Tag: body integrity

The Wearables Trap: How The Government Plans To Monitor, Score, And Control You

“When the states legalize the deliberate ending of certain lives… it will eventually broaden the categories of those who can be put to death with impunity.”—Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, 1992

Bodily autonomy—the right to privacy and integrity over our own bodies—is rapidly vanishing.

The debate now extends beyond forced vaccinations or invasive searches to include biometric surveillance, wearable tracking, and predictive health profiling.

We are entering a new age of algorithmic, authoritarian control, where our thoughts, moods, and biology are monitored and judged by the state.

This is the dark promise behind the newest campaign by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, to push for a future in which all Americans wear biometric health-tracking devices.

Under the guise of public health and personal empowerment, this initiative is nothing less than the normalization of 24/7 bodily surveillance—ushering in a world where every step, heartbeat, and biological fluctuation is monitored not only by private companies but also by the government.

In this emerging surveillance-industrial complex, health data becomes currency. Tech firms profit from hardware and app subscriptions, insurers profit from risk scoring, and government agencies profit from increased compliance and behavioral insight.

This convergence of health, technology, and surveillance is not a new strategy—it’s just the next step in a long, familiar pattern of control.

Surveillance has always arrived dressed as progress.

Keep reading

Trump pardons Mark Bashaw, former Army officer who defied covid protocols

President Donald Trump on Wednesday pardoned a former Army officer who was found guilty in 2022 by a military judge of violating coronavirus prevention protocols, a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed to The Washington Post.

Former 1st Lt. Mark Bashaw was convicted and sentenced to no punishment for his refusal to obey orders meant to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. According to the military news publication Stars and Stripes, Bashaw did not comply with orders to telework, submit a negative coronavirus test before reporting to work or wear a mask indoors.

Bashaw, who was an entomologist at the Army Public Health Center in Maryland, said he was facing discrimination because of his religious beliefs. He said he was discharged in 2023.

After receiving the pardon on Wednesday, Bashaw said on social media that he was “humbled, grateful, and ready to continue fighting for truth and justice.” The post also included an image that referenced the “plandemic,” a debunked conspiracy theory about COVID-19.

Within weeks of being sworn in for his second presidential term, Trump issued an executive action directing the defense secretary and the secretary of homeland security to reinstate members of the military who were discharged for their refusal to receive the coronavirus vaccine.

Keep reading

The Covid-19 Crisis: How Political Meddling Threatens Your Health and Medical Freedom.

Doctors who successfully used early COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin faced severe backlash and censorship from medical and government authorities

Hospitals repeatedly blocked effective interventions, putting patients at unnecessary risk by ignoring treatments that could have prevented severe illness

Over 38,000 deaths linked to COVID shots were reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), yet health authorities downplayed these numbers

Health care professionals experienced threats to their medical licenses simply for advocating patient-centered treatments and sharing honest clinical results

Taking control of your medical freedom means knowing your rights, documenting your decisions, and actively choosing doctors who prioritize your health over politics

Trust in hospitals and health institutions is sharply declining because of how the health care industry has handled the COVID-19 pandemic. From forced treatments to draconic lockdown mandates, people all over the world suffered greatly. Even doctors who figured out effective treatments that helped save lives were vilified for spreading “misinformation.”

One such case is Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Texas-based physician who has treated COVID-19 patients during the height of the pandemic. During her time working in a hospital setting, she observed firsthand how patients recovered quickly using treatments such as ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies. All of this, and more, was discussed in her interview with Tucker Carlson featured above.

Why Vaccine Safety Suddenly Became a Political Battlefield

Getting vaccinated was once viewed as a straightforward part of health care. You’d go your doctor, get your shot, and move on with life, confident you’d done the right thing for your health. While many have criticized vaccinations and their adverse effects on human health, the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 virus put the entire field under the watchful eyes of the public.

Now, getting the shot isn’t just a health care choice — it’s deeply entwined with politics. Doctors who tried treating their patients with methods outside the official rules faced intense backlash. Bowden shares her side of the story:

• Early treatment is crucial — Using drugs like ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, she successfully helped thousands of patients recover quickly and fully. Recounting her experience in 2021:

“[M]onoclonal antibodies came about, and those worked great. I mean, I could get as many doses I wanted. I’d get them the next day. I’d just contact the manufacturer, say, I need 200 doses to be at my doorstep. Great. They worked wonderfully. People turned around very quickly.”

• Authorities pushed back against treatments that worked — One reason is that these early treatments undermined the vaccine-focused public health strategy. Powerful organizations insisted vaccines were the only real solution, dismissing alternatives. If patients could recover fully without the vaccine, fewer people would rush to get vaccinated, and Big Pharma wouldn’t like that.

“So this is following the rollout of the COVID shots. The government is upset because people are not buying it. People are not getting them. There’s very low uptake, very low interest. There’s suspicion of these shots,” Bowden says.

