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!
There is no question 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 the court has made it clear that the government may not force people to take an experimental vaccine.Doe # 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003) The COVID-19 Vaccines are experimental – approved only pursuant to the Pandemic Emergency Declaration. Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
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. What the heck is going on in Israel?
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”) ) But see Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366 (1905)
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.
NOTE: – While the government may not force you to be vaccinated, limiting access to services is a different subject.
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.”
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).
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.
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
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. 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. 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.
Risk Analysis - Weighing risk, benefit & alternative to experimental COVID-19 "vaccines"
Risks of experimental COVID-19 "vaccines"
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.
Warning from UCLA physician, Patrick Whelan MD PhD
Warning from UCLA physician, Patrick Whelan MD PhD, UCLA Pediatric Rheumatology — “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.”
Manufacturers immune from growing adverse consequences to COVID-19 VACCINES
Questions that we are seeking answers to:
- Do mRNA experimental Vaccines damage M2 macrophages? And if so what is the impact?
- Do mRNA experimental Vaccines increase the risk of immune enhancement death or illness (antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) )?
- 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”
So, is the US handling COVID-19 better than 3rd world countries?
|Country||Confirmed cases||Deaths||Case fatality rate||Deaths per 100,000 population|
|Papua New Guinea||914||9||1.0%||0.10|
Do the masks work?
Does the social distancing work?
Do countries with ready access to Hydroxycloroquine and Ivermectin have better numbers?
ARE THESE FACTORS RELATED AND RELEVANT?
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.
[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
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
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. J Negat Results Biomed. 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.)
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.
(More to come)
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. Front Physiol. 2020; 11: 564387
Health Benefits of Vitamin D – J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2012 Apr-Jun; 3(2): 118–126.
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”?
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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.