Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Doctors, Nurses and Vaxx Drug Pushers:
"Check Your [Government] Privileges"

He Wont Tell Youu Graphic
No Forced Vaccination:
Doctors, Nurses and Vaxx Drug Pushers

"Check Your [Government] Privileges"


The phrase "check your [white/male etc] privilege" is a collectivist code-phrase used as a pseudo-justification for "reverse" sexism, racism and classism, to stifle Free Speech. As such, it is not meaningful communication, but rather an attempt to prevent communication. 

However, there is one type of privilege that does need to be "checked." Any "privilege" enforced by a government agent at the point of a gun.

As a libertarian individualist I reject collectivist notions of group-guilt as an immoral assault on fundamental human rights. Collective nouns, such as "race" or "class" or "nation" or "corporation" refer to legal fictions and not to acting humans. The coercive privileges about which we must be concerned are laws, regulations, monopolies and the like imposed on civil society by government edict. Only actual humans engage in human action, and each is responsible for the results of that action -- you cannot be a moral actor and hide behind privilege.

As a student of history I am well aware of what 19th Century Libertarian Lysandor Spooner considered the privileges imposed by government; the great monopolies: [1] state churches; [2] chattel slavery and its substitutes; [3] the legal "infirmities" of women, [4] government monopolies over trade and commerce, and [5] the government-privileged bankster monopoly of the media of exchange. These are the true coercive privileges that any free society must reject. Over the past two centuries humanity has made real progress in abolishing these barbaric relics of an unfree past.

In the modern era, however, special government privileges continue to be granted to favored groups; prime among these are the special legal privileges granted to the purveyors of the uninsurable risks of vaccination. Vaccines have been declared, by the US Supreme Court, as "unavoidably unsafe."

Although in a market economy public companies may not invest shareholder equity in uninsurable risks, that is exactly what Big Pharma has been privileged to do. Consider the Great Swine Flu Vaccine Panic of 1976, when hundreds died from the vaccine before it was stopped [yes, in those days, vaccination programs could actually be stopped when the harm was shown; the companies faced huge lawsuits and so withdrew the deadly brew]. Big Pharma threatened to leave the vax business (oh wondrous thought!). Congress, always supine to Big Pharma demands, instead, took away our right to redress for the foreseeable harms of vaccinations and erected a system of Vaccine Injury Privilege.

No one can purchase insurance against vaccine injuries and no one can sue if injured. [Yes, there is a "Vaccine Injury Compensation Program" funded by a special tax, not on the drug pushers, but on those required to buy vaccines; it has barely compensated the "tip of the iceberg" of vaccine harm.] No drug pusher, doctor or nurse is legally responsible for the foreseeable harms of vaccination. This unconstitutional law violates the First Amendment, guaranteeing the right to seek "redress of grievances" through government. The VICP creates an unlawful privilege.

And you wonder why there are more and more dangerous vaccines "recommended" and mandated... with vaccine-induced brain damage and chronic illness the necessary result of irresponsible [because legally privileged] crony corporations? . Yes, Big Pharma, Doctors and Nurses need to "check your privileges..." That corrupted media and government allows you to propagandize for the pseudo-science of vaccination does not justify your actions or make the lies real science.

DOCTORS AND NURSES: IF YOU NEEDLE AN UNWILLING PERSON BECAUSE GOVERNMENT HAS ORDERED YOU TO DO SO, OR COERCED COMPLIANCE, YOUR ACTIONS ARE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER HUMANE INTERNATIONAL LAW. . You are violating the Nuremberg Code and humane international law. You are committing a crime against humanity as that is defined in international law.

Even a “...diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the... privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the... skin... this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests...” (page 15; emphasis added). *

Just as the Nazi (sic) doctors never thought they'd be held to account; just as Soviet (sic) psychiatry never expected to be held to account, you may someday have to answer for the foreseeable harms of vaccination, such as the 10,000 fold increase in autism (no, it's not just "better reporting" and you do know better; true medicine sees correlation and seeks causation, it does not sweep the horror under the rug...).

It is time for you to stop the lie. Before more children and adults die.

