2.1.2 – The Burden of Proof regarding potential harm from Corona Measures & Injections, is not on people.
Author: Mayank Pincha
Editor: Paula Horan
When your intuition tells you that the narrative is off, common sense is enough to reject a solution laden with obvious vested interests. In other words, “Buyer Beware”.
Mayank Pincha
When it comes to people’s health and using interventions to impact their wellbeing positively, compared to chemical medicine, natural remedies are far more trustworthy. For example, certain basics such as sunlight, ample spring water, adequate sleep and vegetarian diet which lead to natural immunity are well known to help one maintain robust health. However, any product that is a chemical based and/ or commercial (products funded by the government are also commercial), it is by default questionable, unless proven beneficial through one’s experience. (Hence, the maxim “Buyer Beware” prevails). For example Vaccines, Pills, Mask Mandates, PCR Tests, Medical Drugs, Toxic Sanitization formulas, and recommendations (and illegal mandates) to use them will be referred to here as the “Pharma “Safety” Package”. In the same way manufacturers of the alleged COVID-19 “vaccine”(alleged because the injection actually introduces a microscopic device which pumps out spike proteins that are attacking the immune systems of its recipients), chemical drugs & pills, vaccine advocates, research organisations and regulators even remotely funded by such manufacturers are hereinafter referred to as “Pharma”.
From the standpoint of our birth right as a human, a citizen of any given country and a consumer, people have every right to deny the Pharma “Safety” Package because it is based on a commercial premise. The burden is not on the public to prove that the “Pharma Safety Package” is beneficial to our longevity and quality of life. As long as there are doubts and suspicions in people’s minds around a Pharma “Safety” Package, based on a product that trials, studies, peer reviewed research, funded directly or indirectly by Pharma (referred to as “Pharma Product Literature”), people have the right to deny it, even if any raised doubts are allegedly un-founded. “Buyer Beware” applies. “Pharma Product Literature” which refers to literature produced directly by or funded by any commercial entity, in this day and age is not science, especially when all the real data is not even collected. The fact is, it is every individual’s right to maintain their health by any method they choose. A single method backed by “Pharma Product Literature” cannot be called unbiased science especially while being pushed on people as a guilt trip in the name of maximising Public Health.
The burden is on commercial entities to prove that the Pharma “Safety” Package is not harmful and that it is in fact beneficial to an individual. If they can’t prove that w.r.t (spell out) to each individual, it’s the company’s limitation that their technology is not personalised. Statistics based interventions have possible risks to individuals and there is no way for each individual to rule out that they will not end up being the alleged “miniscule” percentage of people at risk of adverse-effects to an experimental injection.
Moreover, the burden is on the Government and Govt. Agencies i.e. Govt. Funded Research Institutions and regulatory bodies (referred to as “Government”) to prove that they are not a commercial entity such as the CDC which has become evident in the U.S. 1*(as they are acting on the narrative and advice of commercial entities and the “Pharma Product Literature”). and that they have no conflict of interest and are not colluding with these commercial entities. Like the trucker strikes that are happening across the world, it is time for all Governments to prove that they are above-board, neutral and at arms length.
Let the Government prove that Evidence Based Medicine and Germ Theory can and must be the only approach to help humanity thrive. Even if they could prove it, it’s each individual’s choice to accept natural immunity vs a product that is supposed to trigger natural immunity (i.e. the jab). The burden is clearly on the Government to prove that Terrain Theory (the foundation of natural medicine), is not suitable to help humanity thrive.
Instead, they are force jabbing under the pretext of an Emergency Use Authorization, based on an alleged pandemic, which is further based on an interpretation by Germ Theorists and “Evidence” based Medicine (which is proving to be faulty) in the name of the collective good. The burden is clearly not on the people to prove that natural immunity and natural products are beneficial and can be relied upon solely and safely.
The burden is also on the Government to prove that natural immunity and natural products; that traditional medicines, are harmful for people (because they are not giving them the real credence they deserve, by in many cases illegally mandating vaccines). They must bear the burden of proof that nature and natural products have any less value or have any more risks than each person anyway has, by virtue of being a living person.
