Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC

Question: Do I have a right to refuse to be vaccinated or to reject medical treatment?

Answer: YES. State can adopt mandatory vaccination laws. BUT the government may not force you to take an experimental drug or vaccine!

COVID-19 VACCINES ARE EXPERIMENTAL! Pfizer's 8/23/2021 FDA Approved "Vaccine" warns - "COMIRNATY may not protect all vaccine recipient"

August 23, 2021 - FDA approves Pfizer Vaccine - "Comirnaty" with WARNING

FDA states “Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support. Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes.”  FDA

Christina Parks, Ph.D. –  Cellular & Molecular Biology 

August 19, 2021 – Michigan Archive – at 1:11:00 on video

  • COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to prevent infection or transmission of the pathogen
  • 95% attenuation symptoms of early variants NOT infection or transmission, let alone of Delta variant
  • Mandates are not rationally related to preventing transmission
  • Mandates will disproportionally deny African Americans from Eduction and Work based upon historically based and rational distrust of government.
  • Vaccinated Individuals more likely to transmit COVID-19 due to attenuated symptoms but with full viral load!!!!
  • THEREFORE IF RESTRICTIONS REQUIRING TESTING, VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO BE TESTED

FDA -“COMIRNATY may not protect all vaccine recipients.”  Approval was not based upon any studies involving Delta variance.

FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty   – FDA

In July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not.  CDC Report – August 6, 2021

University of California San Diego Health Reporting Dramatic Rise In COVID among Fully Vaccinated Population

Legal Analysis

Under the facts before the court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State can adopt compulsory vaccination laws to protect the public from the spread of disease.  Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), however a DC federal court has made it clear that the government may not force people to take an investigational or experimental vaccine. Doe # 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003)  The COVID-19 Vaccines were rolled out as  investigational or experimental – approved only pursuant to the Pandemic Emergency Declaration.  Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.  The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The Nuremberg Code Pfizer however obtained FDA approval on August 23, 2021 with warnings – ?may not protect all vaccine recipients.”

Doe # 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003)(plaintiff’s sought an injunction against the DOD to prevent the DOD from forcing them to take Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (“AVA”) ) Absent an informed consent or presidential waiver, the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.  But see Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366 (1905)

Distinguishing Jacobson v Massachusetts

“But [Jacobson v Massachusetts] addressed issues of medicine, disease, and society that are increasingly irrelevant. Jacobson’s rationale has little to say about two recently developed controversial vaccines.”  Harvard Law Review

“The Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment protected individual liberty, which limits state power. It did not attempt to specify everything included in the definition of liberty, because liberty is a broad concept. Beyond freedom from physical restraint or bodily invasion, it includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and decisionmaking”   Click

Religious Exemption - Legal Resources and Articles

  • My Body, My Temple: The Constitutional Requirement for Religious Exemptions to a COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate – SLU  Law Journal Online
  • Religious exception for vaccination or religious excuses for avoiding vaccination – National Institute of Health

  • Orthodox Reflections
  • Rutherford’s Analysis
  •  Model COVID Religious Exemption Notice/Letter (individual to complete – religious beliefs) – Rutherford Institute
  • Sample Religious Exemption Letter – Health Freedom Idaho
  • Sample Religious Exemption Letter – re: synthetic gene therapy & aborted fetus tissue – Random
  • No Clergy Letter Required – “Employers, universities, or states offering religious exemptions cannot limit them to organized religion, because that would discriminate against those with sincere beliefs that are not part of an organized religion. – This makes sense, because the validity of your religious exemption should not depend on belonging to a religion that opposes vaccines.” – Harvard Law Blog – Religious Exemptions to Vaccines and the Anti-Vax Movement
  • Examples of profound ignorance on 1st Amendment freedom of religion – requiring a clergy member to verify your sincerely held religious views.  Quakers & Society of Friends who endured hardship to immigrated to these shores in 1677 seeking freedom of religion are rolling over in their graves:  The following “institutions of higher learning” receiving failing grades – Columbia University Teachers College, Massachusetts College of Law, South Carolina State University – higher education institutions that require students to submit a statement from a religious leader in order to seek a religious exemption.  Campus Reform

Examples of Required Religious Exemption Forms that Violate Title VII and show Profound Ignorance of the Law and animus towards individual faith and beliefs in favor of “organized” or corporate religion:  Bon Secours

Where’s Patrick Henry when you need him?

This is what the EEOC says —

 

K.12.  Under Title VII, how should an employer respond to an employee who communicates that he or she is unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance? (12/16/20updated 5/28/21)

Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship.  Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee.  Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests.

EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar.  Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.  However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605.

Under Title VII, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment.  For suggestions about types of reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated employees, see question and answer K.6., above.  In many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances.

Title VII requires employers to accommodate those religious beliefs that are “sincerely held.”[38] Whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in many types of Title VII religious claims.[39]  For example, with respect to an allegation of discriminatory discharge or harassment, it is the motivation of the discriminating official, not the actual beliefs of the individual alleging discrimination, that is relevant in determining if the discrimination that occurred was because of religion.  A detailed discussion of reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs appears in § 12-IV, but the meaning of “sincerely held” is addressed here.

Like the religious nature of a belief, observance, or practice, the sincerity of an employee’s stated religious belief is usually not in dispute and is “generally presumed or easily established.”[40]  Further, the Commission and courts “are not and should not be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons.  We thus restrict our inquiry to whether or not the religious belief system is sincerely held; we do not review the motives or reasons for holding the belief in the first place.”[41]  The individual’s sincerity in espousing a religious observance or practice is “largely a matter of individual credibility.”[42]  Moreover, “a sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance,”[43] although “[e]vidence tending to show that an employee acted in a manner inconsistent with his professed religious belief is, of course, relevant to the factfinder’s evaluation of sincerity.”[44]  Factors that – either alone or in combination – might undermine an employee’s credibility include:  whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;[45] whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons;[46] whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons);[47] and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons. 

However, none of these factors is dispositive.  For example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time, and therefore an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed religious practice may nevertheless be sincerely held.[48]  Similarly, an individual’s belief may be to adhere to a religious custom only at certain times, even though others may always adhere,[49] or, fearful of discrimination, he or she may have forgone his or her sincerely held religious practice during the application process and not revealed it to the employer until after he or she was hired or later in employment.[50]  An employer also should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of his or her religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others.[51]  As noted, courts have held that “Title VII protects more than . . . practices specifically mandated by an employee’s religion.”[52]

Limited Access Cases - updated 7-29-2021

NOTE: – While the government may not force you to be vaccinated with an investigational vaccine, limiting access to services is a different subject.

