Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Who is Telling the Truth about COVID-19?

COVID-19: Who’s Telling You the Truth
And Who’s Not?
Misinformation… Disinformation…

Correcting COVID-19 Misinformation
Truth About Coronavirus Web Site
www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com


Is there anything we can believe about Mass Media reporting about the Chinese Coronavirus — COVID-19?  We suspect not. 
Some of the misinformation is fairly innocuous, such as the Fox News report about cats in China wearing sanitary face masks. [1]  Some reports suggest that the novel virus, with a 3% kill rate and great virulence, developed at an “exotic” meat market in Wuhan China.  Others accuse the accidental — or maybe intentional — release of a weaponized virus from a Red Army research facility in the same city.  This seems linked to coronavirus experiments being conducted, in part, by Chinese nationals at a Canadian laboratory.
We are following these developments and have documented recent data points at   www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com.

We are not particularly following the alleged numerical spread of the virus since the figures released by the Chinese Government do not seem accurate.  A cover-up appears to have been in place since late last year, before the Western Media first began to report.  If you want to see graphs about the number of cases and deaths, these are readily available online.
What we are covering are the hard facts of causation and the urgent facts of protection and response.
We note that the World Health Organization, WHO, during the 2014 Ebola outbreak issued a statement that, during a pandemic, it is ethical to try even unverified interventions that may offer potential benefit. [2]

In that spirit,  www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com provides links to approaches that may or may not help.  For example, sanitary face masks, whether worn by cats or people, are critically discussed.  [3]
While Truth About Coronavirus may be hard to discern in the Media of Mass Deception, the sources we rely upon at  www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com  have shown themselves to be, in our view, more truthful than the misinformation and disinformation being peddled over the Mass Media.
You are urged to share the   www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com link with everyone.

And let us know what you’ve discovered about the misinformation and disinformation that you are finding.  We rely on an aware public to express the Truth About Coronavirus.
Join Dr. Rima’s powerful new email list to be assured that you will remain in the loop. And urge all your circles of influence to do the same. 
Knowledge is protection.  Connection is knowledge. 
———-
“In the particular circumstances of this outbreak, and provided certain conditions are met, the panel reached consensus that it is ethical to offer unproven interventions with as yet unknown efficacy and adverse effects, as potential treatment or prevention. Ethical criteria must guide the provision of such interventions. These include transparency about all aspects of care, informed consent, freedom of choice, confidentiality, respect for the person, preservation of dignity and involvement of the community.” [Emphasis added.]








