Patricia Finn - The Good Health LawyerObtains 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:

https://www.patriciafinnattorney.com

https://www.facebook.com/PatriciaFinnAttorney

Link to this Release:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/good-health-lawyer-gains-tro-in-forced-vaccine-case/

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

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.

---

Fox News Fake News Vaxx Propaganda Attacks NY Jewish Community

#VaxxFreeWorld

The "World's #1 Anti-Vaxxer" Counsel Kent Heckenlively spoke on Alex Jone's InfoWars last night about the fake "measles outbreak" and President Trump's apparent endorsement of the MMR vaccine.  Support Counsel Kent's efforts to help Trump understand the truth. We need 100,000 signatures on the pending White House Petition by May 19th (2,300 signatures already).

Share this link immediately: http://tinyurl.com/vaxxfreeworld

Meanwhile, the vaxx-pusher propaganda reaches new depths as Fox News gives us a new twist on the infamous "Blood Libel" that targeted Jews for spreading harm in society. This time it's "spreading disease" (sic) which was also part of Nazi propaganda.

This morning's Fox News headline crawl reads:  “Anti-Vaccine Booklet Blamed for Measles Outbreak” — Fake News Fox telling us that “anti-vaccine propaganda” among the New York Orthodox Community is to blame for the “measles outbreak” in New York.

The claim is that this booklet, entitled “Vaccines Are Dangerous” is somehow “propaganda.” Fox decried the booklet's historically accurate linking of forced vaccination to horrific Nazi "medical" experiments that (Fox News failed to note) led the world to enshrine the right of Informed Consent in International Law.

Those who have taken the time to research the issue know that, in fact, the science is settled: vaccines are, according to our courts, “unavoidably unsafe.” (See Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth). Shame on Fox!

Those who pretend otherwise are the real propagandists who seek to destroy Free Speech.

Forced Vaccination is a Crime Against Humanity

Forced Vaccination is a Crime Against Humanity

The Nuremberg Doctors Trial

Across the United States*, triggered by a small up-tick in the few cases of measles, and although more children die from the "unavoidably unsafe" measles vaccine than from the disease itself, legislators are demanding "tougher laws" forcing families to vaccinate, or lose public benefits. That these same legislators are beneficiaries of significant drug company political payments is not surprising.

What is surprising is the legislators willing connivance with those who push forced vaccination as somehow a "public health benefit," despite the failure of the US government to provide any of the vaccine safety reports that have been required by law since 1986.

When Congress abrogated our right to petition the federal and state courts for vaccine injuries in 1986 the promise was that vaccines would become safer and that the federal government would report to Congress annually about progress. No such reports have been submitted while families have suffered thousands of dead and maimed children as the legacy of US vaccination policy.

The horrors of vaccine pseudo-science could, perhaps, have been tolerated, since families could have, in the past, always opt out of vaccination for religious or philosophical reasons. Where there is risk, there must be choice. However, that promise of Informed Consent is now under concerted attack in state after state.

Exemptions created by legislators can be abolished, it is claimed, by legislators. That's may be accurate, but only if the change in law does not violate our inalienable rights.

Legislators must understand international limits on their asserted power over the issue of forced vaccination. Wars have consequences and one of the consequences of WWII was the enactment, as part of customary international law, binding on all nations, of the Nuremberg Code.

US government, during the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, and specifically the infamous Nazi Doctors Trial, promulgated the Nuremberg Code, as a restatement of the existing law of Informed Consent. It tried and hung Nazi Doctors for crimes against humanity -- violating the universal right of Informed Consent.

It did so under the Geneva Convention provisions that say a power holding a prisoner of war may try the prisoner for war crimes only if the same law applies to the country holding the prisoner.

Thus, by action of the Geneva Conventions the Nuremberg Code applies in the USA.

I’ve written a detailed Brief on the Law of Informed Consent here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-brief-for-informed-consent/ — showing how subsequent international law (including the UN Bioethics Declaration), US statutory law and cases support the right.

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 medical intervention 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.” Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)

In one recent case, Missouri v McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013) the Supreme Court said, 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…” (page 15).

The relevant point is that legislators, whether state or federal, have no authority to disregard the right of Informed Consent.

If they do so, they too stand in the Nuremberg Docket with the Nazi Doctors. There is no middle ground. Either a politician stands for the universal right of Informed Consent or is aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.

Conscientious objectors to vaccination must assert our universal right to Informed Consent, separate from any legislative exemptions, in order to preserve it. Learn more here: http://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

* And in the EU, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. While Vancouver declared an "outbreak" over 9 measles cases, Los Angeles has suffered a dramatic increase in typhus cases, from 2 in 2017 to at least 120 in 2018 with barely a mention in the drug-company-advertising dependent mass media. Maybe because there is no commercially available typhus vaccine?

FOIA Action Exposes HHS Vax Failure to Report to Congress

Informed Consent Action Network v. 
United States Department of Health and Human Services (1:18-cv-03215)
Major Legal Victory!

https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

This Informed Consent FOIA case means all vaccine mandates are illegal because the drug companies and the government have failed to obey the law.  This means your Informed Consent right to refuse all vaccines is more important than ever before.  You must assert the right or you will be "deemed" to have "waived" the right! That's where the AVD Card counts.