Many Courts have Denied Preliminary or Emergency Injunctions or TROs - temporary restraining orders ---- where the cases have not been fully litigated

HIGH STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A preliminary injunction is a “very far-reaching power, never to be indulged [] except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 501 (7th Cir. 2020)). To obtain an injunction, the students “must make a threshold showing that: (1) absent preliminary injunctive relief, [they] will suffer irreparable harm in the interim prior to a final resolution; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) [they have] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” Tully v. Okeson, 977 F.3d 608, 612-13 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Turnell v. CentiMark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2015)); see also Winter v. Nat. Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). If they make these threshold showings, the court “consider[s] the balance of harms between the parties and the effect of granting or denying a preliminary injunction on the public interest.” Tully, 977 F.3d at 613 (quotation omitted).

Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133300, at *38 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021)

Houston Methodist Hospital - a private employer

Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else.

Bridges v. Hous. Methodist Hosp., No. H-21-1774, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110382, at *7 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2021)

Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker. To succeed on a wrongful termination claim, Bridges must show that (a) she was required to commit an illegal act — one carrying criminal penalties, (b) she refused to engage in the illegality, (c) she was discharged, and (d) the only reason for the discharge was the refusal to commit an unlawful act.

Bridges v. Hous. Methodist Hosp., No. H-21-1774, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110382, at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2021)

Commentary

The Indiana opinion was well reasoned, even if one disagrees with the outcome.  The court does a nice job rejecting the state’s argument that the university is not infringing the students right to refuse the vaccine,  stating as follows:

The “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” forbids the university from pulling the rug out from under the students in a roundabout way. Under this doctrine, argued by the students as “coercion,” “the government may not deny a benefit to a person because he exercises a constitutional right.” Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 604, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 186 L. Ed. 2d 697 (2013) (citations omitted); Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 545, 103 S. Ct. 1997, 76 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1983). This doctrine protects constitutional rights “by preventing the government from coercing people into giving them up.” Koontz, 570 U.S. at 604. It “aims to prevent the government from achieving indirectly what the Constitution prevents it from achieving directly.” Planned Parenthood of Ind. v. Comm’r, 699 F.3d 962, 986 (7th Cir. 2012). The students say this state actor is denying a benefit—a public university education—because they are exercising a constitutional right to refuse a vaccine.

Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133300, at *58-59 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021)

Indiana University

This case presents that question: whether Indiana University has acted constitutionally in mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for its students, as announced on May 21, 2021. Albeit, and this should not be overlooked, this case does so only in the context of a preliminary injunction motion, not for a final decision on the merits.

Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133300, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021)

8/2/2021 – Update – Appeal to the 7th Circuit unsuccessful

Petition to US Supreme Court pending

(According to AP, due to backlash university not requiring immunization documentation but merely an online attestation of vaccination)

Don’t misread it. The court is not declaring the absolute safety and efficacy of the vaccines, or for all people. People need to understand the risks, remain informed as the science evolves, monitor the review before the FDA, and determine whether to take a vaccine. The court must decide this case on the evidence before it. The evidence today shows that the students have little chance of success: Indiana University is reasonably pursuing a legitimate aim of public health for its students, faculty, and staff.

This university policy isn’t forced vaccination. The students have options—taking the vaccine, applying for a religious exemption, applying for a medical exemption, applying for a medical deferral, taking a semester off, or attending another university. This policy applies for the fall 2021 semester only. Students may make their choice after being advised of the risks and benefits of the vaccines, thereby giving informed consent. The court recognizes that for certain students this may prove a difficult choice, but a choice nonetheless. The choice isn’t so coercive as to constitute irreparable constitutional harm. Although it proves a condition to attend this fall, it is reasonable under the Constitution.

This isn’t a decision after a final trial on the merits. The court has made this decision based on evidence, testimony, and briefing that the parties produced on an emergent timetable. They and their skilled counsel should be commended for the quality of their submissions, particularly under tight demands. But not every stone has been unturned by the parties. Not every study has been hashed out or submitted for the court to read. Not every witness has testified. Although constituting more than 100 exhibits and testimony from many individuals, including proposed experts, much of which then refers the court to innumerable studies and articles that it has endeavored to review carefully, much in these five days, this still is a preliminary record, with an opinion issued urgently given the interests of these parties.

The court also isn’t saying Indiana University (or any other State or state entity) may do whatever it wants to address COVID-19. Given the liberty at stake for these students here, the university must act reasonably in achieving a legitimate state goal of public health. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause checks that authority. Today’s decision doesn’t provide carte blanche authority for [*122]  Indiana University to do as it pleases without regard to the Constitution. For instance, in the future, the goal of seeing zero or very low new positive cases as a rolling average in attainment of herd immunity may or may not prove reasonable [see Ex. 242 at 62-63], but those aren’t the circumstances now facing the university, and those aren’t the circumstances now presented to the court. Speculative concerns about hypothetical future events don’t show irreparable harm. Duthie v. Matria Healthcare, Inc., 543 F. Supp.2d 958, 960 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133300, at *119-22 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021).

CDC Leaked July 29, 2021 Slide Questions Rational Basis For Discriminatory Burden Placed Upon Unvaccinated or Those Asserting Medical Privacy

“The VDH has recorded 10,712 total cases, 404 hospitalizations and 83 deaths among those 4.7 million [individuals who received the recommended vaccination doses within that time frame] — indicating the likelihood of being infected, hospitalized or dying is well below 1%.  Virginia Department of Health    BUT THAT’S 10,712 PEOPLE THE FEDERAL COURT LETS SLIP IN WITHOUT TESTING.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA!

The CDC just published a report showing that “vaccinated” persons remain a serious risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 (Click -August 24, 2021 -CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR))

Outbreak investigations suggest that vaccinated persons can spread Delta – Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination

Evidence mounts that people with breakthrough infections can spread Delta easily – National Geographic 

Irrational increased burdens placed upon those who seek to preserve their medical privacy.

No Rational Basis – Since fully  “vaccinated” individuals (over 10,700 in 8 months in Virginia!!!) may become infected with and transmit COVID, requiring testing of only those who have declared themselves to be un-“vaccinated” or those who decline to give up their medical privacy is not rational, but is punitive.  Testing should be required of everybody having symptoms or known exposure. Masks should be worn by all or none.  Targeting only those who seek to preserve their medical privacy or autonomy is not rational and does not serve to “protect all individuals that enter our Courthouses/facilities, to include litigants, jurors, and members of the public.”

