Western Australia Authorizes POISON aka Covid 19 Vaccines WARNING: The Australian government is tracking people who visit these linked pages. Please read this full article before clicking links and use appropriate precautions to protect yourself from this murderous government.
I think you'll find that in Australia all medicines or therapeutic goods, even paracetamol and aspirin, are legally classified as poisons, that's why their supply is controlled. That's no less comforting, but it doesn't put the covid vaccines in any special category. Apart from the minor fact of them being mandated for some, of course. I'm not aware of paracetamol ever being mandated!
Thats besides the point. Its classified as a poison in Western Australia that requires special OH&S , PPE or whatever because of its classification and need to handle in sub zero temps, no shaking etc...
Did I say you didn't know something? I trust that you agree it's a crime to coerce a poison or whatever classification of substance into another persons body without giving informed consent to that individual.
Absolutely agree and didn't intend to have my reply come off as churlish, apologies for that.
When I first came across the same Western Australian state legislation in April 2021, I was beside myself. Not so much over the classification & defining of 'poison' in this regulatory framework but the inferences as to how these "public health officers" are now allegedly able to forcefully remove underwear & inject substances classed as poisons into anyone living in Western Australia.
John Adams from Interests of the People youtube channel highlighted this force in this video (timestamped https://youtu.be/NkeZiKJA4ck?t=1927 ) in March 2021 and I was again appalled. I live here and struggle knowing what to do about this, the population here (and pretty much throughout Australia) is astoundingly complacent...
It is a legal language anomaly. The definition of "poison" in this context basically means any scheduled drug. So basically anything that can be prescribed to you could also be referred to as a "poison", in this context. It does not literally mean that the government signed a document openly stating they were going to poison their populace and to suggest otherwise is spurious.
There is a real concern behind this when you look at the WA Public Health Act (2016) sections as quoted here https://youtu.be/NkeZiKJA4ck?t=1927 by John Adams of youtube channel "In The Interests of the People."
It's frustrating being in this state and not knowing how to get through to West Australians: they, like most Aussies are complacent...
And to me this is a much more serious issue than the alarming use of particular terms when the WA Health Act defines controlled/ scheduled drugs or chemicals as poison.
There's a frightening implication Australia-wide too: in an amended section to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Act 2020. These amendments purport to hold recruited or enlisted members of the Aussie Defence forces immune from civil & criminal liability when they assist with natural disasters or other 'emergencies.' There is so much ducking and weaving enacted by all these reams of legislature that I personally feel unsafe because of the government! https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd015
Tim Truth! so glad to see you on the stack! one question- ( not that I don't think the shots aren't deadly) but I am wondering what else falls under the rubric of "Poison" in the Australian health System ... this may be some pro-forma naming under policy... as most allopathic treatments can be considered "poisoning"... just sayin....
In Australia, all medicines are categorized as “poisons” under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and the Poisons Act 1964 (NSW). This classification system, known as “scheduling,” regulates the availability and use of medicines based on their potential for harm. The system ranges from Schedule 2 (least restrictive) to Schedule 9 (most restrictive).
Do y'all remember that conspiracy theory in or around 2016-18 where a guy posted sections of the movie Pet Goat and he brought up the cover of The Economist? Seattle was mentioned as well as the date of 3/11. So interesting that then, in 2020, the Declaration of a "Plandemic" was announced on 3/11. I live north of Seattle, so over the years I was on the lookout for events that would have been started or occured including Seattle and 3/11. I live in the same city that the first "victim" was diagnosed with "Convid" at Providence Hospital and my daughter's High School was the first to be locked down.
Conspiracy, my arse. What's the difference between Conspiracy and the Truth? About six months.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than a dunce cap.
Finally, remember the frog on the cover of The Economist that they were circulating with the Conspiracy?
So much medical research out there on this stuff. Here is a study from 2018 of graphene used in experiments for vaccines. Identifying known hazards of the substance in vaccines. Just two years before implemented into the experimental jabs sold as, "safe and effective." Do you really think they solved all of the known problems with it in just two short years? Looking at the known hazards presented in this study it sure looks like they didn't. This study is a smoking gun that they knew what they were doing to us. And did it anyways. Which makes them evil, not just mistakenly hopeful.