Sometimes you win by voluntarily dismissing your case. That's what happened a few weeks ago when the Informed Consent Action Network voluntarily dismissed its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Earlier this year the Network sought copies of the Reports that the infamous 1986 Vaccine (sic) Safety Law required the Secretary to provide to Congress every two years.

Let's remember where that all started. In 1976 we had the First Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine. Over 400 people died from the vaccine and the drug companies had to withdraw the vaccine, subsequently, there was no flu pandemic. The lawsuits started. Then the companies told Congress they would withdraw from the vaccine business unless Congress "protected" them. It did. The 1986 law, which unconstitutionally took away from us our First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievances regarding vaccine injuries, also commanded the Secretary to make sure vaccines got safer, and to report to Congress about that every other year.

As we've known for some time, that never happened. Vaccines got much, much more dangerous -- "unavoidable unsafe" as our Courts have said, and the Secretary never told anything to Congress. 

We now know the truth, as a result of the FOIA suit. Below is a copy of excerpts from the stipulated Order regarding the FOIA action. It sets out the wording of the law requiring the Secretary to tell Congress, and all Americans, the truth about vaccine safety. The final paragraph is what the Secretary told the Court: the Reports required by the Law were never made!

The smoking gun of vaccine lies! What can you do about the Secretary's failure to obey the Law and make sure vaccines are safer? What can you do to protect yourself and your family? You must assert your right of Informed Consent. You can, and must, refuse all vaccines! 

Natural Solutions Foundation helps you do just that. With the Advance Vaccine Directive card you can assert your Informed Consent right with clear legal intent. The law is clear: if you do not assert the right, it can be "deemed waived." Get it here:

  https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

And don't forget what other Natural Solutions Dr. Rima Recommends™: http://www.nsfmarketplace.com/mainstore/

 Share this message with all your circles of influence:
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-lie-smoking-gun/

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

No Forced Vaccination: http://TinyURL.com/VaccinationISViolation
 
Doctors, Nurses and Vaxx Drug Pushers
"Check Your [Government] Privileges"

.

Updates: 
[1] http://drrimatruthreports.com/forced-vaccination-is-a-crime-against-humanity/

[2] http://drrimatruthreports.com/informed-consent-fundamental-human-right-at-risk-from-medical-tyranny/
[3] http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentPetition

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:

 www.HealthKeepersOath.org

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: http://drrimatruthreports.com/forced-vaccination-is-a-crime-against-humanity/

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!

------------------
* http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf

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..." - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 

 “I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…” - http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html  

"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." - http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html *

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.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

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: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/studies-outside-the-u-s-show-unvaccinated-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-children/ . 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: http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf . 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: http://tinyurl.com/DrRimaIndiaPaper .

www.HealthKeepersOath.org

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..." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_trial .

With one scientist suggesting that by 2025 half of all US children will be diagnosed on the autism spectrum [ http://themindunleashed.org/2014/10/mit-researchers-new-warning-todays-rate-half-u-s-children-will-autistic-2025.html ] 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.

http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationisviolation

* 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

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
VACCINATION IS RITUAL CHILD (AND ADULT) ABUSE

Be Heard Here: http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationISviolation

http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationisviolation

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, 20^th 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: http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationISviolation

 

 -----------------------------------
[1] Trustees Vax Opinion Series Part One: Dr. Rima: http://drrimatruthreports.com/informed-consent-means-you-can-say-no/ Part Two: Gen. Bert: http://drrimatruthreports.com/stand-with-me-against-vaccines/
 [2] http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gandhis-anti-vaccine-views-ring-true-century-laterA

Doctors' Fear Drives Medical Tyranny

FEAR DRIVES MEDICAL TYRANNY

All three types of exemptions from forced vaccination are under attack by the statists.* There are dozens of bills pending in the States to curtail religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccine mandates.

Licensed physicians are becoming more and more unwilling to act as independent professionals when faced with medical contraindications to vaccination. Or, as one mother just wrote to me, seeking pastoral counseling on this troubling issue:

"...it seems that a lot of states want to take away our religious exemption to enter the school. My younger son will start Kindergarten this year and he does not have all of his vaccines, as he reacted really badly to them as a baby, so I had to stop. But unfortunately pediatricians were telling me that it was only coincidence and that would have happened anyway. It took me four years to bring his health back and now I do not know what to do. My new pediatrician understands and supports me but she says she can't write medical exemption anymore, as it seems doctors that do that being investigated."

It's not that the doctor "cannot" write a medical excuse. It is that the doctor is afraid to do so. This climate of fear is exactly what is being used to steamroll the States into creating a harsh regime of medical tyranny, one vaccine at a time.

We've all seen the articles about families having their children kidnapped by state authorities and forcibly vaccinated. There was a recent Ohio case that abolished religious conscientious exemption for children in state custody.

That is the political reality we face. As conscientious objectors to (sic) "state action," we know that history shows unless we defend our rights, we will have them taken from us, at gun-point.