“[T]he risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus.””These early data suggest that breakthrough Delta infections are transmissible.” CDC Updated July 27, 2021

In July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not.  CDC Report – August 6, 2021

So will courts and business next single out Black and Hispanic attorneys for testing?  CDC

The Case To Watch! - (Or NOT? = CASE SETTLED? - CASE VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) LAW PROFESSOR TODD ZYWICKI v. GEORGE WASHINGTON (GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY)

NOTE: Case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 8/20/2021

Geoge Mason University Law Professor Zywicki had previously recovered from SARS-CoV-2 and had a positive IgG Spike Antibody assay and a positive SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid result.  Professor Zywicki’s semiquantitative antibody reading measured 715.6 U/ml— approximately 900 times higher than the baseline level of <0.8 and comparable to that possessed by vaccinated persons who share his age and health profile.  He received an unbroken string of positive COVID-19 antibody tests on July 25, September 29, and December 16, 2020, and February 9 and May 25, 2021

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO REFUSE UNWANTED AND MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY MEDICAL CARE

By failing to narrowly tailor its Policy to only those employees who lack immunity, GMU’s Policy forces employees like Professor Zywicki, who have robust natural immunity, to choose between their health, their personal autonomy, and their careers in violation of  constitutional rights to refuse medical treatment.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS DOCTRINE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

An overarching principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine vindicates the Constitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the government from coercing people into giving them up.  If the state policy burdens a constitutional right by imposing undue pressure on an otherwise voluntary choice with a nexus to the exercise of a constitutional right it is illegal. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value, like medical privacy and autonomy, the margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of producing a sufficiency of proof in the first instance. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of producing the evidence and convincing the factfinder of the basis for denying that liberty.  GMU has not and cannot show that the school’s forcing Professor Zywicki to take the vaccine reduces any risk that he will become infected with and spread the virus to GMU students and personnel. 

COUNT III—VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

State law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law.  Article VI, Cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute mandates informed and voluntary consent. See John Doe No. 1 v. Rumsfeld, No. Civ. A. 03-707(EGS), 2005 WL 1124589, *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005) (allowing use of anthrax vaccine pursuant to EUA “on a voluntary basis”). See also 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb3(e)(1)(A)(ii). 48. It expressly states that recipients of products approved for use under it be informed of the “option to accept or refuse administration,” and of the “significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.” Id

MORE AGGRESSIVE STATE ACTIONS

Note: These cases are markedly different than the unconstitutional actions taken by New York City prohibiting unvaccinated from entry into restaurants and gyms!  The Houston Methodist Hospital is a private employer exercising private right — NYC is dictating to private restaurants that they may not serve unvaccinated customers in their restaurants.  The not-so-rare “rare” break-through COVID cases for vaccinated people undermines the basis for the discrimination.

Virginia Governor Northam's aggressions towards non-vaccinated state employees

With approx. 40% of hospitalizations in the UK and 60% in Israel for vaccinated persons it is pretty clear that the COVID-19 experimental vaccines are not preventing Delta or Delta Plus COVID-19 vaccines, but on August 5, 2021, Virginia Governor Northam announced that all state employees who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine by Sept. 1 must be tested weekly for COVID-19.  With the not-so-rare “rare” breakthrough COVID-19 cases among vaccinated persons, this burden on unvaccinated persons, 28% of the state workers, is oppressive and not scientifically based. 

Virginia, even with the approval of the courts had not always been on the right side of justice – see, e.g.,  Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. Ed. 1000 (1927). (22 years after Jacobson v Massachusetts)  In a rather infamous case, an eight-member majority, save for one dissenting justice, upheld the involuntary sterilization of a woman based on a Virginia law that rested on faulty science and public support for “eugenics”—the repulsive notion that the human race could be improved by controlling reproduction from those with developmental challenges, mental illness, or criminal histories. Citing Jacobson for the principle that “compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes,” and offering the chilling justification that “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough,” the majority upheld the law against a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Id. at 207.

Not one of Virginia’s proudest moments.  I suspect that history will judge Northam in a similar light.

Skepticism of Government is Healthy and Well Based!

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”


― Plato

Americans classically do not sit back and wait for someone else to solve a problem. … It may also help to explain why there has always been a healthy skepticism about “government.” Those entrusted with governmental power might exceed their mandate, which is why, as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 51 (among other places), the Framers of the Constitution chose a system of mutual checks and balances. The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) (Gideon ed. 2001). 

Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, 506 F.3d 584, 601-02 (7th Cir. 2007)(Harlington Wood, Jr., dissenting)

Our political tradition holds individual liberty in high regard and teaches the need for a healthy public skepticism toward government power. The Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution’s elaborate system of checks and balances exemplify these values.

State v. McLaughlin, 860 P.2d 1270, 1276 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993)

Alexander Hamilton stated, “the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: “The powers  not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v.Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 176 L. Ed. 2d 878 (2010).

COVID-19 Overview

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.

Coronaviruses are divided into four sub-groupings: alpha, beta, gamma, and delta.

  • 229E (alpha)
  • NL63 (alpha)
  • OC43 (beta)
  • HKU1 (beta
  • MERS-CoV, a beta virus causing Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)
  • SARS-CoV, a beta virus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
  • SARS-CoV-2, a beta virus which causes COVID-19
    • 2 strains, L and S.

COVID-19 is a virus causing respiratory infection.  When infected, the viruses attaches to your cells, entering the cell and uses the cell to make copies of the virus’ RNA. Severe complications may be caused by cytokine release syndrome or a cytokine storm when the virus triggers your immune system to flood your bloodstream with inflammatory proteins called cytokines, which kill tissue and damage your organs.

By February 2020 – Scientists had detected in total 65776 variants with 5775 distinct variants. The 5775 distinct variants consist of 2969 missense mutations, 1965 synonymous mutations, 484 mutations in the non-coding regions, 142 non-coding deletions, 100 in-frame deletions, 66 non-coding insertions, 36 stop-gained variants, 11 frameshift deletions and two in-frame insertions.