Because of its properties graphene is able to increase the uptake of a substance into the body. It penetrates blood cells to deliver the drug inside, evade a cell's defenses. It can also be delivered directly to an organ inside the body which acts as a magnet to attract more graphene and build scaffolding there for implants to be created, allowing for novel targeted treatments. But this isn't done without risk of injury. They have been experimenting with ways to use the best properties of graphene for increased pharmaceutical uptake without inducing known injury. They try different coatings to prevent injury, but the coatings make graphene less effective, they pass through the system faster without as much uptake.
"Due to the sharp edges of GO and rGO, hemolytic effects might be expected in vivo, possibly caused by nanomaterial blades disrupting cell membranes, as reported for GO interactions with bacteria.
Feng and colleagues discovered RBC morphological alterations and aggregation above 100 mg mL1 and hemolytic effects above 10 mg mL1 reaching 96% at 500 mg mL1. Lower hemolytic concentrations have been reported by other groups. Small GO flakes (few hundreds of nm) seem to be more destructive."
"Hemostasis cascade prevents blood loss from injured tissue and maintains blood fluidity. The final hemostasis is driven by platelets, which form the clot, a mixture of red blood cells, aggregated platelets, fibrin and other cellular elements (Fig. 3-2b). If the clot forms abnormally, it can induce thrombosis.
Thrombogenicity is an important feature evaluated in nanomaterial design for in vivo delivery and represents the propensity to induce blood clotting and induce occlusion of a blood vessel by a thrombus."
"Furthermore, nanoparticles engineered to have longer systemic circulation times increase the likelihood of contact with blood components including the coagulation system, with thrombogenicity risks."
"When administered in vivo (250 mg kg1 body weight), 48% of lung vessels were partially occluded after 15 minutes"
"Biodistribution and biosafety of GO: future challenges
The focus of this review is the GO interaction with blood components and BC in light of the future design of GO pharmaceutical delivery systems. Intravenously injected drug delivery systems (DDS) developed so far include PEGylated nanographene sheets for tumor passive targeting, rGO functionalized with chitosan and iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles for the delivery of doxorubicin and epidermal growth factor receptor antibody-conjugated PEGylated nanographene oxide for epirubicin delivery in tumors.
Nanoparticles intended for drug delivery applications are being engineered to reduce their clearance and extend systemic circulation times and thus increase the opportunity for targeted delivery. However, the disadvantage of prolonged circulation times is the greater chance of interaction with blood components and activation of adverse effects.
Before any nanomaterial translation into clinical therapy, there are biosafety concerns that need to be addressed. We have seen how GO interacts with blood system components and how BC can influence these interactions, but what is the biodistribution and the toxicity when GO is administered intravenously"
"The early study of Zhang and colleagues determined the distribution and biocompatibility of i.v. injected GO in mice. The half-life of GO in blood is much longer than in other carbon nanomaterials (B5 hours). Within 48 hours after i.v. injection, GO is cleared from the bloodstream and distributed throughout various organs with preferred accumulation in the lungs, liver, and spleen. The lack of pathological changes was reported after 14 days of treatment at a low dose (1 mg kg1), Fig. 5 Illustration of the short-term effects of GONPs and rGONPs on THP-1 cells, and the long-term effects on THP-1a differentiation from THP-1 cells. GONPs and rGONPs could have induced ROS formation and activated the NF-kB pathway in THP-1 cells. rGONPs could not fully transcript proinflammatory genes due to lack of additional transcription factors but at a higher dose (10 mg kg1), granulomatous lesions, pulmonary edema, inflammatory cell infiltration, and fibrosis throughout the lung were observed. Many studies confirmed that the primary site of GO accumulation and toxicity in vivo is the lungs. It seems that the pathological effects on the lungs are proportional to the degree of dispersion and oxidation of GO."
"A systematic study on GO size, dose and dosing frequency was conducted by Liu and colleagues. Liu intravenously administered two types of GO: small GO flakes (s-GO, average hydrodynamic diameter of B250 nm) and large GO flakes (l-GO, average hydrodynamic diameter of B900 nm) at a single high dose (2.1 mg kg1) or seven repeated low doses (0.3 mg kg1); irrespective of size, the single high-dose administration of GO induced lung damage and infiltration of inflammatory cells. In the lungs, GO accumulated in the macrophages but not in the lymphocytes, which were recruited but were not able to trap GO. In this study, the authors claimed that although oxidative stress is a widely existent phenomenon in cells exposed in vitro to GO, the protective effect of proteins forming a BC around GO should be considered in vivo.