Monday, February 3, 2020

Patricia Finn - The Good Health Lawyer
Obtains Vaccine TRO

Medically Fragile NY Child Back In School
With No Vaccines
Thanks to Attorney Patricia Finn, Esq.
Rockland County, New York:  Counsel Patricia Finn, The Good Health Lawyer [1] has saved a medically fragile child from what his pediatrician says is “certain damage” following vaccination, by arguing successfully in the New York Supreme Court that New York State does not have the power to substitute a bureaucrat’s decision for a patient’s physician.
Arguing that a physician, as a “learned intermediary,” has the right to issue a medical exemption for a patient and the State has the obligation to honor that exemption, Counsel Finn has scored a major health freedom victory for the moment.
Several well-known and well-funded law firms have not been able to achieve what Counsel Finn succeeded in establishing in this case.
This victory is the first to validate the important principle of the physician as “Learned Intermediary” and to achieve a Temporary Restraining Order overturning the State’s attempt to force vaccination on this child.
In both California and New York, the largest forced-vaccine states, vaccine freedom of choice has been attacked in two ways.  First, the state legislatures have abolished long-standing religious and/or conscientious exemptions and second, the bureaucracies in both states have made obtaining a formal Medical Excuse virtually impossible.  New York’s legislature and governor pushed the new vaccine exemption restrictions into law at the end of the 2019 legislative session in one day, without public hearings.
It is believed they have intentionally tried to make it so difficult that they have undercut the protected relationship between doctor and patient. This violates the universal right of Informed Consent by preventing physicians, as Learned Intermediaries, from uttering their true opinions regarding the safety of vaccines for their patients.
The child in this case was certified vaccine-fragile since his doctor said he could expect serious adverse reactions to further vaccination.  It is important to note that the child’s doctor believes in vaccination for the general populace, and vaccinates his own children,  yet, exercising his best medical judgment, affirmed that this child should not be vaccinated.  Under New York’s new rule the physician’s learned opinion was disregarded and the school system, despite the damage that was likely to result for the child, rejected the exemption.  In other words, the state wanted a school bureaucrat to overturn the physician’s protection of his patient.
This flies in the face of settled United States law. For over a century US courts have held they have the power to intervene against forced vaccination “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Counsel Finn’s successful effort to protect this child with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) assures this child access to the free public education guaranteed to him by the laws of New York, without surrendering his right to protection from what US and international courts have repeatedly called “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
The attempts by States like New York and California to illegally force parents to choose between their objections to vaccination — their universal right of Informed Consent — or the public education guaranteed to their children is an imposition of what the Federal Courts call an “unconstitutional condition.” No state has power to condition a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
In this case New York is learning that important lesson thanks to Counsel Finn and the determined parents willing to protect their child.
All of us have the right of Informed Consent, if and only if we assert it properly. If you do not assert that right it will be “deemed waived.”
Counsel Finn has announced plans to institute additional litigation to further test the legal validity of New York’s new vaccine exemption restrictions.
-----
Further Information:
To learn more about how to assert that right for yourself and your loved ones, click here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard.
Links to Counsel Finn’s web sites:



Sunday, February 2, 2020

Coronavirus and Bioweapons

The Plot Thickens:
Who Weaponized the Chinese Coronavirus?
Update:  New Link to Coronavirus Aggregation Page
www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com
As I was driving about today, doing my Saturday chores, the car radio news and my cell phone were both buzzing about the Coronavirus outbreak in China. Over a couple hours the claimed death toll rose from 259 to 296 while the known infected rose to over twelve thousand, involving all parts of China and dozens of other countries, including the USA.
While the death toll climbed the World Wide Web Thought Control System went into hyper-drive. For example, libertarian economics news aggregation site Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter for tweeting the name and location of a Chinese scientist who was allegedly involved in manipulation of the Coronavirus genome. [1]
In an earlier OST piece I discussed the 2007 patent regarding coronaviruses and vaccines. [2]. Yes, the US government owns that patent.
While that fact data point is instructive, suggesting US involvement somehow connected to Chinese scientists (and thus to the Chinese authorities). One rumor even has it that the coronavirus outbreak, primarily centered in the central China city of Wuhan, is a false flag feint — meant to take attention away from another threat to the health of Wuhan citizens. Wuhan, so goes the story, is the first Chinese city to be fully 5G (an advanced wireless system held to be a risky technology by its critics).
Let’s take a look at some more odd data points from the Internet frenzy of the past few days. It was Natural Solutions Foundation’s Founding President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine who always told us to aggregate the data points and remain open-minded to what the data shows.
Item: “Coronavirus Contains HIV Insertions Stoking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon [3] — “The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge…”
Item: “New Coronavirus in China Is Treated With HIV Meds” [4] — “Health officials in China are including two HIV meds as treatment for pneumonia caused by the new coronavirus, reports Bloomberg News. Specifically, the country’s National Health Commission in Beijing recommends the HIV drug Kaletra, which is manufactured by AbbVie and is also marketed as Aluvia.”
We have been warned for decades that it is inevitable that humanity will suffer a global pandemic far worse than the Influenza Pandemic that started at the end of World War One and killed more people than the War had — between 50 and a hundred million. [5]
Looking into the epidemic history of the past several millennia in Eurasia, it appears that a world plague has struck on average every half millennium. Seven hundred years ago it was the Bubonic Plague that started in 1346 CE and may have killed a third of the population of Europe. Before that, the Plague of Justinian killed 40% of Eurasia’s population in 541 CE and before that, the Antonine Plague killed 30% of Eurasia around 165 CE. Is this about to happen again? Is it just a natural outcome of the history of our species or is it something more sinister?
Is the Chinese Coronavirus, able to spread quickly through casual human contact, before symptoms are apparent, destined to spread across the world — Literally flown from city to city by modern transportation?
Do the data points suggest that there are two stages of infection: an acute stage that has a 2 or 3% death rate and is very easily transmitted, and a chronic version more like HIV infection with a much higher, but long-term, death rate?
Is the Chinese Coronavirus a weaponized virus?  Who weaponized it? WHO? We may know over the next few weeks.
As we await history’s verdict, however, this comment from Rima Laibow, MD, is to be considered:
“SARS and MERS are also coronaviruses. My understanding that such viruses are easy to weaponize. General Bert warned us years ago about the weaponization of influenza-like viruses to further the globalist depopulation agenda. This is occurring as the World Health Organization prepares to declare a World Health Emergency which would give WHO near total control of the planet. This is, of course, unnecessary, since the powerful support that Nano Silver 10 PPM provides for your immune system operates in the presence of coronavirus.” Rima Laibow, MD [6]
——–
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-01/zero-hedge-permanently-suspended-from-twitter-for-harassment
[2] http://www.opensourcetruth.com/deadly-coronavirus-from-china-or-is-it-from-the-cdc/
[3] https://www.blabber.buzz/conservative-news/763929-coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon?utm_source=c-am&utm_medium=c-am-email&utm_term=c-am-Gmail&utm_content=2NP8dQ3y-
[4] https://www.poz.com/article/china-uses-hiv-meds-treat-new-coronaviruspxXLrBjgnFLsE5Mb9VNUkg..A
[5] http://www.opensourcetruth.com/one-hundred-years-later-lessons-not-learned/
[6] http://www.opensourcetruth.com/another-weaponized-virus/

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Deadly Coronavirus from China or CDC?

Update:  New Link to Coronavirus Aggregation Page
www.TruthAboutCoronavirus.com
Deadly Coronavirus from China... or is it from the CDC?

While the news is filled with dire warnings about the Coronavirus outbreak in China which has resulted in scaling-back the Chinese New Year celebration and the total quarantining of at least one major city, the question remains:  how does this new outbreak relate to existing coronaviruses, namely SARS and MEARS?

Did this new version really start in China, or, as some have stated, is it a "weaponized" virus unleashed upon the world?

Let's start with the Patent. Yes there is a Coronavirus Patent. [1]  The US government owns it.  It was issued to the CDC in 2007.

Here is some of what it says:

"Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use... Without wishing to be bound by a specific theory, it is believed that an immunogenic response may arise from the generation of an antibody specific to one or more of the epitopes provided in the immune stimulatory composition. Alternatively, the response may comprise a T-helper or cytotoxic cell-based response to one or more of the epitopes provided in the immune stimulatory composition. All three of these responses may originate from naïve or memory cells. One specific example of a type of immune stimulatory composition is a vaccine."

Some researchers see a deep connection between this new CoV viral expression and the potential for weaponization.  For example, Sharry Edwards, MEd, has analysized the China CoV and found markers that suggest weaponization. The frequencies related to the new CoV are too "regular" and suggest something other than a natural source of mutation.

"Director of Institute of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards.. share[s] the Institute's analysis of the Coronavirus currently sweeping through China... She explains how her research shows that this latest virus and many of the flu strands have characteristics pointing to a bioweapon versus a natural phenomena..." [2]

The CDC's approach is "stimulating the immune system" (sic) through vaccines.  Ms. Edwards discusses the relationship between cell membranes and viral penetration, suggesting energetic and nutritional approaches. She views the frequencies associated with the CoV and finds that they are not what one might expect from a virus developing naturally.

