Unvaccinated pupils face 21-day isolation as measles cases rise

"Unvaccinated children face being forced to self-isolate for 21 days because of a rapid rise in measles cases.
Councils issued warnings to parents after modelling suggested that up to 160,000 cases could occur in London alone. Health officials say low uptake of MMR jabs has increased the risk of the potentially deadly infection.
In letters from local authorities, parents in London and its surrounding counties were told that if a pupil is infected, classmates who have not had both doses of MMR could be sent home and asked to self-isolate for three weeks."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/14/unvaccinated-children-self-isolation-measles-cases-rise/

Measles:

Informed consent for the MMR vaccine means knowing ALL the facts, and especially whether the risks of the vaccine are higher than the risks of the treated (vitamin A) disease:

picdata.org/measles

Isolating unvaccinated kids is divisive, discriminatory and a violation of their rights. People proposing or promoting this, including journalists, are criminals under human rights laws.

Severe measles is easily treated  with high doses of vitamin A.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Vitamin A in Children with Severe Measles | NEJM

"Treatment with vitamin A reduces morbidity and mortality in measles, and all children with severe measles should be given vitamin A supplements, whether or not they are thought to have a nutritional deficiency. (N Engl J Med 1990; 323:160–4.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199007193230304

The segregation of unvaccinated children is a compliance test. We need to push back on all fronts whether our kids are MMR vaccinated or not.

United non compliance means standing up for every kid, not only ours when it's convenient only to us

If they get away with segregating non MMR vaccinated kids, next it will be Covid19 mRNA unvaccinated kids.

No person can subject another who refuses any medical procedure (i.e. vaccine) to any disadvantage or prejudice (i.e. isolation) without violating their inalienable human rights. Anybody promoting this is also participating in systematic planning of mass human rights violations.

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1702568621594017956

You won’t need reminding not to follow government advice on these intentionally harmful by design injections (whatever the hell is in the vials), but perhaps you might save someone on the verge of waking up to the awfulness by sharing this.
Under no circumstances can mRNA based injections, masquerading as “vaccines”, be safe as a mass market product.
I’ve previously said I could think of only two, potentially sensible uses for this technology. One was to induce death in cancer cells and the other, to replace a missing or defective protein.
On the latter, an error in my logic was pointed out to me. They reminded me that such a person developed in that disease state, such that the normal product of the normal gene was never present. How then would our immune systems know that this belongs? There will be T-cells capable of responding to the normal protein in a person who lacks the normal protein. So even that utility isn’t available.
To the best of my recollection, when I was in Pfizer, the “immunooncology” application was the only one being pursued as a lab project.
Why is it being used in a supposed public health intervention? It can only do harm.
Best wishes
Mike

https://truth613.substack.com/p/insane-cdc-says-will-you-be-my-lab

From conspiracy theory to public policy in a jiffy.
Links at the base of this short piece, which is dated September 2023.
Note that even if the narrative hadn’t been total lies, the alleged vaccines are confirmed not to prevent transmission. It’s therefore completely irrelevant from a public health perspective whether or not you’ve been injected. Yet based on ignoring that inconvenient truth, the globalists propose you won’t be able to travel or enter a regulated space without being able to show that you’ve been poisoned. I think this is exactly what I’d expected to happen. I wish I hadn’t, but we’re way past the point that, unless your level of trust is up there with belief in the tooth fairy, you’ve got to be able to see how dark & evil this is.
Best wishes
Mike
Ps: Apologies, the plan for “vaccine passports” is from 2021.
I understood that the issue of the newspaper is recent.
Either way, does it look more accurate or less accurate than in 2021? It’s more, isn’t it?

A four minute summary of why you should not accept any mRNA based treatments.
From Dr Craig Wax. This short segment is an object lesson in hard hitting brevity.
Best wishes
Mike

https://rumble.com/v3he9sm-lack-of-efficacy-potential-harms-and-faulty-platform-of-the-mrna-lnp-and-dn.html

Naomi Wolf writes well. She makes some very powerful points in this piece.
My aim in sharing it isn’t to do with politics of Empire, but this: look how often the “elites” in a given era & geography have used starvation as an ultimate weapon of control and depopulation.
Consider how easy it would be to replicate such a policy today.
I do not enjoy the fear this evokes & it’s not my intention to frighten, but to wake as many people up to the danger we’re all in. We need a non-violent revolution, before the inevitable occurs.
Best wishes
Mike

“This is one reason why those who seek to intimidate others with hurtling the pejorative “conspiracy theorist” at them, are really trying to keep people from acquiring the habit of assessing new dangers in their environment for themselves, or from learning from others with historical knowledge of, or with experience of, dangerous situations, instead of relying on the assurances of elites and gatekeepers. Elites and gatekeepers require the ignorance and credulity of “ordinary people” in order to get their dirty deeds — if they are set on harming or exploiting populations — done, without facing mass resistance.

History repeats, yes; but it repeats always in a new guise.”

https://open.substack.com/pub/naomiwolf/p/genocidal-ancestral-memory

TONIGHT at 10:20 PM on Z1TV www.z1tv.hr/hr/livestream Professor Richard Werner, TOPICS: CBDC, how inflation really came about, how money is created.

SEPARATION OF HEALTH & STATE:

Public health as an arm of the state is a failed and clearly obsolete centralised project which only benefits state control & pharmaceutical corporations. Health should be individual-focused, not public, and managed at a micro-local level. The only public areas that are necessary are clean water, air, nutrition and sanitation.

The idea is that it's not managed by the state at a central level. It's managed at a micro-local level. A network of community centred health hubs. LHS (Local not National) rather than NHS. This is to do with avoiding central management. Funding is not the issue. It can be funded locally, by the state or both. Nobody is advocating private funding unless it's local community funding and that expense comes from local not centralised taxation.

