid, silly, and downright wrong.
Please read what I wrote IN FULL. See where I said there might be a case for negligent - or even reckless - homicide? That is me saying that there MIGHT be something there. That if the claims are accurate, then there is a case to be made, and the charges are not inconsequential.
But the case for murder is simply hyperbole. It is bombastic overreach designed to grab attention, sell papers, and destroy names - all without actual facts to back up the claims.
There is absolutely NO case for murder or the death penalty, even if the claims are 100% true.
Did we learn nothing from Rittenhouse? Just because people are claiming someone is the devil doesn't make them the actual devil. And the media will do anything to make things seem as bad as possible in order to sell papers.
Please read what I wrote IN FULL. See where I said there might be a case for negligent - or even reckless - homicide? That is me saying that there MIGHT be something there. That if the claims are accurate, then there is a case to be made, and the charges are not inconsequential.
But the case for murder is simply hyperbole. It is bombastic overreach designed to grab attention, sell papers, and destroy names - all without actual facts to back up the claims.
There is absolutely NO case for murder or the death penalty, even if the claims are 100% true.
Did we learn nothing from Rittenhouse? Just because people are claiming someone is the devil doesn't make them the actual devil. And the media will do anything to make things seem as bad as possible in order to sell papers.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google