Here is what Rima Laibow, MD tells us about stimulating the immune system to keep the natural microbiome in balance:  "The best way to protect yourself from potentially pandemic viruses, whether occurring naturally or weaponized, is to support your natural immunity to viral replication.  If a virus cannot penetrate cell membranes, it cannot replicate and cause symptoms.  The best way I know to support natural cell membrane integrity is to supplement with Nano Silver 10 PPM.  In a US government-sponsored study declassified in 2009 it was shown that, in living human cell samples, various viruses did not penetrate the cell membraines the presence of Nano Silver 10 PPM." [3]

Natural virus? Weaponized virus? USA Patents?  Do your own research and pay attention to this latest outbreak. 

It's all about YOUR immune system! [4]


---------------------
[1]  https://patents.google.com/patent/US7220852

[2]  https://sarahwestall.com/coronavirus-analysis-points-to-bioweapon-bioacoustic-solutions-exist-w-sharry-edwards/

[3]  http://drrimatruthreports.com/wp-content/uploads/DTRA.Infographic-2019-768x655.jpg

[4] http://drrimatruthreports.com/lets-all-panic-and-get-our-flu-shots-not/

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Call to Veto


Governor Murphy:
Veto Medical Tyranny in New Jersey!
As the Year Ends NJ’s Legislature Passes
More Big Pharma Bills
Contact Gov. Murphy Here
https://nj.gov/governor/contact/
609-292-6000 / constituent.relations@nj.gov

CALL FOR GOVERNOR TO VETO
TWO HEALTH CHOICE RESTRICTION BILLS

This past Monday, 16 December 2019, we watched the mass demonstration in Trenton supporting religious conscientious objections to forced school vaccination that stopped Senate Bill S2173. 

While thousands of families stormed Trenton and successfully stopped the State Legislature from abrogating long-standing religious conscientious objections to forced vaccination this past week, at the same time the same legislators did adopt two bills that take New Jersey a long way toward medical tyranny.

First, it quietly passed an anti-free speech Dietitian Licensing Law which monopolizes all speech about nutrition in the hands of state-licensed dietitians. That is bill A1582/S2625.
The last time the State Legislature did this was in 1994, and that was just a certification law, not a mandatory licensing law. Then Governor Christie Todd Whitman vetoed the Bill saying that it would not offer further protection to New Jersians.
This new dietitians’ monopoly bill clearly seeks to control speech, and specifically speech about health and wellness, as well as speech about what people eat, a matter impressed with significant privacy interests. This law suppresses speech about health and food. It may also violate Federal Anti-Trust law; see: https://regproject.org/paper/state-licensing-boards-antitrust-innovation/
Second, at the same time the State Legislature sent a new health care worker forced vaccination bill to the Governor as well. That bill is A1576/S1003. The bill allows for no religious conscientious objections to the flu vaccine, although that position violates Federal law, which requires employers to accommodate workers’ religious beliefs. This law forces workers to remain silent and not express their lawful refusal to give Informed Consent to “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
Both bills being sent to the Governor violate Informed Consent, free speech and privacy.
Federal law is very clear with regard to the Right of the People to Truthful Health Information. That is at the heart of the First Amendment. The 2002 case of Thompson v Western States (535 U.S. 357) explicitly deals with efforts by government to control speech about health. Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority stated: 
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort… We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”
We now therefore call upon Governor Murphy to veto these bills as they tend toward creating monopolies, violate free speech, and deny New Jersians access to valid information about vaccination and nutrition. They increase health care costs.
New Jersey needs freedom of choice in health care, not new restrictions passed in near secrecy during the rush to adjourn for the Holidays.
Governor Murphy, do not give Big Pharma lobbyists control over our health care workers and our nutritionists! Just say “NO!” and give us the gift of freedom.
Contact Gov. Murphy Here
https://nj.gov/governor/contact/
609-292-6000 / constituent.relations@nj.gov

Monday, December 16, 2019

NJ Senate Delays Abrogation of Religious Conscientious Objections to Vaccines

NJ State Senate Prepared to Send
Draconian Coerced Vaccination Law to Governor 

Contact Your State Senator Here:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/contact.asp




  UPDATE NOTE:  The Bill failed to pass the State Senate on Monday, January 13th by one vote; the Bill previously was "pulled" from the Senate floor on 16 December 2019 as there were not enough votes to adopt it.  After the failure to pass on January 13th a new version of the Bill has been introduced for the new Session of the Legislature.  Continued pressure is needed to kill this vicious Bill permanently!