“The most common clade identified was the D614G variant, which is located in a B-cell epitope with a highly immunodominant region and may therefore affect vaccine effectiveness. Although amino acids are quite conserved in this epitope, we identified 14 other variants besides D614G. Almost all strains with D614G mutation also have a mutation in the protein responsible for replication (ORF1ab P4715L; RdRp P323L), which might affect replication speed of the virus. This protein is the target of the anti-viral drugs, remdesivir and favipiravir, and the susceptibility for mutations suggests that treatment resistive strains may emerge quickly. Mutations in the receptor binding domain of the spike protein suggest that these variants are unlikely to reduce binding affinity with ACE2, since that would decrease the fitness of the virus.”

Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes

Overview of Experimental COVID-19 Vaccines

mRNA vaccines – “messenger ribonucleic acid” mRNA vaccines deliver genetic information to your cells to  overwrite or erase the genetic information in the cell delivering instructions to create a protein using the genetic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Simple Overview – Popular Mechanics

Simplified Explanation – Wikipedia

An RNA vaccine or mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of a natural chemical called messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce an immune response.[1] The vaccine transfects molecules of synthetic RNA into immunity cells. Once inside the immune cells, the vaccine’s RNA functions as mRNA, causing the cells to build the foreign protein that would normally be produced by a pathogen (such as a virus) or by a cancer cell. These protein molecules stimulate an adaptive immune response which teaches the body how to identify and destroy the corresponding pathogen or cancer cells.[1] The delivery of mRNA is achieved by a co-formulation of the molecule into lipid nanoparticles which protect the RNA strands and helps their absorption into the cells.[2][3]

Risk Analysis - Weighing risk, benefit & alternative to experimental COVID-19 "vaccines"

FDA -“COMIRNATY may not protect all vaccine recipients.”  Pfizer’s FDA approval was not based upon any studies involving Delta variance.

Myocarditis – real world people that wished they hadn’t been vaccinated – injured or dead.  August 18, 2021
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2109975 Myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination

The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons). The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection. August 25, 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

Symptomatic Acute Myocarditis in Seven Adolescents Following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID- 19 Vaccination – DOI: 10.1542/peds.2021-052478 Journal: Pediatrics

8 patients who were hospitalized with chest pain and who were diagnosed with myocarditis by laboratory and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging within 2 to 4 days of receiving either the BNT162b2 or mRNA1273 vaccine – further research is required to understand the long-term cardiovascular risks.  Myocarditis After BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccination – AHAJournals

Comparing the COVID Jab to other vaccines.

Significantly – the risk of injury is substantially higher than other vaccines

COVID jab – does not guarantee a person will not become infected by COVID-19 – “Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated Health Care Workers” – New England Journal of Medicine – July 28, 2021 DOI:10.1056/NE/Moa2109072. Many had symptoms lingering beyond 6 weeks. (Personal Note – I personally know several vaccinated persons suffering from “rare” COVID-19 breakthrough infections)

Risks - Evidence Continues to Mount - Real Risks

The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons), with the highest risk for 25 year old males. The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection.  A small number of cases of Bell’s palsy after Covid-19 vaccination have also been reported in the literature.29,30 

August 25, 2021
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

Phase 3 clinical trials showed that several Covid-19 vaccines were efficacious and had an acceptable safety profile.2-4 A number of potential adverse events were identified during these trials, including lymphadenopathy and idiopathic facial-nerve (Bell’s) palsy.2,3 Trials of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) also showed a mild imbalance between the vaccinated and placebo groups with respect to the number of cases of appendicitis, hypersensitivity reactions, acute myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents.5 However, phase 3 trials may have inherent limitations in assessing vaccine safety because of a small number of participants and a healthier-than-average sample population. Hence, they are often underpowered to identify less common adverse events. Postmarketing surveillance is required to monitor the safety of new vaccines in real-world settings.

NOBODY KNOWS LONG-TERM RISKS OF COVID-19 JABS

SV40---Just One Example from History - it takes years to determine long-term risk of vaccines - e.g. Polio Vaccine and Cancer

Increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S— analysis indicates increased rates of ependymomas (37%), osteogenic sarcomas (26%), other bone tumors (34%) and mesothelioma (90%) among those in the exposed as compared to the unexposed birth cohort.

PMID: 10472327

But See —PMID: 16963733
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.7101

Commentary: The point is not that the risks outweigh the benefits – the point here is that the adverse consequences may not be immediately apparent.

Polio Vaccines made with Monkey cells proving to increase risk of cancers  – The presence of SV40 in monkey cell cultures used in the preparation of the polio vaccine from 1955 through 1961 is well documented. Investigations have consistently demonstrated the oncogenic behavior of SV40 in animal models. Early epidemiologic studies were inadequate in demonstrating an increase in cancer incidence associated with contaminated vaccine. Recently, investigators have provided persuasive evidence that SV40 is present in human ependymomas, choroid plexus tumors, bone tumors, and mesotheliomas, however, the etiologic role of the virus in tumorigenesis has not been established.

Covid-19 "Breakthrough" Infections in "Vaccinated" Health Care Workers

Benefit??? - New England Journal of Medicine reports - well the jab isn't all that it was cracked up to be (False Promises of Efficacy)

Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented.  Israel – Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan  July 28, 2021DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109072

Note: The reports revealing that the “vaccine” is not preventing the infection in these “vaccinated” individuals is still claiming that their symptoms were not as severe.  This claim is suspect or should be compared to the unvaccinated individuals who have mild symptoms.

Stephenson J. COVID-19 vaccinations in nursing home residents and staff give robust protection, though breakthrough infections still possible. JAMA Health Forum  2021;2(4):e211195e211195  (https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2779436. opens in new tab

Tyagi KGhosh ANair D, et al. Breakthrough COVID19 infections after vaccinations in healthcare and other workers in a chronic care medical facility in New Delhi, India. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2021;15:10071008.

Hacisuleyman EHale CSaito Y, et al. Vaccine breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants. N Engl J Med 2021;384:22122218.

LEGAL NOTE: VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT?

"vaccine" vs "therapeutic agent"

The COVID-19 jabs do not meet the criteria to be labeled a "vaccine" under CDC guidelines.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

Common Law

“The common law requires a higher degree of care and vigilance in dealing with a dangerous agency than is required in the ordinary affairs of life and business which involve small risk of injury.” American Oil Co. v. Nicholas, 156 Va. 1, 10, 157 S.E. 754. 

Virginia Consumer Protection Act

Va Code § 59.1-200. Prohibited practices.