Interesting size-dependent results were reported for multipledose exposure. The s-GO did not induce renal damage or accumulate in the kidneys since it was quickly eliminated through the glomeruli. Conversely, l-GO failed to be cleared through kidneys and induced damage. The lungs were damaged only after multiple doses of l-GO. This effect depends on the aggregation of GO with proteins that induce the blockage of large GO-complexes in the lungs. The hypothesis relies on the formation of multiple complexes of l-GO and proteins that enter the capillaries and create multiple injury points and inflammatory cell recruitment. s-GO could instead pass through lungs capillaries after each low-dose administration. The kidneys and lungs were more damaged by l-GO, while the s-GO preferentially accumulated in the liver with toxic effects.
At a high single dose, s-GO can also damage the lungs since at high concentration it forms large complexes that reach a similar size to the l-GO protein complex"
"Finally, the degradation of injected GO is an important biosafety concern. Long-term interaction (14 days) of GO with plasma causes reduction and biodegradation with hole formation caused by the action of hydroxyl radicals. Once internalized by the immune cells, biodegradable particles are digested and cleared from the body, while non-biodegradable particles accumulate in cells for extended periods."
I think you'll find that in Australia all medicines or therapeutic goods, even paracetamol and aspirin, are legally classified as poisons, that's why their supply is controlled. That's no less comforting, but it doesn't put the covid vaccines in any special category. Apart from the minor fact of them being mandated for some, of course. I'm not aware of paracetamol ever being mandated!
N.B. An experimental poison. No consent. CRIME.
Thats besides the point. Its classified as a poison in Western Australia that requires special OH&S , PPE or whatever because of its classification and need to handle in sub zero temps, no shaking etc...
I know it is an experimental poison
Did I say you didn't know something? I trust that you agree it's a crime to coerce a poison or whatever classification of substance into another persons body without giving informed consent to that individual.
Absolutely agree and didn't intend to have my reply come off as churlish, apologies for that.
When I first came across the same Western Australian state legislation in April 2021, I was beside myself. Not so much over the classification & defining of 'poison' in this regulatory framework but the inferences as to how these "public health officers" are now allegedly able to forcefully remove underwear & inject substances classed as poisons into anyone living in Western Australia.
John Adams from Interests of the People youtube channel highlighted this force in this video (timestamped https://youtu.be/NkeZiKJA4ck?t=1927 ) in March 2021 and I was again appalled. I live here and struggle knowing what to do about this, the population here (and pretty much throughout Australia) is astoundingly complacent...
thanks for your reply.
WA is indeed next to the belly of the beast. Perhaps you might be inspired to adopt or adapt some information better suiting your Rights from the following link. https://rumble.com/v16ae3l-consent-withdrawal-emergency-declarations.html. Keep well.
They would if they knew this; for a good number of us paracetamol is poison, I also hypothesise that jabs of any kind are also problematic for these same people: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41563736_Genetic_Polymorphism_in_Glutathione_Transferases_GST_Population_Distribution_of_GSTM1_T1_and_P1_Conjugating_Activity
Indeed. Wish I could get my SO to listen.
Thank you Tim for sharing your painstaking work and passion.
You're very welcome. Thanks for reading! The accompanying video report should be out in a couple hours
It is a legal language anomaly. The definition of "poison" in this context basically means any scheduled drug. So basically anything that can be prescribed to you could also be referred to as a "poison", in this context. It does not literally mean that the government signed a document openly stating they were going to poison their populace and to suggest otherwise is spurious.
There is a real concern behind this when you look at the WA Public Health Act (2016) sections as quoted here https://youtu.be/NkeZiKJA4ck?t=1927 by John Adams of youtube channel "In The Interests of the People."
It's frustrating being in this state and not knowing how to get through to West Australians: they, like most Aussies are complacent...
And to me this is a much more serious issue than the alarming use of particular terms when the WA Health Act defines controlled/ scheduled drugs or chemicals as poison.