 New Jersey Senate Bill 2173 would abrogate long-standing religious conscientious objections to mandatory school vaccination. The New Jersey legislature thereby joins with other "Blue State" legislatures, such as California and New York, to adopt coercive laws implementing a "zero tolerance" rule for childhood vaccination. This action was taken only after the State Senate majority leader had to remove his own party members from the Health Committee to engineer the committee majority vote in favor of the bill.

The Bill violates long-standing law regarding conscientious objections to vaccination even though our courts have held vaccines to be "unavoidably unsafe." The universal right of Informed Consent tells us that where there is risk there must be choice. This basic principle of international law is being unlawfully overridden by the legislature.

Recently the United States Supreme Court has clearly declared, even a “… diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013)

An earlier Supreme Court declared that the courts are “not without power to intervene… if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

What the legislature fails to understand is the depth of commitment by those citizens who reject vaccination as pseudo-science which is causing mass, well documented harm to thousands of children. The risk heavily outweighs any supposed benefit from "piercing the skin" with unavoidably unsafe toxic brews. These parents are ready to refuse to obey coerced vaccination laws. Never before in American history have citizens been subjected to this level of massive social control over the health of their children.

The Bill has a number of very questionable provisions. These include:

   1. Abrogating religious conscientious objections although the First Amendment protects religious belief and action. Parents will be forced to submit to an unconstitutional condition: be coerced into remaining silent although opposed to vaccination or have their children denied their state constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education.

   2. Creating a government-controlled Immunization Registry of all children and their vaccine status. This is clearly a violation of basic privacy rights and would enable government seizure of children from vaccine resisting families.

   3. Unlawfully discriminating between religious conscientious objections to vaccination versus objections to other medical interventions, where the Bill states: "Section 5c. Any rule or regulation involving physical examination [, immunization] or medical treatment other than immunization shall include an appropriate exemption for any child whose parent or parents object thereto on the ground that it conflicts with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination of which the parent or child is an adherent or member." This provision acknowledges the right of conscientious objection to all medical procedures except what is termed "immunization" although there is no scientific agreement that injecting toxic brews into children actually provides any immunization. Further, the legislature has no power to decide what religious beliefs are "recognized."  This is clear violation of the First Amendment.

   4. The law, in Section 6(1) a, restricts licensed physicians as the learned intermediaries from freely expressing their professional opinions regarding whether a particular child is a fit subject for vaccination by requiring the expression of all medical exemptions to confirm to one particular Federal Government Agency (ACIP) listing of allowed adverse reactions, although another Federal Government Agency (IOM) has documented literally hundreds of additional dangerous adverse reactions.

This Bill, if it becomes law, is clearly subject to challenge in the Courts.

While the science is not settled, vaccines are proven unavoidably unsafe and are an uninsurable risk.

It is unconscionable for the State of New Jersey to join with a few other states in violating the basic rights of their citizens. Among the six vaccine-coercing states are the two with both the most draconian vaccine laws and the lowest childhood health record, Mississippi and West Virginia. The other vaccine-coercing states of note include both California and New York, states where thousands of citizens are leaving to protect their children from the unproven and dangerous reality of mass, multiple vaccination.

The mad-vaxxers are acting in such a cavalier manner because they are increasingly aware that opposition to forced vaccination will simply not disappear -- we will not continue to sacrifice our children on the altar of Moloch! 

Share this message with this link:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/nj-aims-at-vaccine-conscientious-objectors/

Copy of Bill posted at OST link.


Monday, October 7, 2019

Libertarian Scholars Conference: Informed Consent



The Libertarian Scholars Conferences were held once or twice yearly in New York City or Princeton during the 1980s and 1990s.  After a hiatus from the time of Prof. Murray Rothbard's death until 2018 the tradition has been restarted by the Mises Institute - www.Mises.org.