A. The following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction are hereby declared unlawful:

5. Misrepresenting that goodshave certain quantities, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits;

14. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction;

55. Engaging in fraudulent or improper or dishonest conduct as defined in § 54.1-1118 while engaged in a transaction that was initiated (i) during a declared state of emergency as defined in § 44-146.16 

Virginia Drug Control Act

Virginia Drug Control Act which prohibits the misbranding of any drug or delivery of a misbranded drug, a violation of which is punishable as a Class 2 misdemeanor. Va. Code Ann., § 54.1-3400 et seq. 

VA Code § 54.1-3457. Prohibited acts.

The following acts shall be prohibited:

1. The manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale of any drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.

2. The adulteration or misbranding of any drug, device, or cosmetic.

3. The receipt in commerce of any drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.

4. The sale, delivery for sale, holding for sale, or offering for sale of any article in violation of § 54.1-3421.

5. The dissemination of any false advertisement.

Dissenting Voice - Whistle Blower - Robert W. Malone, MD, MS

Dr. Robert W. Malone, a virologist and immunologist, a researcher in the 1980s at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories,  with nine patents for the vaccine technology platform for delivering mRNA vaccines, an early inventor in the mRNA vaccines scene, states that the vaccines are in fact gene therapy technology.  Malone’s work was with messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, where he discovered that a liposome could be used to protect the mRNA to be transferred into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins. In the early 1990s, he collaborated on a study that first suggested the possibility of synthesizing mRNA in a laboratory to trigger the production of a desired protein.  He was censored when he began challenging the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.  He has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications.  He states “If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.”  “The American people deserve better than a universal vaccination strategy under the flag of bad science and enforced through authoritarian measures.” 

Dissenting Voice - Dr. Peter McCullough

Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA, formerly Professor of Medicine and Vice Chief of Internal Medicine. Baylor University Medical Center. Dallas, TX. – has been a critic of the investigative COVID-19 Vaccines, expressing concern that the spiked protein is itself a pathogen resulting in micro-clots throughout the body, that the detrimental adverse impact of the vaccines would have blocked other vaccines from the marketplace.  His most outspoken criticism is the failure of the medical community to formulate and implement an early treatment protocol specific to the three stages of the vaccine’s cycle.  See Treatment Guide by TruthforHealth

Dissenting Voice - Vladimir Zelenko, MD

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko – is a physician who early in the pandemic on March 23, 2020 published an open letter promoting an early treatment protocol for early stage treatment of COVID-19 infections with good outcomes (Zelenko Protocol).  (Controversies included his alleged claim of the infection rates within the community (most likely accurate) and an alleged FDA approved study.

Derwand, Roland; Scholz, Martin; Zelenko, Vladimir (2020). “COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study”International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents56 (6): 106214. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214PMC 7587171PMID 33122096.

Dissenting Voice - Patrick Whelan, MD PhD

 Patrick Whelan MD PhD, UCLA Pediatric Rheumatology, warned– “As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.”

Dissenting Voice - Hooman Noorchasm, MD Phd.

Hooman Noorchashm MD, Phd, a physician-scientist, says persons who have already been exposed to the COVID-19 Virus are at unique risk from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.  They are at risk for vaccine directed endothelial damage, which is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients.

Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD is a physician-scientist

Outpatient Early Treatment Protocol

Outpatient Treatment – monoclonal antibody transfusion therapy –  70% reduced risk of hospitalization.

Monoclonal Antibody 9/23/2021 Study NEJM  – Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection developed in 11 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (1.5%) and in 59 of 752 participants in the placebo group (7.8%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 81.4%; P<0.001). In weeks 2 to 4, a total of 2 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (0.3%) and 27 of 752 participants in the placebo group (3.6%) had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (relative risk reduction, 92.6%). REGEN-COV also prevented symptomatic and asymptomatic infections overall (relative risk reduction, 66.4%). Among symptomatic infected participants, the median time to resolution of symptoms was 2 weeks shorter with REGEN-COV than with placebo (1.2 weeks and 3.2 weeks, respectively), and the duration of a high viral load (>104 copies per milliliter) was shorter (0.4 weeks and 1.3 weeks, respectively). No dose-limiting toxic effects of REGEN-COV were noted.  See also FDA

Regeneron/Regen-Cov  is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for preventative care for people at high risk for developing severe COVID-19 after exposure to the coronavirus.  It should be given within 96 hours of exposure to the coronavirus, and contains monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab.

Ivermectin with doxycycline or Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin

Inhaled Budesonide (eg. Pulmicort Flexhaler 180 Mcg) is a corticosteroid or steroid (cortisone-like medicine) which  prevents inflammation (swelling) in the lungs, which makes the COVID-19 attack to the lungs less severe opening narrowed breathing passages in the lungs.

Oral steroid – Prednisone is a corticosteroid which is used as an inflammatory  and immune suppressor.

Asperin 350mg reducing risk of clotting.

Colchicine decreases swelling and lessens the build up of uric acid crystals.

Lovenox Injection – to reduce risk of blood clots in high risk patients 

Supplements: Zinc, Vitamin C and D

Early Treatment – Source 

.

Risks of experimental COVID-19 "vaccines"

Longterm Risks Unknown????

1 MONTH OF ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO COVID-19 VACCINES: 501 deaths — a subset of 11,249 total adverse events —unverified reports to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccinations. Reports filed between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 29, 2021.

(7-22-2021-update deaths close to 12,000 associated with COVID jab)

IDIOTIC APPROACH TO COVID TREATMENT - WAITING UNTIL A PERSON IS DEATHLY ILL

Scientific Studies Support Early Treatment to Include Ivermectin

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.   2021 Jul-Aug; 28(4): e434–e460

Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The scientific evidence reviewed in this manuscript seems to indicate that ivermectin is effective in the short-term treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19.

Manufacturers immune from growing adverse consequences to COVID-19 VACCINES

Questions that we are seeking answers to:

  1. Do mRNA experimental Vaccines damage M2 macrophages? And if so what is the impact?
  2. Do mRNA experimental Vaccines increase the risk of immune enhancement death or illness (antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) )
  3. With a 99.7 % probable recovery to COVID-19, are there time-tested safer treatments available with less risk and longterm uncertainties than the new mRNA experimental Vaccines?

