Author name: Herman Edeling

Summary Many lawyers and executives justify vaccine mandates using Section 36 of South Africa’s Bill of Rights, which allows rights to be limited if reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society. This includes factors like the importance of the limitation’s purpose and the availability of less restrictive means. However, these mandates promote unproven SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Summary According to various ethical and legal standards, including the South African Constitution and the National Health Act, informed consent is mandatory before administering any medical treatment. It is asserted that individuals who received Covid-19 vaccines did not receive truthful information about the risks and benefits, rendering their consent invalid. The phrase “safe and effective”

Summary The text is a series of probing questions designed to evaluate the trustworthiness and basis of assertions regarding the safety and effectiveness of mRNA or DNA vaccines. It queries any potential conflicts of interest, the professional background and affiliations of the individual, and their sources of income and funding. It also examines whether the

Summary The document critically examines the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, questioning their ability to prevent infection and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It asserts that there is no reliable scientific evidence supporting the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing infection or transmission. It cites numerous studies indicating the vaccines’ limited impact, and highlights flaws in

Summary The document “COVID-19 Mandates: Medical Analysis with respect to South African Constitutional Criteria” by HJ Edeling argues that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are medically unjustifiable. It claims that the current vaccines are experimental genetic interventions that may cause more harm than good. The analysis suggests that risks associated with the vaccines outweigh their benefits and