It was my pleasure and honor to present a paper on Informed Consent to the 2019 Conference held on September 28th at Kings College in Manhattan.  I also chaired Session 8 -- Law and History.  More about the event here:  https://mises.org/events/libertarian-scholars-conference-2019.

Abstract:  The first right is self-ownership. Each person has the sole right to determine what may happen to his or her own body. No one’s body may be invaded without that person’s consent. Informed Consent is a fundamental human right protected against diminishment through legislative and administrative agency denial of philosophical or religious conscientious objections to medical interventions, including mandated vaccination.

Informed Consent is separate from statutory exemptions and may not be abolished by legislative act. The right to informed consent is meaningless without the right to refuse any medical intervention, including vaccination. Government agents and those acting under color of law are forbidden by long-standing national and international law from coercing vaccination.




I've posted the paper at the Journal of the Institute for Health Research, of which I am President.  That copy of the paper, and the powerpoint presentation that went with it are here:    http://www.inhere.org/international-journal-of-nhsp/ihr-journal-2019/.

Another version of my presentation on Informed Consent, my General Brief in Support of Informed Consent can be found here:  https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2019/09/general-brief-on-behalf-of-informed.html

I was interviewed regarding the paper by Sharry Edwards, MEd.  The podcast of that interview is here:

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent


  General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent
https://tinyurl.com/GeneralBrief
Ralph Fucetola JD


https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

INTRODUCTION

Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination. Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished.

The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Mandated Vaccination. Government Agents and Those Acting Under Color of Law are Forbidden by Long-Standing National and International Law from Coercing Vaccination.

In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.

Index:

Introduction   
Point One: The Legal Basis for Informed Consent  
Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation  
Point Three: International Law Protects Informed Consent 
Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected 
Point Five: The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions
Conclusion 
.
Point One: The Bill of Rights’ Speech, Privacy and Association Rights are the
Basis for Informed Consent.

Implementing the general law as applied to the protection of human life is mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the courts “are not without power…” regarding vaccination in the 1905 case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts[1].

In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming even medical interventions with good intent but without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass:

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”[2]

Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board (IRB – required for FDA approved medical experiments) overseeing experimentation.[3] The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “final stage” of experimentation on drugs (including vaccines) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation, “…Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks…”[4]

With regard to all communications about health care decisions, the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions, even if a decision may be considered a “bad” decision by the Government. The Supreme Court indicated, in Thompson v Western States[5]:

“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”

Strong legal support for the doctrine of Informed Consent is provided by the Nuremberg Code. [6]

The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (which included the infamous Nazi Doctors Trial) and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties, including the death penalty, for violating the universal right of Informed Consent. 

The Geneva Conventions (the international treaties that govern humanitarian requirements) [7] require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles. Thus the United States is treaty-bound to implement fully Informed Consent.

Even in an emergency situation Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion…” [8]


The public has a right to know, and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide, clear information regarding the Informed Consent, to the end that government approvals, requirements, mandates and recommendations are understood to be subject to the Right of Informed Consent. Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right.

Mandated consent to vaccination is coerced opinion speech, especially when mandated against the conscientious objection of the individual or guardian.  The First Amendment absolutely forbids any law that coerces the expression of an opinion an individual does not hold.


Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation
 Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest in
Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates in Violation of Informed Consent.

In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant “advertised himself as a ‘nonmedical physician’… [and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by ‘a system of drugless healing’…” p.401.

That Court held that there could be no “state system of healing” p.402 and while

“Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined… those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the ‘practice of medicine and surgery’ as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases…” p.402.

There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being. 


The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in State v Biggs, supra., at p.405: 

“Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, ‘Forbid them not.‘” (p.405).

FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system. 
[9]

Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual’s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent, the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principle that “silence is acquiescence” [10] martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that a person consents to even experimental medical interventions, as was imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic [11]. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”. Expressing refusal to consent trumps presumptions of consent.

After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations, or subject them to medical interventions or experiments without valid Informed Consent. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.

A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [and therefore meaningfully willing] consent.