Natural Solutions Foundation, the world's largest Global Health Freedom NGO (non-governmental organization) urges all health care providers to join us in rejecting all forced medical interventions. Support Informed Consent. Do no harm. Take the Health Keepers Oath:

I Swear My Talents, Skills and Knowledge
Will Not Be Used to Perform Eugenicide or
Destroy the Rule of Legitimate, Ethical and Humane Law

For a more detailed review of the international law and medical tyranny, see:

Yes, Doctors and Nurses, you can make the individual choice to act ethically and refuse cooperation with medical tyranny; the drug pushing crony corporations, on the other hand, have no choice.

Without their government-imposed privileges they could not exist. And that would be a very good thing!


Sunday, April 19, 2015

Forced Vaccination is a Crime Against Humanity

Denying Informed Consent Violates the Nuremberg Code
Forced Vaccination is a Crime Against Humanity

"Informed consent is meaningless without the right to say: "No!". - Rima E. Laibow, MD
Ralph Fucetola JD
President, Institute for Health Research

After the horrors of the Second World War which included 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 the health system be used to harm either individuals or whole populations.

A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience. This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore not to “administer a poison to anyone even when asked to do so...”

Among these were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration and the Nuremberg Code.
"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..." - 
 “I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…” -  
"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." - *
Informed consent may be defined:
“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 recognised 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-centeric 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.” -
Informed Consent is under attack worldwide.

Right now there are laws pending in two dozen US states that will abolish or restrict our hard-fought religious and philosophical conscientious objection exemptions to forced vaccination. Bills are being introduced on the federal level to require all Head Start children to have every vaccine "recommended" by the CDC. A new Adult Vaccine Schedule is being promulgated by CDC which will be used by private and public employers and state governments to require ever more adult vaccines... and there are another 200 new vaccines on the way! Australia, another "advanced" country with very high infant mortality and a large number of "recommended" infant vaccines, has just abolished religious conscientious objections to vaccination and will deny welfare benefits to non-vaccinating children.


This proliferation of mandated vaccination is a global health security issue. Scientific evidence now shows that vaccinated children are, in general, less healthy than unvaccinated children. See: . Vaccination, like all prescription drugs, remain medical experiments (release to the public is considered the fourth stage of experiment and FDA withdraws or redefines about half the drugs it approves within five years due to the data from adverse reactions after public release.

Dr. Gary Null shows that properly prescribed drugs caused hundreds of thousands of deaths every year in the USA: . Meanwhile in Kenya the Catholic Bishops expose mass vaccine-induced infertility. Earlier similar exposure occurs in the Philippines and Bangla Desh. "Polio-free" India is shown to have 60,000 cases of "non-Polio flaccid paralysis" - afflicting only the vaccinated. See: .

But in Australia the vax-pushing Prime Minister (whose three daughters did not receive the very dangerous Gardasil vax) wants to force all poor families on government assistance to receive all required vaccines.

In Japan vaccines during infancy are being abandoned, while the USA and Australia, with the highest numbers of infant vaccines are also among the worst in infant mortality.

Is there a connection between this evident lack of vaccine safety and special exemptions drug companies enjoy with regard to vaccines?

In 1986, the United States Congress protected drug companies from tort liability, and the US Supreme Court later acknowledged that, "Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects. " The Court held, "The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects..."

What incentives do doctors and drug companies have to develop safe(r) vaccines?

While we are told that "correlation is not causation" we also know that there is always correlation when there is causation, which is strongly suggested by this comparison of two graphs from a government-published study. What we do below is show the two graphs together. What the graphs show is that, in general, the more required infant vaccines the worse the infant mortality.


This litany of drug-pusher predation is especially heinous since the most vulnerable among us, our own children, are its main target. But is it more than just greed blinding people to the harm they engender? Is it more than just one more tentacle in the global elite's depopulation agenda? Is it, perhaps, also literally a crime against humanity?

When a physician such as Paul Offit MD of Philadelphia's Children’s Hospital votes as a member of the CDC committee approving a vaccine in which he is a partial patent owner (first year profit: $48,000,000) is he merely engaging in particularly sleazy self-promoting, or is he using government power for the type of "fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion" for which the Nazi doctors were hung? .

With one scientist suggesting that by 2025 half of all US children will be diagnosed on the autism spectrum [ ] the very survival of our civilization appears to be at stake.