“So in March, they started their PR campaign. The government, they went after ivermectin. The FDA put something on their website about, you can’t use ivermectin for COVID. Biden doled out $11.5 billion to groups around the country. Initially, it started with 275.

It went up to 17,000 influencers, church groups, sports leagues, all sorts of people just funneling out taxpayer money to go after doctors like myself that were spreading ‘misinformation’ and to push people to get these COVID shots.”

Keep reading

Actually, “personal beliefs” DO supersede “the public good”

Personal beliefs do not supersede the public good – and vaccination is a public good

The above quote – taken from a headline in the Globe and Mail – is wrong. It is wrong in general and the specific.

It doesn’t matter what “personal beliefs” are being referred to, and it doesn’t matter which particular “public good” is being protected, it is wrong.

It is wrong because “personal belief” is a placeholder phrase for “individual liberty” and “public good” for compelled action.

In this instance, it is talking about vaccination and religious freedom – these causes are often linked and used to sell decreased individual liberty as “common sense” to the “sensible” agnostic majority – but vaccination could be any behaviour, and religion any thought or opinion.

Good sense dictates and history demonstrates that anyone promoting “the public good” at the expense of individual liberty is steering society toward tyranny.

If you don’t believe me, simply observe the language used in this kind of editorial…

Respecting religious freedom is important, but it has to be balanced against other rights.

Freedom of religion was never meant to exempt people from societal obligations…

…we cannot allow those with anti-science beliefs to harm others.

The state cannot tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to do. Especially when it’s for the greater good.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Proposes Laws to Remove Religious Exemptions, Parental Consent for Vaccines

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill to remove religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates and two bills that would allow minors to consent to “preventative care,” including vaccines, according to grassroots groups Health Rights MA and Health Action Massachusetts.

Versions of the bill seeking to remove religious exemptions were introduced in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate.

Beth Ingham, a leader of Children’s Health Defense’s New England Chapter since 2022, called the proposed legislation “horrendous.”

If passed, children whose families object to school-mandated vaccinations based on sincerely held religious beliefs would be barred from attending public and private K-12 schools, according to Health Action Massachusetts.

Massachusetts’ lawmakers are also considering An Act Promoting Community Immunity, a bill that would undermine religious exemptions for school-based vaccine mandates and remove parental consent for vaccines in some cases.

According to Health Rights MA, the community immunity bill would:

  • Allow minors to consent to preventative care, including vaccination, without parental consent or knowledge.
  • Allow private daycares, schools and colleges to refuse religious exemptions and impose additional vaccines like the COVID-19 shots, which are not required by the Department of Public Health (DPH).
  • Subject the religious and medical exemptions to state approval.
  • Grant DPH expansive authority to change immunization and exemption requirements.
  • Require doctors to sign religious exemptions.
  • Allow DPH to publicly label programs with immunization rates below a state-defined threshold as “Elevated Risk” and exclude healthy, unvaccinated children, even in the absence of an outbreak or emergency.

Candice Edwards, executive director of Health Action Massachusetts, told The Defender that the state’s Joint Committee on Public Health will soon announce a hearing date for the two bills.

“Once the hearing is scheduled, we’re asking people to show up in person” to testify about why they oppose the bills. “Given the climate specifically for the removal of the religious exemption, we need an army inside that State House testifying.”

Additionally, Massachusetts’ lawmakers are considering a third bill that ostensibly aims at “enhancing access” to abortion but would also allow minors to consent to “preventative care,” including vaccines, without parental knowledge or consent, the groups said on their websites. Versions of the bill have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Keep reading

Supporters Call on Idaho Lawmakers to Override Governor’s Veto of Bill Prohibiting Medical Mandates

Idaho Gov. Brad Little on Saturday vetoed a bill passed by Idaho lawmakers that would have prohibited nearly all medical mandates in the state.

The Idaho Medical Freedom Act was meant to “protect the rights of Idahoans to make their own medical choices free of the fear of losing their jobs or being excluded from normal daily life,” according to the bill’s author, Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund.

The bill, cosponsored by Sen. Daniel Foreman and Rep. Robert Beiswenger, would have prohibited businesses and Idaho local, county and state governments from requiring medical interventions for employment, admission to venues, transportation, or providing products or services.

It also would have blocked schools and colleges in the state from requiring medical interventions for school attendance or entry into campus buildings.

The Idaho House of Representatives passed the bill March 19 in a 47-23 vote, after the Senate voted 19-14 on Feb. 26 in favor of the legislation.

Little vetoed the bill Saturday morning, an hour before the deadline. “Medical freedom is an Idaho value,” Little wrote in a letter explaining his veto, but he said the bill would have jeopardized “the ability of schools to send home sick students with highly contagious conditions.”