Mayank Pincha
Since the Government’s definition of collective good is based on a narrative weaved by a web of commercial entities i.e. “Pharma” and the “Pharma Product Literature” funded by them, the burden is on the Government to prove that they are working in the collective’s interest and that they are not in collusion with the commercial entities masquerading as Government; or are even under pressure from an attack of info and bio-warfare. Even if they prove the bona fide, people only voted for them to take administrative measures to maximise human health potential and not to guarantee human life, which is also part of the reason why they refuse to take responsibility for the side-effects of the vaccines/ jabs etc.). The bottom line is that the people have not accepted enslavement by virtue of voting for the Government.
The so-called Pandemic is based on a commerce-laden disease narrative and the experimental COVID-19 injections are a commercial product. When it comes to a commercial product, “Buyer Beware” applies. Potential consumers have the prerogative to reject it simply based on their choice or even suspicion of it.
Do we have reason to be suspicious? Check out the following:
1. Many doctors, scientists & researchers have debunked the entire virus theory of causation in illness
2. Researchers debunking the entire COVID narrative itself
3. Evidence of the apparent censorship of truth on mainstream media platforms
4. Attempts to suppress a diversity of views and opinions in the name of fact-checking.
5. Flip-flops and doublespeak from Health Regulators,
6. Worldwide rejection of injections due to massive evidence of side effects & death.
7. Suppression of incriminating facts and of alternative/ natural treatments by Big Tech.
8. Finally: the apparent conspiratorial alignment of governments, officials, regulators, politicians, the judiciary, corporate world CEO’s and technology platforms around the official global pandemic narrative.
All of the above give sufficient reason to create suspicion in the minds of citizens. It can’t be stated enough: the burden is not on the people i.e consumers to prove the potential harm from the disease narrative, COVID-appropriate behaviour and the proposed experimental injections. “Buyer Beware” applies and people are entitled to reject this so-called Pandemic and its proposed solution. Many regions in the world are standing up against the COVID-19 tyranny and have become sanctuary cities, states, and countries.
The burden of proof that viruses cause disease is on those who propose that theory and peddle vaccines. There is no burden of proof for any individual to defend his or her criticism of that theory. This is known as Hitchen’s Razor, which states, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Sol Luckman
The burden is on the Government to prove that they are not enslaving the citizens with the lockdowns and vaccine passports. The Constitution does not grant freedom to people, the Constitution only recognises the freedom that people are born with. So the government and legal justice system based on the Constitution cannot take away people’s freedom to choose their path of medicine and health.
Mayank Pincha
The call for freedom to decide one’s own path in the choice of medicine is not selfish. Freedom contributes to happiness, and happiness contributes to Health.
Mayank Pincha
“Here is the key to our policy – the right to choose.
Human beings everywhere simply as an inalienable right of birth, should have freedom to choose their guiding philosophy, their form of government, their methods of progress.
The right of the individual to elect freely, the manner of his care in illness, must be preserved.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America 1953 – 1961
Other Articles from the Author
2.1.1 – COVID Narrative: “House Of Cards” Debunked
2.1.3 – Why has “Public Health” chosen EBM & Germ Theory, as the ONLY official path of medicine?
2.1.5 – Can Public Health rely solely on For-Profit Research ?
2.1.6 – Evidence-Based Medicine, Rests on a Flawed Assumption of Immunity to COVID-19
2.2.1 – Burden is on Public Health, to rule out the Nocebo Effect of virus fear mongering
2.2.2 – Panic causes Partial Breathlessness as explained by Prof. Buteyko
2.2.3 – Flawed approach of Modern Medicine, Research & Legislation
2.2.9 – Whether viruses exist or not and whether they are harmful or not, doesn’t matter for public health.
2.2.10 – What divides the pro-vaccine and the pro-nature?
2.1.15 – We suffered really to protect others theoretically
2.1.18 – Ayurveda vs Allopathy
383 total views, 5 views today