Even if the genomicidal (that's "genomic genocide") result merely flows from self-serving, crony-corporatist, pseudo-science, the absolute right of the individual to freedom of choice in health care is being denied. And people are dying as a result. And that violates not just the letter, but especially the spirit, of humane health care and the Nuremberg Code. 

Doctors and nurses who needle unwilling persons, and the politicians that enable the trespass and assault, commit a crime against humanity.

* Please note that the Doctors' Trial was about unlawful human experimentation. All medicine is experimental, in the words of the leading case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903). That Court held that there could be no "state system of healing" p.402 and  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.'" Those who profess to believe that Informed Consent only applies to "experiment" not to "treatment" (which in their view can be forced on people) have yet to explain why humans should have a strong right to refuse the one ("experiment") but not the other ("treatment"). Such a distinction without meaning is the hallmark of the fascistic mindset and not worthy of any intellectual respect. The United States imposed the Nuremberg Code as "victor's justice" at the end of WWII; under the Geneva Convention, the Code therefore applies to the US government as well.

© 2015

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Should Govt Protect Religious Believers?

Why the Sudden Rush to Pass Religion Protection Laws?
Why the Sudden Propaganda Against the
Independence of Churches?
Why the Assault on Vaccine Religious Exemptions?

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Th. Jefferson, 1781
Bits and pieces from the recent news about the interaction of government and religion... courts hold that small family-run businesses can refuse to provide insurance coverage that affronts the religious sensibilities of the owners... other courts force small business owners to serve persons in violation of their religious beliefs (the case in question arising from making same-sex wedding cakes)... same sex marriage is now becoming lawful while polygamy and polyandry remain forbidden religion... tens of thousands of pastors are recruited by FEMA and Homeland Security to work with government during "national emergencies" -- preaching cooperation with authority, even when being relocated at gun point... several states start to adopt laws to protect religiously motivated discrimination ...other states seek to restrict long-recognized religious exemptions from forced vaccinations[1]... and on it goes. Government becomes more and more intrusive in matters of private conscience.

Even some who claim to be "libertarians" complain about "religious privilege" confusing church private association exemptions from government impositions (such as taxation) as grants of government privilege. An exemption from coercive authority is not an exercise of coercion!

All this storm and controversy in a country where the national government has no power to make any law -
"...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There already is a federal law protecting religious liberty, against federal government actions, at least. It is important to note that the federal law operates only to protect religious belief from federal government interference. The state laws are being interpreted to allow private discrimination. There is a strong distinction in law between purely private activities and commercial activities in the public.

The Congress of the United States adopted the RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141). In this enactment Congress determined that "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification..." and that "laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise..." Therefore Congress determined to protect the free exercise of religion as follows:

"Sect. 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected. (a) In General. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Exception. -- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- (1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial Relief. -- A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government..."

This enactment is a departure from the tradition of non-involvement in religious matters and recognizes that religion should be protected, in this era of Big Government, from even "neutral" laws which burden religious exercise. Congress has thereby issued a significant statement of Public Policy and has put the Courts at the disposal of those who suffer burdens upon the free exercise of religion at the hands of government. This Act will have a major impact, further securing religious liberty, over the coming decades. In the earliest legal tests of the Act animal sacrifice was permitted under certain circumstances. This Statute has been held partially "unconstitutional" by the US Supreme Court, only as applied to States and localities, as a violation of the "separation of powers" by Congress -- which implies that the Courts will determine the limits of religious rights protection and will apply standard civil rights analysis, permitting interference where a "significant" government "interest" is involved.

On May 28, 2002, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court discussed the current state of the law, while discussing the RFRA, 
"If the law does create a substantial burden, we may still uphold it if it serves a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner possible. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). *** A statute burdens the free exercise of religion if it "put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs," Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981), including when, if enforced, it "results in the choice to the individual of either abandoning his religious principle or facing criminal prosecution." Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 605 (1961). A substantial burden must be more than an "inconvenience." Worldwide Church, 227 F.3d at 1121." Guam v Guerrero, Docket No. 00-71247 at 7712-13.
On June 27, 2004, the Utah Supreme Court determined, in the case of Utah v Mooney, that non-American Indian members of the Native American Church can use peyote in religious ceremonies. In 2000 officers confiscated about 12,000 peyote buttons from the six-acre complex  that serves as home to the Oklevueha Earthwalks Native American Church. The Mooneys' church is affiliated with the Native American Church, though they are not members of a federally recognized tribe. The State argued there is no exception in state law for the use of peyote by Indians and said that even if the court ruled there was such an exception, it could not be extended to cover non-Indians. The high court ruled that state law incorporates the federal regulation but does not specify a restriction on peyote use only by members of federally recognized tribes. Use of the hallucinogenic drug is limited to bona fide religious ceremonies as part of the Native American Church, Justice Jill Parrish wrote. The court also said that permitting the exemption for some church members and not others would violate the equal-protection clause in the United States Constitution. *