This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…”[12]


Point Three: International Law Protects the Right of Informed Consent

Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration
[13] and the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” [14]


“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…” [15]

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
[16]


This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated, such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration [17] about which it has been said:

“Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR, ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “general principles of law” under article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The reference to “civilised nations” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.” [18]

The literature further defines Informed Consent.

“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “‘informed consent.’ Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.” [19]

Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Preserved

Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived. International Humanitarian Law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized informed consent, it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld.

The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.[20]

The Court opined,

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”

If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe”[21] will also give rise to such concerns.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. Without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society, including the Right to Informed Consent.

An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.

While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake:
.
…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.”  [22]

In a regime of verbal obfuscation of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…” If McNeely had not engaged in protected speech stating he did not consent, the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed.

Point Five: Government Action Imposes an Unconstitutional Condition
on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Informed Consent

The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in the case before any Court wherein a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from public accommodations or the public benefit of public education, required by law for all children, and guaranteed by State Constitutional Law in nearly every State of the Union.

Any law, regulation or policy imposing school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with denying his or her own expressed beliefs or preferences (beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment) or denying the child access to public education, is an action “under color of law” that forces coerced expression of consent. The Fourteenth Amendment forbid such State action.

Banning children from public schools unless the parent or guardian expresses consent for a medical intervention (vaccination) to which the person chooses not to consent is precisely the type of duress condemned by the Nuremberg Code.

It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right.

The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees.

The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 543 (1876) (Badley, J., dissenting) “Though the State may have the [police] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions…

In Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583,594 (1925) the Court held it “would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.”

More recently the Court applied the principle to First Amendment speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved. In Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958)

“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”

And finally, of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972):

“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”

Government Agents and those “Acting Under Color of Law” are forbidden by long-standing United States and International Law from coercing vaccination.  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution also guaranteed that the “privileges or immunities” of Federal Citizens could not be invaded by state and local governments. The First Amendment includes among those privileges and immunities the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Petition for Redress of Grievances.

The original civil rights acts, enacted after the Civil War, protected those “privileges or immunities” from persons “acting under color of law” or acting without “due process” (which means without a specific order signed by a Judge).

Those subject to the law must include, at least, persons employed by governments, or receiving funding from governments, or working for entities that receive funding from governments (or that, like the drug companies that push vaccines, are granted special privileges, such as protection from legal responsibility for their “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines).  It must also include persons, claiming lawful authority, intending to “pierce the skin” of someone not giving Informed Consent.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment, Section 1.


CONCLUSION

It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty, Speech, Assembly and Petition Rights. Rather, these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be, together, “expressive association.”

We consider the Expressive Association Right to express meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law. Truly, no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions.

If a State elects to abrogate long-standing religious, philosophical and medical exemptions, the proper remedy is for the State to provide alternative educational opportunities for those who refuse Informed Consent.  No State has legal power to abrogate the Universal Right of Informed Consent, no matter what that State may do with exemptions the State previously enacted.  Informed Consent trumps legislative abrogation of statutory exemptions.

There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government, or persons acting under color of state law, as are those who act to abrogate conscientious objections to mandated vaccines, can force a free and competent adult (or a child under the protection of such adult) to receive any medical treatment.

That the treatment may be vaccination, which is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and, according to many courts, “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, rather than a slave. No free society can tolerate any such imposition.

 “Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” – Thomas Jefferson [23]
.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Attorney at Law in New Jersey
1971 – 2006

———————————————
[1] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) 
[2] Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
[5] Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357)
[9] “Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks, benefits, and optimal use, or to test the product in different populations of people, such as children.”
Downloaded July 8, 2015: 
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm
[10] “qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ubi loqui debuit ac potuit“, that is, “when he ought to have spoken and was able to”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29
[13] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties,and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [Emphasis added]

[20] Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013)  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely  –  The recent June 27, 2019 Supreme Court case of Mitchell vs Wisconsin  (No. 18-6210), in holding that a warrant is not needed for a blood-draw from an unconscious arrested person further shows the important role of expressing one’s refusal to grant Informed Consent.
[21] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
[22] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)