Thursday, November 22, 2012

What You Need to Know About Your Legal Rights as a Vaccine Refuser

Message Your Representatives Here:

Natural Solutions Foundation
"Be a Vaccine Refuser with Me" -- Legal Considerations

Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US ARmy, Ret), President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, and Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director have invited us all to become Vaccine Refusers with them. I am Counsel and Trustee of the Foundation and am proud to say, I've become a Vaccine Refuser with them.

This article discusses my understanding of the legal considerations of that position, as Counsel to the Foundation. In my case, I base my refusal on my sincerely-held religious beliefs, but others may have had a prior adverse reaction or other medical condition, such as Genome Disruption Syndrome, which provides a medical contraindication to further vaccinations.

  People are concerned about the consequences of being a Vaccine Refuser. It is my considered professional opinion as an attorney that, under the US Constitution, you have an inalienable right to control your own body and what is done with your body. You are a free person, not a slave.

 Let's start with the case often cited as the “lead case” in vaccination law, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). This case is often erroneously cited as authority for mandatory vaccinations.

 The case is rather more nuanced and announces compelling authority for Federal Court intervention in vaccination matters. 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.” 

While Jacobson did not prevail in the Supreme Court, it is to be noted that he never alleged harm or peril of harm; he only alleged that the mandating of the emergency influenza vaccination was ultra vires the state’s authority and the $5.00 fine imposed was unconstitutional. Jacobson was never actually forced to be vaccinated and history shows us that the $5.00 fine was later vacated. Furthermore, the case was decided before the comprehensive Federal pre-emption of drug approval that is now embodied in the laws empowering the FDA.

It is the failure of the Federal authorities to abide by existing legal requirements that drugs be "safe and effective" and that new vaccines be safer than older vaccines that gave rise to litigation in which the Foundation was involved during the 2009 Swine Flu Vaccine Panic. That litigation, in state and federal courts, led to the collapse of the 2009 vaccine mandates. The argument for Federal court action in the face of a potential for the vaccines to “seriously impair” health for those who are mandated to receive the vaccines, is far stronger now than it might have been a hundred years ago, before the meta-studies and other experience that shows the potential harm that wide-spread vaccination must cause.

See Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD's blog entry on the Flu Vax: and her entry on the "Smoking Gun - They always knew vaccines were dangerous" -

Congress adopted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.) precisely because vaccines do cause harm and are uninsurable. The legal maxim, “No harm without a remedy” applies here and the Supreme Court in Jacobson instructs that it is not to be understood to be holding “that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned.” Approval of any drug (including a vaccine) by Federal Authority is now a necessary prerequisite for that drug to be lawfully available to the public in commerce. Such approval is a necessary prerequisite for any state mandate for the forced use of any such drug, since Jacobson holds that the courts should intervene if there is "reasonable certainty" that a person is "unfit" for inoculation since the procedure would "seriously impair... health..." Without the statutorily required showing of safety, we cannot have any reasonable certainty, thus no mandate can issue.

  Individuals and families have a number of lawful alternatives to vaccines. There has been a nearly universal adoption of religious exemption laws. Medical excuses are also universally available.

 Additionally, during a pandemic, individuals and families have a clear right under American legal practice and under international law to self-shield. Voluntary, at-home self-shielding and (if necessary) self-quarantine are viable, practical and easily available alternatives to mandated vaccination, isolation or incarceration in relocation centers during a declared “pandemic emergency.” Since the process is entirely voluntary, it preserves the rights and freedoms of the people and families choosing to self-shield.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that Quarantine is usually defined as “to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill.” (the proper term regarding persons who have already become ill is “Isolation.”) The Red Cross tells us, “…both quarantine and isolation may be compelled on a mandatory basis through legal authority as well as conducted on a voluntary basis.” Self-shielding is taking voluntary steps to shield oneself and family from exposure to potential pathogens (or toxins or untested and uninsurable vaccines) while self-quarantine is when someone who has been exposed takes voluntary steps to separate from others (such people who exhibit symptoms are said to be in “isolation’).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home … Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference…”

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza concludes “limitations on gatherings, or quarantine authority may be an appropriate public health intervention.” And the Red Cross also states, “Modern quarantine includes a range of disease control strategies that may be used individually or in combination, including: Short-term, voluntary home curfew…” And finally, the Department of Defense, in its planning, states, “Quarantine… applies to the separation and restriction of movement of well persons presumed to have been exposed to a contagion. Quarantine may be enacted at a home or other residential facility. It may also be voluntary or mandatory.”

Quarantine therefore has a significant legal foundation, and the law recognizes the existence of voluntary self-quarantine or self-shielding at home. The primary issue then is, “How does one prepare for at home self-shielding?”

In 2009 (during the Swine Flu Vaccine Panic) Natural Solutions Foundation published checklists and similar information to allow families to plan for self-shielding. You can see that information here: -- the citations used in this article may be found there.

General Bert Stubblebine, Foundation President sees a potential for a new 2012/13 influenza vaccine panic leading to an engineered pandemic:

Every family, every individual, has a right to refuse medical treatments that violate conscience. This is clear from the Helsinki Declaration.

Self-shielding in one’s home, a location recognized in common law as inviolate except with proper judicial authority, is a right that should be respected by governments as they deal with the results of their ill-conceived public health policies. Self-shielding can be as simple as taking steps to reduce your exposure to pathogens, supporting your immune system through good nutrition and using supplementation such as nano-silver, avoiding public places, especially crowded locations, and similar common sense steps. These steps offer you significant protection from the dangers of a natural or weaponized pandemic, while an uninsurable “Pig in a Poke” vaccine may only offer you the opportunity to come to harm. We believe “Do No Harm” is the first rule of good health. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts,
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home … Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference…”
If you exercise your personal sovereignty over your own body and stand your ground, proudly, as a Vaccine Refuser, you now know you can do so with justice on your side.

Help educate state and national legislators about your right to be a Vaccine Refuser:

Ralph Fucetola JD
Trustee and Counsel Natural Solutions Foundation

No comments: