Your last post is a very good illustration of why some people relish being conspiracy theorists in order to trick others that they are the underdog with the truth feared by the establishment. This is an amazing piece of cherry-picking. So let us see:
” WHO apparently believes that sending your child to school is automatic consent for them to be injected with a dangerous chemical and biological coctail with unknown long term effects.”
You then link to an 8 page WHO document
Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old.
This document discusses how consent should be obtained for vaccination of children and how in practice this is done. It then recommends what ideally should happen and encourages that informed consent procedures should be made to comply with local and international human rights law. Your giveaway here is ‘apparently’ – a word well-known to be used to give a skewed interpretation to what is actually being said. If you search ‘automatic consent in that document, there are no returns. So that document never mentions automatic consent.
By sleight of hand you then quote a passage from the document that you highlight, but then you omit the rest of the paragraph
“Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.”
So what does the WHO actually rather than apparently recommend? Please answer truthfully.
The document even addresses the question of consent in mandatory vaccination on p4.
Mandatory vaccination does not always overrule the need for consent
On p8 the document concludes by outlining country responsibility and there is no “apparently” there. In fact this is an excellent document from which you cherry-picked one sentence to illustrate how awful the WHO is, but this is an extremely well-researched and excellent document that outlines how international standards should be developed in such a complex and sensitive issue.
J, I am afraid you shot yourself in the foot. After you answer, I shall look at your other link, meanwhile I will go and do something more useful.