Example – Injuries suspected from COVID-19 Vaccines:

  • 1 of approximate 1000 deaths within 2 months of vaccine rollout- Drene Keyes –Gloucester woman died shortly after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.  WARNING – September 2020 – Virginia Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver told Richmond’s ABC-8 that he would make a COVID-19 vaccine mandatory whenever one is available.    “We can confirm that the death occurred within hours of having received the vaccine, but that is not evidence of it being related,” Health Commissioner M. Norman Oliver said on 2/8/2021. “We are currently investigating and do not yet know the cause of death” talking about the death of a woman who within minutes of receiving the vaccine felt bad and died within several hours..  NBC29 – is reporting “no indication the vaccine was at fault”

  • UPDATE – 7/22/2021 – close to 12,000 deaths associated with COVID jab

Dr. Ryan Cole, CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics regarding Covid, vaccine, & treatments.  While his credentials as a board-certified dermatopathologist (AP & CP) and the CEO/Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, are not particularly on point – the information he delivers is factually based and worth your consideration.  (But See – Medical College of Virginia (1993-1997): Researched immunology) 
Dr. Ryan Cole, –regarding COVID-19, vaccine, & treatments.(video censored)

So, is the US handling COVID-19 better than 3rd world countries?

COVID-19 pandemic cases and mortality by country as of 6 August 2021[1]
CountryConfirmed casesDeathsCase fatality rateDeaths per 100,000 population
 Laos7,51170.1%0.10
 Singapore65,508400.1%0.70
 East Timor11,225260.2%2.01
 Maldives77,9992220.3%41.81
 Qatar227,0556010.3%21.22
 United Arab Emirates688,4891,9670.3%20.13
 Cyprus104,4694330.4%36.13
 Iceland8,508300.4%8.30
 Mauritius4,592200.4%1.58
 Bahrain269,7371,3840.5%84.33
 Burundi7,714380.5%0.33
 Eritrea6,573350.5%0.57
 United States35,440,488615,3201.7%187.46

COVID-19 pandemic cases and mortality by country as of 12 February 2021.[1]

CountryConfirmed casesDeathsCase fatality rateDeaths per 100,000 population
 Eritrea2,42970.3%
 Burundi1,77130.2%0.03
 Taiwan93691.0%0.04
 Tanzania509214.1%0.04
 Vietnam2,140351.6%0.04
 Papua New Guinea91491.0%0.10
 Thailand24,279800.3%0.12
 DR Congo8,3541221.5%0.15

 

 

    
 United States27,390,465475,2911.7%145.27

Vaccine - Results

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. (2 Month Data) - Clinical Trial

A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728. opens in new tab.)

There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo.  Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo

Pfizer Vaccine Recipients - lay low for at least 14 days!

In 1 study – not peer-reviewed –Estimating the effectiveness of the Pfizer COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine after a single dose. A reanalysis of a study of ‘real-world’ vaccination outcomes from Israel, it was estimated that the vaccine effectiveness was pretty much completely ineffective through post-shot-day 14 but then rose to about 90% at day 21 before levelling off. 

“those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2% … died during the three-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100,000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100,000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.”  Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ  – See Article

Covid-19 Vaccines already need to be updated (Sounds like Microsoft's model of marketing)

Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have already realized that it will need to update their mRNA vaccine to match spike mutations in 501Y.V2.  But scientists do not know whether those vaccinated with 1st generation vaccines will have a muted response to new variants!

Are the COVID-19 "Vaccines" similar to the paradigm of Chemical Farming - which provides a "quick fix" which creates its own problem and destroys the soil? - Read Warning by Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

Geert Banden Bossche, DVM, PhD warns that the COVID-19 vaccines in the middle of a pandemic that do NOT prevent people from getting COVID-19 but address the body’s response which will result in a catastrophic world-wide response individually reducing innate immune response and creating globally  more highly infectious and severe variants.  Read His Open Letter

Vaccines and Variants

New SARS-CoV-2 Variants — Clinical, Public Health, and Vaccine Implications

With sample sizes ranging from 7,371 – 43,783 it appears that the various vaccines were 51%-95% effective at preventing clinical COVID-19 and 85%-100% effective in preventing severe COVID-19

Efficacy of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant, the so-called South African variant.

Side Effects and Detrimental Consequences

AstraZeneca---Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination

Predominantly impacting women –  reporting  minor symptoms (fatigue, myalgia, and headache) after shot, and beginning on day 5, reporting chills, fever, nausea, and epigastric discomfort.  Fatalities.  April 21, 2021 – New England Journal of Medicine 

Early Studies - Pregnancy

Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. 

Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons – April 21, 2021

Alternative - Managing COVID-19 Without Experimental mRNA vaccines

The alternative focuses on the innate ability of the human body to fight disease and viruses, boosting the bodies immunity without experimental technology, and then managing the body if infected by COVID-19.  99.7+% of people with COVID-19 recover.  Treatment should recognize the timing or stage of infection is important in forming protocols for treatment.

Early Immune Response: reducing the spread of the infection in the body.

Are there early treatments for COVID-19 useful in preventing hospitalization and death?

Early Treatment – 

Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection
The American Journal of Medicine

Treatment Options for COVID-19: A Review  2020; 7: 480.

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.   2021 Jul-Aug; 28(4): e434–e460

Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The scientific evidence reviewed in this manuscript seems to indicate that ivermectin is effective in the short-term treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19.

[T]wo in vivo studies of ivermectin alone or in combination with doxycycline has been published. In a Randomized Trial of 116 patients treated with Ivermectin-Doxycycline(n = 60) or Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin(n = 56) therapy the authors found Ivermectin-Doxycycline combination therapy had a better success of symptomatic relief; shortened recovery duration, reduced adverse effects, and superior patient compliance compared to the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin combination. The authors concluded ivermectin as a better choice for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease [].In a retrospective study of 280 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with ivermectin (n = 173) or standard of care(n = 107) the authors found lower mortality in the ivermectin group (25.2% versus 15.0%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.96). The authors also reported lower mortality among patients with severe pulmonary disease (n = 75) treated with ivermectin (38.8% vs 80.7%, OR 0.15, CI 0.05–0.47, P = .001), however no significant difference was found in successful extubation rates (36.1% vs 15.4%, OR 3.11 (0.88–11.00), p = .07)   US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
MedicationStudiesPatientsImprovement
Budesonide (UK)11,77917%
Remdesivir (USA)11,06331%
Casiri/imdevimab (USA)179966%
Ivermectin evidence6326,39868% [60‑75%]

COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin  

Vitamin D

Zinc, etc.

Zinc has anti-viral properties.   2021 Jan; 143: 1–9.

Despite the promising in vitro results that placed hydroxychloroquine among the leading candidates for Covid-19 treatment and prophylaxis, there are no compelling data to suggest that hydroxychloroquine is effective. We provide evidence on the lack of efficacy of postexposure prophylaxis therapy with hydroxychloroquine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19. The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Prevention of Covid-19 — N.Engl J Med 2021; 384:417-427 – 2/4/2021

In a French retrospective analysis, results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.

Jul-Aug 2020;36:101791. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101791.

HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

IRREPARABLE DAMAGE - PUBLIC DECEPTION

FALSE REPORT DISCREDITING HYDROXCHLOROQUINE — On May 29, 2020, Lancet Medical Journal reported that  hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.   FACT CHECK — LANCET JOURNAL RETRACTED THIS ARTICLE!

What about NAC?  Susceptibility of influenza viruses to N-acetylcysteine (NAC) appears to be strain-dependent, suggesting that it cannot be considered as a universal treatment for influenza pneumonia. 2011; 10: 5. (Cysteine is a semi-essential amino acid, found in most high-protein foods, such as chicken, turkey, yogurt, cheese, eggs, sunflower seeds and legumes.  NAC is needed to make and replenish glutathione an important antioxidant which helps neutralize free radicals that can damage cells and tissues in the body.)

If early administration of hydroxychloroquine purpose is to interrupt the virus hosting – studies of hydroxychloroquine on hospitalized COVID patients (where the virus has already completely invaded the patient’s body) are not relevant.  Example

Late Stage - acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) - Severe respiratory infection, cytokine release syndrome or a cytokine storm

Steroid - standard of care

“Clearly, now steroids are the standard of care,”  Dr. Howard C. Bauchner, the editor-in-chief of JAMA

Hydrocortisone, appeared to reduce deaths by 31% – tested 374 patients in three trials.

Dexamethasone appeared to reduce deaths by 36% – 1,282 patients in three trials.

In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707. opens in new tab.)

(More to come)

CAUTION: Remdesivir – patented by Gilead Sciences – expensive and little science to back claims for COVID-19 treatment

Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. NEJM

CAUTION: There is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with COVID-19. Remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to shorten the time to recovery in some people. CITE

Glucocorticoid - dexamethasone reduces mortality for patients on mechanical ventilation or oxygen

In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support.  NEJM

25-HYDROXYVITAMIN D3 – TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF COVID-19==The administration of Calcifediol (also known as calcidiol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃, is a prehormone that is produced in the liver by hydroxylation of vitamin D₃ by the enzyme cholecalciferol 25-hydroxylase) in patients with COVID-19, will reduce the development of SARS and the worsening of the various phases of the syndrome. Reducing at least 25% in ICU admission and death from the process, reducing days of hospitalization, facilitating the recovery of the same, acting significantly and positively, in any of its phases throughout the natural history of illness.  (In layman’s terms – 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 is what the liver converts vitamin D into over approximately 3 days -in emergencies providing 25 hydroxyvitamin D3 speeds up the process) Maimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba

Vitamin D plays an important role in modulating the innate and adaptive immune systems– deficiency of vitamin D is associated with an increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.  2020; 11: 564387

Health Benefits of Vitamin D –  2012 Apr-Jun; 3(2): 118–126.

Legal Note: Informed Consent

The COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to prevent infection and instead intended to reduce the severity of symptoms. With a 99.7-99.9 percent probability of recovery from COVID-19, if the mRNA Vaccines increase the risk of immune enhancement death or illness (antibody-dependent enhancement – “ADE”) are patients not receiving necessary information to obtain “informed consent”?  The VAERS site continues to report significant adverse reactions and a higher percentage of fatalities and serious injuries than any other “vaccine” in American history.

Common Law Battery

A physician or medical practitioner who fails to adequately inform the patient of the risks in order to obtain an “informed consent” may be liable for malpractice or common law battery! 

“The law is so jealous of the sanctity of the person that the slightest touching of another, . . . if done in a rude, insolent or angry manner, constitutes a battery for which the law affords redress. . . .” Crosswhite v. Barnes, 139 Va. 471, 477, 124 S.E. 242, 244 (1924). It is well established that, given the proper factual conditions and circumstances, a patient can maintain against a physician an action based on assault and battery for acts arising out of the physician’s professional conduct. The relationship between physician and patient is a consensual one and “[a] surgical operation on the body of a person is a technical battery or trespass unless he or some authorized person consented to it.” 61 Am. Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc. § 155 (1972). An unauthorized operation is a wrongful and unlawful act for which the surgeon will be liable in damages. Consent to an operation may be express, and under some circumstances may be implied or presumed. See 61 Am. Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc. § 158 (1972). Such consent to an operation may also be withdrawn, if timely and unequivocally done, thereby subjecting the surgeon to liability for battery if the operation is continued. See Mims v. Boland, 110 Ga. App. 477, 138 S.E.2d 902 (1964).

Pugsley v. Privette, 220 Va. 892, 899-900, 263 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1980)

Legal Note: Coming Soon - Legal Analysis of Virginia Bowman Claims against Private Employers who terminate employees based upon COVID "vaccine" status.

Immunity - Vaccine Companies

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects.  The Act provides that a party alleging a vaccine-related injury may file a petition for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, naming the Health and Human Services Secretary as the respondent; that the court must resolve the case by a specified deadline; and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer. Awards are paid out of a fund created by an excise tax on each vaccine dose, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). As a quid pro quo, manufacturers enjoy significant tort-liability protections. Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.  Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

Compensation for COVID-19 Vaccine injuries during the pandemic not covered by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Fund

Covid-19 vaccine injuries are excluded from the VICP during the declaration of a public health emergency by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2020 under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, limits compensation for injuries from COVID-19 vaccines given as countermeasures during a declared emergency to claims under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).  The CICP is more limited than than the VICP, limiting compensation to those with only the most serious injuries, a higher burden of of proof, and a 1-year statute of limitations after the date of vaccination, and limited awards for damages, limiting lost-income recovery to $50,000 for each year out of work and no compensation for pain, suffering, or emotional distress.

Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19 (Federal Registrar)

Virginia Law

"Best Interest of the Person"

No right to a jury!

Ingram v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 14, 24, 741 S.E.2d 62, 67 (2013)

“An appropriate circuit court or district court judge or special justice may authorize treatment for a mental or physical disorder on behalf of an adult person, in accordance with this section, if it finds upon clear and convincing evidence that (i) the person is either incapable of making an informed decision on his own behalf or is incapable of communicating such a decision due to a physical or mental disorder and (ii) the proposed treatment is in the best interest of the person.