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1702596080288870576

https://youtu.be/Kp24lm2xC1E?si=H8ffI2TKLy4aqio6

I cannot recommend this highly enough. THIS is what sits behind everything that’s happening. I think there may be additional factors & motivations, but these (money & control) motives are sufficient to drive it all.

Please watch & share the unbelievable truth.

I’ve verified many parts of this separately, but I’d never seen it all lined up like this.

Best wishes
Mike

Despite the focus by economists worldwide on central bankers' interest rate policy (verging on obsession), the argument that lower interest rates lead to higher growth is fundamentally flawed!

Richard looks at the empirical evidence and concludes something entirely different... 👀

Click below to know more than 99% of economists! 👇

https://youtu.be/QbJ2TVN2sFE?si=uy9YM5qIVOOatFpk

🐶Neil Oliver: "Climate propaganda is climate fraud. The climate has always changed and always will regardless of human activities".
🙏Treat us with a coffee☕️ https://www.buymeacoffee.com/slobodnipoI archeologist and GB NEWS journalist is one of the loudest in asking uncomfortable questions about topics pushed by the mainstream in Great Britain and thus in the whole western world. He believes that they are trying to impose neo-feudalism on us. If we do not actively oppose it, they will surely succeed.
You can follow the SHOW via livestream - www.z1tv.hr/hr/livestream
CHANNEL of the show "SLOBODNI" with all episodes - https://rumble.com/user/SLOBODNIpodcast
https://bit.ly/YouTubeSLOBODNIpodcast
Join http://t.me/andrijaklaric
Follow https://twitter.com/andrija_klaric
https://bit.ly/facebookandrijaklaric
https://instagram.com/andrijaklaric/
https://www.tiktok.com/@slobodni_podcast
https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/SLOBODNIpodcast
https://www.winn.press/

How Belief in Science Stripped Morality from Truth

If we go back before Descartes, what do we have? We have Christianity. And in Christianity, truth was understood as a belief in a certain set of moral teachings as codified in very specific books. That was the truth: it’s there, it’s written out, it has to do with morality. And what has that been replaced with? It has been replaced with the belief that truth is science. Now what has changed there? What has changed there is that actually something went missing. We lost something along the way. And what is it?

It’s morality.

You see what happened? Where is the morality inherent in science or in what we consider science?

There is none, as such. So in this passage from the belief in Christianity to the belief in science, we’ve done away with morality and I don’t think that was accidental. We are holding onto these beliefs of control.

Eugenics for example, was born with scientific so-called progress, this belief that there are biologically superior beings than others, and therefore we can dispense with those that are inferior. The same thing with races. I know a lot of people try and argue that’s not what he meant, but in the subtitle of The Origin of the Species by Darwin, he writes: The Preservation of Favoured Races. Yes, he means it in a biological sense, but it’s all there in a subliminal sense. It’s all already there. It’s all setting the world up for eugenics, which is basically a form of, of control over other humans. And that is what happens when you dispense with morality altogether.

I think we should consider turning it on its head from the start. I think we should think that evidence was maybe the wrong place to put our hopes in truth. We talked about the film that I produced called The Book of Vision, which is about modern medicine turning the human into an an object, or a set of objects, which are the organs, and it’s almost as if what we did with evidence is this: we’ve objectified truth. So truth doesn’t exists but in an object, and the object is the evidence. That’s what Descartes has done. In parallel, what we try and address in the film, The Book of Vision, is that that it is not where truth lives. It’s not in objects as such, and it’s actually in certain practices that as humans, we actually do.

Not necessarily truth arriving, but truth searching. In Christianity that was turned into some monastic practices of stripping away superfluous things: asceticism. You’d strip away the superfluous, you’d look within, and you’d find that moral core within you that you could really tune into, and then you would become a purified being. That was very much directed toward the self because the external truth had almost already been decided in certain books. Now, I’m not saying that that’s where we should go back to. I’m saying that should be as important as anything that we can see as science. The whole history of cultural, moral teachings as codified in in religious books is just as important as anything we call science. One has not supplanted the other, one is not better than the other, as we’ve been presented.

First of all, I would say put those on the same level, at least, if not actually, on a different one. Let’s practice these together so that we don’t go back into the same kind of to and fro, because in a way science came because the codified books became too restrictive, and then science becomes too restrictive. I’m not saying that we should just go back to the codified books, then we’re just going to end up with science again, which I don’t want. I’m saying let’s go even further back and let’s look at Ancient Greece and let’s look at what happened there in the dialogues, the Socratic dialogues, and in the practice of speaking to each other and speaking truth. Truth-telling, or free speech, which is a practice they had a word for: parresia. That was quite fundamental for democracy: that this was a practice that actually took place, this free speech.

The person who speaks freely, they know they speak the truth. It’s difficult for us to understand because we are so caught up in the Cartesian view that you need evidence, that we find it difficult to understand that at the time they had an idea of truth, and it was not linked to evidence.

They would probably laugh at you if you would bring an object and say:

“This in my evidence!”

Someone’s right if they say this in my evidence? They would laugh at you because they would say:

“No, you, you’ve got to fight this yourself!”

Following your own sense of what’s truthful, meaning moral truth, not relying on, secondhand notions.

We turned it on its head, but back then you knew that you were speaking the truth because you really felt it.

Because what you spoke coincided with a kind of moral self, set within yourself, and coming from a moral culture outside of you, much older than modern science.

Robin Monotti Graziadei

https://t.me/robinmg/26724

https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2023/05/19/how-belief-in-science-stripped-morality-from-truth/