There's a frightening implication Australia-wide too: in an amended section to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Act 2020. These amendments purport to hold recruited or enlisted members of the Aussie Defence forces immune from civil & criminal liability when they assist with natural disasters or other 'emergencies.' There is so much ducking and weaving enacted by all these reams of legislature that I personally feel unsafe because of the government! https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd015
This is just a little alarmist mr Tim Truth. Medical and chemical products are classified in this way as such, has been this way for quite some time..
Tim Truth! so glad to see you on the stack! one question- ( not that I don't think the shots aren't deadly) but I am wondering what else falls under the rubric of "Poison" in the Australian health System ... this may be some pro-forma naming under policy... as most allopathic treatments can be considered "poisoning"... just sayin....
Tim, I think it is important that you label this article as "invalid" or "obsolete" or something that clearly indicates that it is mistaken, as several commenters have stated. Here's a Reuter's fact check explaining: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-australia/fact-check-australian-law-categorises-all-medicines-under-various-sub-sections-of-poison-this-is-a-legal-definition-and-does-not-mean-medicines-are-harmful-idUSL1N2MY0M6 .
I do appreciate your content in general... enough to support you with a paid subscription. I just want to help keep your credibility. Thanks.
Australian Law and Poison Classification
In Australia, all medicines are categorized as “poisons” under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and the Poisons Act 1964 (NSW). This classification system, known as “scheduling,” regulates the availability and use of medicines based on their potential for harm. The system ranges from Schedule 2 (least restrictive) to Schedule 9 (most restrictive).
Do y'all remember that conspiracy theory in or around 2016-18 where a guy posted sections of the movie Pet Goat and he brought up the cover of The Economist? Seattle was mentioned as well as the date of 3/11. So interesting that then, in 2020, the Declaration of a "Plandemic" was announced on 3/11. I live north of Seattle, so over the years I was on the lookout for events that would have been started or occured including Seattle and 3/11. I live in the same city that the first "victim" was diagnosed with "Convid" at Providence Hospital and my daughter's High School was the first to be locked down.
Conspiracy, my arse. What's the difference between Conspiracy and the Truth? About six months.
I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than a dunce cap.
Finally, remember the frog on the cover of The Economist that they were circulating with the Conspiracy?
Boiling frogs, indeed.
Psychopathic criminals one and all.
So much medical research out there on this stuff. Here is a study from 2018 of graphene used in experiments for vaccines. Identifying known hazards of the substance in vaccines. Just two years before implemented into the experimental jabs sold as, "safe and effective." Do you really think they solved all of the known problems with it in just two short years? Looking at the known hazards presented in this study it sure looks like they didn't. This study is a smoking gun that they knew what they were doing to us. And did it anyways. Which makes them evil, not just mistakenly hopeful.
Because of its properties graphene is able to increase the uptake of a substance into the body. It penetrates blood cells to deliver the drug inside, evade a cell's defenses. It can also be delivered directly to an organ inside the body which acts as a magnet to attract more graphene and build scaffolding there for implants to be created, allowing for novel targeted treatments. But this isn't done without risk of injury. They have been experimenting with ways to use the best properties of graphene for increased pharmaceutical uptake without inducing known injury. They try different coatings to prevent injury, but the coatings make graphene less effective, they pass through the system faster without as much uptake.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328338305_Graphene_Oxide_Touches_Blood_In_Vivo_Interactions_of_Bio-Coronated_2D_Materials
"Due to the sharp edges of GO and rGO, hemolytic effects might be expected in vivo, possibly caused by nanomaterial blades disrupting cell membranes, as reported for GO interactions with bacteria.
Feng and colleagues discovered RBC morphological alterations and aggregation above 100 mg mL1 and hemolytic effects above 10 mg mL1 reaching 96% at 500 mg mL1. Lower hemolytic concentrations have been reported by other groups. Small GO flakes (few hundreds of nm) seem to be more destructive."
"Hemostasis cascade prevents blood loss from injured tissue and maintains blood fluidity. The final hemostasis is driven by platelets, which form the clot, a mixture of red blood cells, aggregated platelets, fibrin and other cellular elements (Fig. 3-2b). If the clot forms abnormally, it can induce thrombosis.
Thrombogenicity is an important feature evaluated in nanomaterial design for in vivo delivery and represents the propensity to induce blood clotting and induce occlusion of a blood vessel by a thrombus."