Prior to authorizing treatment pursuant to this section, the court shall find:

   1. That there is no available person with legal authority under Article 8 (§ 54.1-2981 et seq.) of Chapter 29 of Title 54.1, under the regulations promulgated pursuant to § 37.2-400, or under other applicable law to authorize the proposed treatment. A person who would have legal authority to authorize the proposed treatment shall be deemed to be unavailable if such person (i) cannot be contacted within a reasonable period of time in light of the immediacy of the need for treatment for the person for whom treatment is sought, (ii) is incapable of making an informed decision, or (iii) is unable or unwilling to make a decision regarding authorization of the proposed treatment or to serve as the legally authorized representative of the person for whom treatment is sought;

   2. That the person for whom treatment is sought is incapable of making an informed decision regarding treatment or is physically or mentally incapable of communicating such a decision;

   3. That the person who is the subject of the petition is unlikely to become capable of making an informed decision or of communicating an informed decision within the time required for decision; and

   4. That the proposed treatment is in the best interest of the person and is medically and ethically appropriate with respect to (i) the medical diagnosis and prognosis and (ii) any other information provided by the attending physician of the person for whom treatment is sought. However, the court shall not authorize a proposed treatment that is contrary to the provisions of an advance directive executed by the person pursuant to § 54.1-2983 or is proven by a preponderance of the evidence to be contrary to the person’s religious beliefs or basic values or to specific preferences stated by the person before becoming incapable of making an informed decision, unless the treatment is necessary to prevent death or a serious irreversible condition. The court shall take into consideration the right of the person to rely on nonmedical, remedial treatment in the practice of religion in lieu of medical treatment.

 

Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-1101

Extended Excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court - Vaccines

In 1905 the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts stated as follows:

“We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the State. If such be the privilege of a minority then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.  While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded by right secured by the Federal Constitution.”

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366 (1905)

Instagram censored screen shots of this publication on 8/7/2021

NEEDED STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION

A bill to prohibit public accommodations and employers from discriminating against an individual because the individual has not received or declines to receive certain vaccinations or declines to disclose their vaccination status; to prohibit retaliation; and to provide remedies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ENACT:

Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Informed Consent in the Public and in the Workplace Act”.

Sec.2. As used in this act:

(a) “Employer” means a person that allows 1 or more Qualified Individuals to work for the employer, accepts applications for employment, or is an agent of an employer. Employer includes this state or a political subdivision of this state.

(b) “Person” means an individual as well as persons associated with them.

(c)  “Public Accommodation” shall mean any business, organization, or person that provides goods, services, privileges, licensing, educational, health care access, events or opportunities to the public.  For purposes of this act, Public Accommodation shall include this state or a political subdivision of this state open to the public. 

(c) “Qualified Individual” means an individual who performs services, with or without compensation, for an employer or a member of the public seeking to access or do business with a Public Accommodation.

(d) “Specified Vaccination” means any of the following:

(i) An influenza vaccination.

(ii) A Tdap vaccination.

(iii) A COVID-19 vaccination.

(e) “Tdap” means tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis.

Sec. 3. (1) An employer shall not do any of the following:

(a) Discharge, fail or refuse to hire or recruit, or otherwise discriminate against a Qualified Individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, or threaten to do any of these things, because the individual has not received or declines to receive, for any reason, a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.  Requiring testing not similarly required of persons vaccinated with the Specified Vaccinations shall be prima facie discimination prohibited by the Act.

(b) Require a Qualified Individual who has not received or declines to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination to do either of the following:

(i) Wear a surgical face mask as a consequence of not receiving or declining to receive a Specified Vaccination or declining to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(ii) Display on the Qualified Individual’s person a mark that distinguishes the Qualified Individual from Qualified Individuals who have received or not declined to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(c) Disclose to the public that the Qualified Individual has not received or declines to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(d) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has done or is about to do any of the following:

(i) File a complaint under this act.

(ii) Testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, proceeding, or action concerning a violation of this act.

(iii) Oppose a violation of this act.

(2) An employer that offers a Specified Vaccination to its Qualified Individuals must inform its Qualified Individuals, in writing, of their rights under this act. A Qualified Individual may decline a Specified Vaccination offered by his or her employer by providing his or her employer with a written statement. A Qualified Individual is not required to state, in his or her written statement or otherwise, the reason he or she declines to receive the Specified Vaccination. An employer shall not inquire about the reason a Qualified Individual declines to receive a Specified Vaccination.

Sec. 4. (1) An Public Accommodation shall not do any of the following:

(a) Fail to sell to or provide services or access to a Qualified Individual, or otherwise discriminate against a Qualified Individual with respect to the privileges and access because the individual has not received or declines to receive, for any reason, a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination. Requiring testing not similarly required of persons vaccinated with the Specified Vaccinations shall be prima facie discimination prohibited by the Act.

(b) Require a Qualified Individual who has not received or declines to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination to do either of the following:

(i) Wear a surgical face mask as a consequence of not receiving or declining to receive a Specified Vaccination or declining to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(ii) Display on the Qualified Individual’s person a mark that distinguishes the Qualified Individual from Qualified Individuals who have received or not declined to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(c) Disclose to the public that the Qualified Individual has not received or declines to receive a Specified Vaccination or declines to disclose whether they have received or intend to receive a Specified Vaccination.

(d) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has done or is about to do any of the following:

(i) File a complaint under this act.

(ii) Testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, proceeding, or action concerning a violation of this act.

(iii) Oppose a violation of this act.

(2) An Public Accommodation that offers a Specified Vaccination to its Qualified Individuals must inform its Qualified Individuals, in writing, of their rights under this act. A Qualified Individual is not required to state the reason he or she declines to receive the Specified Vaccination. An employer shall not inquire about the reason a Qualified Individual declines to receive a Specified Vaccination.

Sec. 5. An Public Accommodation or Employer shall not require an applicant or Qualified Individual to waive any right under this act. An agreement by an applicant or Qualified Individual to waive any right under this act is invalid and unenforceable.

Sec. 6. A person who is aggrieved by a violation of this act may bring a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive relief and damages. A court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to a person who prevails as a plaintiff in a suit authorized under this act.

Sec. 7. This act applies to a collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of this act.

Sec. 8. This act takes effect 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.

Disclaimer

The materials are prepared for information purposes only.  The materials are not legal or medical advice.  You should not act upon the information without seeking the advice of an attorney or a physician.  Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship or a doctor-patient relationship.