The Supreme Court, in 2006, under the leadership of its then new Chief Justice Roberts, reaffirmed the efficacy of the statute, stating, the "Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., ... adopts a statutory rule .... Under RFRA, the Federal Government may not, as a statutory matter, substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, "even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." §2000bb–1(a). The only exception recognized by the statute requires the Government to satisfy the compelling interest test—to "demonstrat[e] that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." §2000bb–1(b). A person whose religious practices are burdened in violation of RFRA "may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief." §2000bb–1(c)."  Gonzales v O Centro, No. 04–1084. Argued November 1, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006.

The most important recent Supreme Court development in the area of First Amendment Freedom is the well-known Boy Scout case - (Boy Scouts v Dale, No. 99-699, Decided June 28, 2000).  The Court reiterated that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association together give rise to what the Court calls "Expressive Association" which is the expression of the association's beliefs through its internal decisions and activities.  These are protected by Constitutional Right, 
"While the law may promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it may not interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may seem…  The record reveals... the Boy Scouts is a private association..."
Here is what one legal scholar had to say about that:
The right to join with other people to promote a particular outlook, known as the right of expressive association, is a necessary adjunct to the right of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the United States Supreme Court found that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment expressive association right to exclude a homosexual adult volunteer. Dale is likely to prove to be one of the most important First Amendment cases of recent years, because the Court enforced a broad right of expressive association against the competing claims of an antidiscrimination law.**
And another:
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.It doesn’t matter whether a government bureaucrat or a person who was refused association believes that the actions of the refusing person or group are illogical, unreasonable, irrational, hateful, discriminatory, bigoted, or racist. What matters is freedom.The freedom of association is just as important as any of the “First Amendment freedoms.” Neither government nor society has the authority to force a person or group to associate with another person or group that they don’t want to associate with. In a free society, it can’t be any other way.***
With this clearly settled law, why the controversy? Let's remember what Congress determined in 1993: "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification..." and that even "laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise..."

How will the current controversy work out? If Americans remain committed to protecting each other's liberty, private expressive association will not be burdened by government intervention, even when pretending to be "neutral." With the extraordinary growth in especially federal government regulation of all aspects of our lives, it is important that legal barriers be erected against government interference with basic religious rights, including the right to religious conscientious objection to forced medical interventions, such as mandated vaccines.

Vaccination is Ritual Abuse

The Trustees’ Vax Opinion Series: Part Three [1]
Forced Vaccination
as a Barbaric Mind-Control Initiatory Ritual

 Required by the Corporate State to Maintain Power
Ralph Fucetola JD
"Vaccination is a barbarous practice, and it is one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time... Its supporters are not content with its adoption by those who have no objection to it, but seek to impose it with the aid of penal laws and rigorous punishments on all people alike....Those who are conscientious objectors to vaccination should ...stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defense of their conviction." - A Guide to Health - Mahatma Gandhi (1921, S. Ganesan Pub., Madras, India) [2]

I am a "JD" -- scholar of the law, a Juris Doctor -- not a medical doctor.

When I look at vaccination I see a belief system, not a scientific reality.  It is important to understand the roots of what is fundamentally an irrational practice which sacrifices the young (and increasingly the not-so-young) on the altar of the “common good” to the profound personal ‘not-good’ of the individual – the foreseeable and uninsurable harms of vaccination. The tension between the alleged public good and the denied private harm has a long history plunging directly back to human sacrifice ‘for the good of the tribe’ which I believe it is instructive to consider carefully in order to understand the current vaccination hysteria and public unwillingness to consider the modern issues around vaccination. We have to look much deeper than immunology or public health. When we look to ancient civilizations and sacrificial communal rituals to understand that with which we are all contending,  we see strong similarities: anointed leaders presumed to be infallible pronounce the necessity of the sacrifice which, like the vaccination scenario, makes neither scientific nor rational sense.  No matter how many scientific facts are arrayed against the practice, the true believers continue to believe truly.