"Furthermore, nanoparticles engineered to have longer systemic circulation times increase the likelihood of contact with blood components including the coagulation system, with thrombogenicity risks."
"When administered in vivo (250 mg kg1 body weight), 48% of lung vessels were partially occluded after 15 minutes"
"Biodistribution and biosafety of GO: future challenges
The focus of this review is the GO interaction with blood components and BC in light of the future design of GO pharmaceutical delivery systems. Intravenously injected drug delivery systems (DDS) developed so far include PEGylated nanographene sheets for tumor passive targeting, rGO functionalized with chitosan and iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles for the delivery of doxorubicin and epidermal growth factor receptor antibody-conjugated PEGylated nanographene oxide for epirubicin delivery in tumors.
Nanoparticles intended for drug delivery applications are being engineered to reduce their clearance and extend systemic circulation times and thus increase the opportunity for targeted delivery. However, the disadvantage of prolonged circulation times is the greater chance of interaction with blood components and activation of adverse effects.
Before any nanomaterial translation into clinical therapy, there are biosafety concerns that need to be addressed. We have seen how GO interacts with blood system components and how BC can influence these interactions, but what is the biodistribution and the toxicity when GO is administered intravenously"
"The early study of Zhang and colleagues determined the distribution and biocompatibility of i.v. injected GO in mice. The half-life of GO in blood is much longer than in other carbon nanomaterials (B5 hours). Within 48 hours after i.v. injection, GO is cleared from the bloodstream and distributed throughout various organs with preferred accumulation in the lungs, liver, and spleen. The lack of pathological changes was reported after 14 days of treatment at a low dose (1 mg kg1), Fig. 5 Illustration of the short-term effects of GONPs and rGONPs on THP-1 cells, and the long-term effects on THP-1a differentiation from THP-1 cells. GONPs and rGONPs could have induced ROS formation and activated the NF-kB pathway in THP-1 cells. rGONPs could not fully transcript proinflammatory genes due to lack of additional transcription factors but at a higher dose (10 mg kg1), granulomatous lesions, pulmonary edema, inflammatory cell infiltration, and fibrosis throughout the lung were observed. Many studies confirmed that the primary site of GO accumulation and toxicity in vivo is the lungs. It seems that the pathological effects on the lungs are proportional to the degree of dispersion and oxidation of GO."
"A systematic study on GO size, dose and dosing frequency was conducted by Liu and colleagues. Liu intravenously administered two types of GO: small GO flakes (s-GO, average hydrodynamic diameter of B250 nm) and large GO flakes (l-GO, average hydrodynamic diameter of B900 nm) at a single high dose (2.1 mg kg1) or seven repeated low doses (0.3 mg kg1); irrespective of size, the single high-dose administration of GO induced lung damage and infiltration of inflammatory cells. In the lungs, GO accumulated in the macrophages but not in the lymphocytes, which were recruited but were not able to trap GO. In this study, the authors claimed that although oxidative stress is a widely existent phenomenon in cells exposed in vitro to GO, the protective effect of proteins forming a BC around GO should be considered in vivo.
Interesting size-dependent results were reported for multipledose exposure. The s-GO did not induce renal damage or accumulate in the kidneys since it was quickly eliminated through the glomeruli. Conversely, l-GO failed to be cleared through kidneys and induced damage. The lungs were damaged only after multiple doses of l-GO. This effect depends on the aggregation of GO with proteins that induce the blockage of large GO-complexes in the lungs. The hypothesis relies on the formation of multiple complexes of l-GO and proteins that enter the capillaries and create multiple injury points and inflammatory cell recruitment. s-GO could instead pass through lungs capillaries after each low-dose administration. The kidneys and lungs were more damaged by l-GO, while the s-GO preferentially accumulated in the liver with toxic effects.
At a high single dose, s-GO can also damage the lungs since at high concentration it forms large complexes that reach a similar size to the l-GO protein complex"
"Finally, the degradation of injected GO is an important biosafety concern. Long-term interaction (14 days) of GO with plasma causes reduction and biodegradation with hole formation caused by the action of hydroxyl radicals. Once internalized by the immune cells, biodegradable particles are digested and cleared from the body, while non-biodegradable particles accumulate in cells for extended periods."