Physicians, as the leading health care professionals, have a strong moral obligation to "Do No Harm." and to protect their patients. We learn from history. We know that every modern tyranny has had to enlist the health care professionals in its deadly plans (think "medicine" in Nazi Germany, or "psychiatry" in the USSR, or the role of (sic) "psychologists" in the US torture program).

So what is the Physician ethically obligated to do when asked by a patient for a Medical Excuse?

Rima E. Laibow, MD has just written about this in an Open Letter to Physicians:

http://drrimatruthreports.com/vaccine-exemptions-fear-and-loathing-in-the-medical-profession/

Dear Doctor,   

You and I share a sacred, professional responsibility to our patients and, in order to fulfill that responsibility, to the truth. We have no responsibility to the economic well-being of any system, company or industry and confusing the two can harm, maim or even kill.

I am writing to you today to ask you to think with me about vaccine exemptions. You and I may believe different things about vaccine safety, efficacy and necessity but it is my hope that we believe the same thing about human rights, informed consent and the fallibility of today’s scientific dogma which is ALWAYS replaced by new dogma when science is functioning as it should. In fact the half life of medical truth is about 20 years: in that time, 50% of what we believed has been shown to be irrefutably false....

Since 1905 the law has been clear: Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) – the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in vaccine 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.” In doing so, the Court set forth the standard by which medical exemptions may be issued: reasonable certainty of unfitness for vaccination, or serious risk of impairment of health.

Doctors need to remember that they are not agents of official government medicine. They are health care professionals who have a sacred duty to their actual living patients, not to any collective noun nor to some "greater good."

Each health care provider must take responsibility as a free individual in defending the private, confidential relationship they each have with each patient. Providing Medical Excuses is an ordinary duty of Physicians. Humane ethics demands no less.

http://www.healthkeepersoath.org

Here is the current situation regarding exemptions.

-----------
* A "statist" is someone who erroneously believes in the objective reality of the legal fiction known as the "State." "Conservative" or "progressive" statists assert that they and their agents have legal and moral authority to force their beliefs on peaceable conscientious objectors to whatever belief the statists happen to be forcing at the moment. They believe in the false reality of (sic) "collective action" and deny the reality of individual human action as the only actuality in human social relations.

An Open Letter to the Judge

A Letter to Fox News
Commentator Andrew Napolitano

UPDATE: HERE IS JUDGE NAP'S REASONED DEFENSE OF LIBERTY REGARDING VACCINES:

http://www.judgenap.com/index.php?post=to-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate

------------------------

February 3, 2015 
.

Dear Judge Napolitano,

A group of health freedom advocates and I have been communicating about the current mass propaganda push for mandated vaccines. They are copied on this note. We need your help.

Dr. Rima (with General Bert) is in India right now, learning about Ayurvedic Natural Solutions and about to present a paper to the All India Medical Congress entitled "Regulation and Results" which will expose the dangerous lies of the vax pushers, describing in detail how vax toxins harm millions, literally killing more than they theoretically "save." Her presentation is February 8th and we will release her powerful paper then.

Here is the abstract:

With even Rand Paul and John Stossel making odd sounds about "government's role in promoting vaccination..." you may be the last voice of sanity in the mass media.

With newspapers like USA Today calling for jail for vaccine resistors, and allegedly pro-free speech publications like Reason and The Guardian calling for blocking vaccine refusers' access to the media, the public is hearing only the drum-beat for forced vaccines.

This would be a real disaster, leading to more chronic illness and mass infertility (maybe the globalist elite's core goal?).

Dr. Rima's paper shows that children who are exposed, naturally, to the self-limiting childhood diseases have stronger immune systems and less chronic disease later in life.

The facts are clear, for anyone without a special interest to plead, hygiene and nutrition ended the pandemic diseases, not mass public vaccination.

But in addition to the question of safety, we need to address the question of legality.

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.

Vaccination is Violation. Nothing less. http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationisviolation 

It is not enough to defend the right of the person to make what the govt alleges is "bad choice" of not vaccinating. [The wrong here is compelling what may be unsafe medical interventions. There will be foreseeable harm to people who are forced to accept the shot; such compulsion negates their status as free people.]

That certainly is the position the Supreme Court has taken, in, for example, Thompson vs Western States (535 U.S. 357, 2002) when Justice O'Connor wrote:

"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. *** Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning ..."

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 lawfully issue.

But none of these medical, philosophical or legal issues are being heard. Only the propaganda for mass, forced vaccination is being parroted by all the media, CNBC and Fox like. Only pro-vax voices are being heard, in a unanimous chorus led by the likes of Hillary Clinton but sadly joined by people who should know better, like John Stossel and Dr. Rand Paul!

All of the people who are receiving this email are very knowledgeable about vaccination. We are each available for media interviews, and many of us live in the NYC area.

Please let us know how we can help you bring the news of our dissenting voices to the media.

Best personal regards,

Ralph Fucetola JD

Natural Solutions Trustee

PS: Dr. Rima's India Trip Notes here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=22495