Little listed medical freedom measures he had supported in the past but said parents “do not need government imposing more limitations on keeping children safe and healthy from contagious illnesses at school.”

Manookian told The Defender that Little’s claim is “an absolute fabrication” because nothing in the bill changes existing pertinent rules or codes that allow schools to exclude children if they are sick.

“Little is hiding behind a lie,” she added. If a child is sick, “a school has every right to send them home,” she said. They just wouldn’t be able to dictate to the parents how that illness should be treated — they couldn’t force the child to take a test, wear a mask or take a drug.

Keep reading

Iowa takes on Big Pharma: Bill challenges vaccine makers’ liability shield

  • A subcommittee in the Iowa House of Representatives advanced House File 712, which would prohibit the sale and administration of vaccines in the state unless manufacturers waive certain liability protections granted under federal law. The bill specifically targets design defect claims, aiming to hold manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by inherently dangerous vaccine designs.
  • The bill addresses concerns about the VICP, established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which has compensated only 11,671 out of 24,602 claims over three decades. Critics argue the system inadequately serves the public and prioritizes corporate interests over accountability.
  • The 2011 Supreme Court ruling in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth reinforced vaccine manufacturers’ immunity from design defect lawsuits, sparking criticism. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent highlighted the lack of incentives for manufacturers to improve vaccine designs, a concern echoed by advocates like Kim Mack Rosenberg of Children’s Health Defense.
  • The bill reflects growing public skepticism toward vaccine mandates and liability protections, fueled by increased access to information and the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2022 Iowa poll showed only 34% support for mandatory school vaccinations, signaling a demand for greater accountability in the pharmaceutical industry.
  • While supporters argue the bill would restore accountability and improve public trust, opponents warn it could lead to higher costs, reduced vaccine access, and unfounded injury claims. The bill has ignited a broader conversation about balancing corporate responsibility, public health, and individual rights, with potential implications for national vaccine policy.

In a bold move that could reshape the landscape of vaccine accountability, an Iowa House of Representatives subcommittee advanced a bill that would bar the sale and administration of vaccines in the state unless manufacturers waive some of the liability protections granted under federal law. House File 712, introduced by State Rep. Charley Thomson, aims to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by design defects, a move that has sparked heated debate about corporate responsibility, public health, and individual rights.

Keep reading

You Want To Vaccinate My Child? Just Sign This Form

I have yet to meet a Physician that will sign this form now downloaded by hundreds of parents. The reason they won’t sign is two-fold: First, they do not want to place themselves in a vulnerable position of being negligent for not providing informed consent to thousands of other parents; and second, many of them realize after their own extensive research that the risks far outweigh any benefits when it comes to vaccination.

It’s been over a year since hundreds of parents have downloaded this form and there are still no reports of any signatures. Many physicians won’t even look at the form while they dismiss a parent’s anti-vaccination stance as ridiculous. The behavior is a clear indication of a very misinformed Physician who does not have his or her patient’s best interests at heart. They are not willing to inform their patients of the risks, only the benefits they feel are acceptable. They are not open-minded to any other side of the debate except their own bias view passed down through the medical system.

Then are those Physicians who have questioned the vaccination schedules and will pursue their own research. Many of them are now awakening themselves thanks to ongoing research and pressure from parents and even other colleagues to look at other perspectives besides their own indoctrination. If you are pressured by any Physician to vaccinate, please download and print this form (and send us a Physician signed copy if possible). Assertively state to your Doctor that it is the only way you will be fully informed to consider vaccination and that an analysis of the risks and benefits will better allow you to evaluate the decision.

100% of Physicians approached with this form have so far declined to sign it.

Keep reading

North Carolina family can sue over COVID-19 vaccine administered without consent, court rules

A North Carolina mother and her son can sue a public school system and a doctors’ group for allegedly giving the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled.

The ruling handed down Friday reverses a lower-court decision that a federal health emergency law prevented Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit.

Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had ruled against the two, who sought litigation after Smith received an unwanted vaccine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

Smith was vaccinated in August 2021 at age 14 despite his opposition at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family’s lawsuit.

Keep reading

Maine Court Rules Against Family Of Child Vaccinated Without Parents’ Consent At School

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable.

On March 4, the court ruled that school medical staff were protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

The PREP Act provides a liability shield to “covered persons” — including those who administer COVID-19 or other countermeasures — during a public health emergency. COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the PREP Act because they were rolled out under emergency use authorization (EUA).

In November 2021, J.H., a minor, was given a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine.

In May 2023, J.H.’s parents Siara Harrington and Jeremiah Hogan, who said they did not consent to the vaccination, sued Lincoln Medical Partners, MaineHealth and pediatrician Dr. Andrew Russ.

The lawsuit, originally filed in Lincoln County Superior Court, challenged the PREP Act’s liability shield. The complaint alleged battery, negligence, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with parental rights.

Keep reading