In fact, the strange phenomenon of social demand for universal vaccination can only be understood fully in the context of ritual human sacrifice by the overlords of the State Religion.

While our ancestors bequeathed our cultural heritage to us, for which we should honor them, they also bequeathed ancient practices and customs which are absolutely reprehensible to modern, thinking humans. These must be repudiated, no matter how widely endorsed they may be by the priesthood and their faithful, but unthinking minions. Male and female genital mutilation, scarification, prolonged, enforced isolation, the use of terrifying sounds and costumes, potentially lethal tribulations were all used in bonding the younger generation to the immemorial customs of the tribe or other social group. Sacrificing children to Moloch for the "greater good" is an extreme example which made perfect sense to the adherents of that ritual . The widespread and venerable custom of forcing young men into rigidly hierarchical [military] organizations established for the purpose of killing more young men (and others)  is just a modern version of age-old tribal customs.

Compulsory Vaccination Cancels Modern Liberty
Liberty Did Not Exist in the Tribal World or the Ancient City

Liberty requires a concept of self-ownership. Advocates of liberty can look back to the earliest stirrings of human culture for the beginnings of that concept of self-ownership and the inalienable right to Liberty which it entails. Early cuneiform written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash included the word “amagi” which is generally translated as “freedom.”

Sixth Century BCE Chinese philosopher Lao Tse championed personal freedom of conscience. During the subsequent millennia the idea of freedom became ever more a driving force in the development of human culture spreading from one cultural area to another with migration and trade. 

The concept of personal Liberty has evolved, but not rapidly. It would, however, be an error to consider the Ancient City a place where what, say, 20th Century philosopher, Ludwig von Mises might have understood as Liberty any more than early tribal world-views would have allowed for protection of what we moderns understand as individual Liberty. It is important to note that while we assume all people have felt the same way about personal Liberty, that assumption is not justified.

One extraordinary work exploring the governance (which rests upon the personal status of the governed) of the Ancient City is the 1864 master work of jurist and scholar Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City. Considering Liberty he writes:
"The city had been founded on a religion and constituted a church. Hence its strength; hence, also, its omnipotence and the absolute empire which it exercised over its members. In a society established on such principles, individual liberty could not exist. The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The religion which had produced the state, and the state which supported the religion, sustained each other, and made but one; these two powers, associated and confounded, formed a power almost superhuman, to which the soul and body were equally enslaved… There was nothing independent in man… Private life did not escape this omnipotence of the state… The state allowed no man to be indifferent to its interests… The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty... It is a singular error, therefore… to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it. They did not believe that there could exist any right as against the city and its gods…… [Emphasis added – R. Fucetola] The government was called by turns monarchy, aristocracy, democracy; but none of these revolutions gave man true liberty, individual liberty. To have political rights, to vote, to name magistrates, to have the privilege of being archon, -- this was called liberty; but man was not the less enslaved to the state…"
In contradistinction to the ancient past, the past half millennium has seen very significant advances in Liberty and, in the past century or so, a clear theory of human action, or praxeology, has developed which posits Freedom of Choice as a driving factor in the advance of human civilization, as “dissatisfied” individuals engage in purposeful human action.  The Austrian economist and social theoretician Ludwig von Meises hypothesized that all human action is predicated upon dissatisfaction, as did Dr. Sigmund Freud, his contemporary.

The minions of State-mediated illness control seek to abolish our hard-won Freedom of Choice. 

Control over most humans has been maintained for millennia through the use of religious and, later, political ideologies inevitably justifying the dominance of the few over the many, even when the controllers pretend to speak for, and protect,  the "majority". Through the use of what early freedom theorists such as the American abolitionist and theorist Lysandor Spooner saw as the great monopolies created by political power, this strict social control dominated human society for most of its existence. These included the monopolies over conscience embodied by state religions, over the bodies of certain people (e.g., chattel slavery; prisoners, war captives, caste system members, etc.), or the property rights of approximately half of the species (in Europe, the legal “infirmities” of women, etc.) and over property through regal claims to “own” the land and economic activities of a territory (feudalism and mercantilism). But in more modern times the structure of bureaucracy itself has been redesigned to become, not just to serve, the control system. Consider, for, example, how the regulatory structure of the Military Draft was used in the USA during the 1960s and ‘70s to “channel” students into certain fields, such as science, engineering and weapons design, which were considered of benefit to the state. Now we see the same process at work with the incessant demands for ever more vaccines, and for forcing adults and children to receive all the vaccines that crony corporatist-tainted science can concoct without regard for either scientific validation or personal rights.

Imagine, if you will, the experience of the Vax Poke from the viewpoint of the child.

Humans, including infants, instinctively react to assaults by powerful figures. Have you ever really looked in a maternity hospital at the differences between boys who were just subjected to genital mutilation, as compared to boys who were not so assaulted? You will see, in the former, fright, terror, complete shut-down of normal infant behavior. The unmutilated baby boys, on the other hand, are relaxed and open to experience, as are the girls. The Vax Poke is similar to being circumcised. It is an often painful assault that must leave psychological scars, even as puts the child's health at risk from adverse reactions, for the "greater good."

In this way, we can see the vaccination ritual, repeated at intervals over the couple of decades of childhood, as mind-control training. "We in authority can stick needles into you, making you sick, belittling your discomfort and subsequent illness, compromising your genome and your life trajectory, risking your health while you must remain passive and allow the assault, coming to believe that since it is for the greater good, you do not matter.  Then, later, you will present your own offspring for the ritual at increasingly frequent intervals. It is, after all, for the greater good." Every vaccination of a child or an adult which is required by State constitutes Involuntary Medical Intervention and violates the most basic principle of self-determination: the right to determine what happens to your own body.

Central to that right is the basic human right of Informed Consent which absolutely and non-negotiably requires the right to say "No!" to any, or every, medical  or non-medical intervention.

While we like to think that the right of Informed Consent includes the capacity to understand the risks that is not necessarily true.  Who decides if the patient truly understands the risks if the doctor (or other State agent) believes so strongly in the procedure (perhaps making a living for him) that in his mind, anyone who refuses could not POSSIBLY understand the treatment being offered.  Therefore, in the mind of this hypothetical, but all too frequently encountered, doctor the patient does not understand the risks because he/she is STILL saying “No thank you.” to treatments. The fact is that there can be every reason, or no reason at all, to reject the proffered medical intervention under the doctrine of Informed Consent.  Once the patient has been informed, it is up to him/her to consent.  If that consent is not forth coming, the consequences must lie with the patient.  But if a harmful treatment is given, the consequences must lie with the doctor and the provider – but, with vaccines, the government has abrogated that responsibility by providing manufacturer and purveyor with absolute immunity so they can harm by vaccination with impunity.  There is no legal recourse against the harming doctor or harming vaccine manufacturer. There is therefore no incentive not to harm.

Informed consent means, in its most fundamental aspect, that it may lead to a decision NOT to accept the intervention.

The Right to Refuse is a cornerstone of any definition of personal Liberty since without it, Liberty dissolves. There can be no right more sacred or hallowed, in fact, than that of defining the conditions of servitude, activity and resistance for the free human being by either accepting or declining the proffered intervention, offer, job, food, spouse, etc. The lesson that the painful and illness producing jab, for which the child is presented by its trusted parents (or the adult who is led by authority figures to trust and submit to vaccination him/herself) is to teach the child, and the adult, receiver of the Jab(s), is that only (sic) “experts” matter; those in authority have the power to hurt without recourse (vaccination is an uninsurable risk) and that your knowledge of your body is far less important than anyone else’s.  Further, your pain and suffering are not real.  Only the premises and promises of the authorities mean anything even if what they mean requires faith, not science, to understand.

Modern bureaucracy, the hallmark of the "Therapeutic State," needs mass, involuntary vaccination to maintain its power. Children, and now adults, must be offered to the fires of Moloch... or the (Therapeutic State’s) world will end. Say “NO!” to mandatory vaccination now.

Speak truth to decision makers here:


[1] Trustees Vax Opinion Series Part One: Dr. Rima: Part Two: Gen. Bert: