Tag: body integrity

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

Gov. DeSantis Seeks Permanent Ban On mRNA Vaccine Mandates And Other Restrictions

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his wife Casey have called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for children, as well as for the state legislature to permanently prohibit mRNA mandates and to add vaccination status protections to the Patient’s Bill of Rights. 

“Guided by common sense and sound science, Florida has led the way in protecting patients’ rights. Now is the time to secure these protections and do even more to defend medical freedom,” said DeSantis (R-Fla.). “Let’s keep Florida the beacon of freedom in health care, where the rights of all patients are enshrined permanently in law.”

“Today, Governor DeSantis, Surgeon General Ladapo, and I called on the Florida Legislature to make permanent the prohibitions against the COVID mRNA vaccine mandate,” said First Lady Casey DeSantis. “Florida stood in the breach to protect people during COVID, now it’s time to make sure these protections last.”

“I am deeply grateful to Governor Ron and First Lady Casey DeSantis for continuing to put the needs and rights of Floridians first,” said State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo. “These proposals will strengthen the sovereignty of patients, and we look forward to advancing these issues with our federal partners at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”

The call to ban mRNA vaccine mandates by DeSantis is a law that already exists in the Sunshine State but is set to expire in June. 

DeSantis said he has no idea why the Legislature added an expiration date in the bill, but he is calling on lawmakers to extend the ban and make it permanent.

Keep reading

Ohio veteran calls for change after being denied heart transplant over vaccine refusal

Ken Long, a 54-year-old veteran from Eaton, has been denied a heart transplant at Christ Hospital due to his refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Long, who was diagnosed with congestive heart failure nearly a year ago, believes the decision is based on his vaccination status.

“When I decide something, I mean it, and if it takes dying, it’s what it is,” Long said. “They don’t know enough about it, and plus it’s already done a lot of damage. People have said blood clots. There are no cardiac issues and our personal religious rights.”

Initially, Long’s wife, Christina, disagreed with his decision.

“It’s my husband. I don’t want to lose my husband,” Christina said. “In the moment, you’re just overwhelmed, and you want to do anything you can to save somebody’s life, and then I had to regroup myself. It’s his right.”

Long now relies on a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to pump blood to his heart.

“I can hardly do anything. If the power goes out, I have to worry about my batteries and my charger,” Long said. “You can’t get wet, so showering is an issue.”

Keep reading

Ontario school children face compelled medical surveillance or suspension

Ontario school children are currently caught in the middle of an ongoing issue regarding student rights, medical privacy, and the power of public health authorities. Under the Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA), students attending Ontario schools are required to be vaccinated against certain diseases unless exempt for medical, religious, or philosophical reasons.

However, the recent push by public health officials to have students disclose their vaccination status and face suspension for non-compliance is raising serious privacy concerns.

The problem lies in the ambiguity between ISPA and the Education Act. ISPA stipulates vaccine requirements, but suspension orders are the responsibility of school principals under the Education Act, not public health authorities. This confusion is leading to violations of students’ fundamental right to a free public education, with some students at risk of being unlawfully suspended for failing to disclose their vaccination status.

The pressure to disclose private medical information is causing significant distress among parents and children alike. There are increasing concerns about the safety of centralized digital health databases, which have been vulnerable to data breaches and unauthorized access. With healthcare data a prime target for cyberattacks, parents are understandably worried about the security of their children’s sensitive medical records—which is big business for hackers.

Parents are resisting this growing pressure, with some viewing the disclosure demands as a violation of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA). PHIPA requires informed consent before the collection of medical information and protects against coercion. However, the current approach by threatening suspension or else puts this principle into question.

The Ministry of Education was contacted for clarification, but media representatives Ingrid Anderson and Brook Campbell failed to respond days later. The inquiry focused on the confusion between ISPA and the Education Act, and how these conflicting laws are affecting students’ right to education. Additionally, clarification was sought on how medical privacy is being protected for parents wishing to uphold PHIPA.

Keep reading

The Compromised FDA Knows Exactly What It’s Doing

The sneaky bastards at the FDA did this a year ago, right under our noses. In January 2024, the FDA finalized a rule permitting Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to waive or even alter informed consent requirements for clinical investigations deemed “minimal risk.” TTR guest author Jon Fleetwood, as always, brings us this news in his excellent reporting. Read his entire article here.

IRBs. Informed Consent. What does it all mean? If you don’t do research, you likely won’t know.

What is an IRB?

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a panel of individuals who review and oversee research studies that involve human participants. The IRB ensures that the studies are ethical and that they comply with all regulations. The IRB’s primary function is to protect the rights and welfare of the human research participants, making sure they are treated fairly, ethically and safely.

Anyone doing research must have an IRB, and that not only applies to direct human research (meaning the human is actually being given a drug or using a device), but also for indirect studies where the patient isn’t “touched” so to speak or actively involved. A direct example would be a clinical trial where a new drug is being tested. The human participants actually enroll in the trial and are given test doses of the medication. Even if a human participant is given a placebo, that research must be covered by an IRB to ensure the patients’ physical and psychological well-being. An example of an indirect study is one in which a company or other research entity is just using data from patients, with no direct patient interaction. In some cases an IRB is still needed to use data that may potentially identify who the subjects are.

The bottom line is that an IRB is needed for any drug, device assessment, survey or other study. And this is what makes the FDA’s ruling so unbelievable. Fleetwood says the implications are staggering, and he is absolutely right:

“Under this waiver, any person’s health data, biospecimens (such as blood or tissue samples), or medical records can be accessed and used for FDA-regulated research if it meets vague and highly subjective criteria.”

Keep reading

Drones Spray ‘Self-Spreading’ COVID-19 Vaccine for ‘Large-Area Inoculation of Humans’ in ‘DEFUSE’ EcoHealth/DARPA Project

  • EcoHealth’s DEFUSE Proposal Exposed: In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance submitted a proposal to DARPA, codenamed DEFUSE, outlining plans to deploy aerosolized immune modulators, chimeric spike proteins, and/or self-spreading vaccines via drones, potentially over humans.
  • Aerosolized Vaccination on Humans: DEFUSE documents explicitly describe large-area aerosol delivery systems for “inoculation of animals/humans,” raising the question of whether these plans were executed on unsuspecting populations.
  • Drone Deployment and Pandemic Origin: The DEFUSE proposal and DARPA’s advanced drone programs suggest a chilling possibility: that drones may have played a role in the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the mainstream lab-leak narrative.
  • DARPA’s Connection to Moderna: By 2012, DARPA was already working with Moderna on RNA-based spike protein vaccines. A 2016 Moderna patent contains a genetic sequence with a one-in-3-trillion match to the pandemic virus, igniting claims of bioengineering origins.
  • Suppression of DEFUSE Details: Whistleblower revelations show attempts by DARPA and intelligence agencies to classify and censor DEFUSE-related research. U.S. senators have demanded investigations into these actions.
  • Self-Spreading Vaccines and Gain-of-Function: DEFUSE documents reveal plans for self-disseminating vaccines and host-to-host therapeutic distribution, indicating the potential use of engineered viruses as vaccine delivery systems.
  • Unprecedented Drone Funding Surge: A 26% spike in military drone funding in 2019 aligns with DEFUSE’s timeline and its drone-based aerosol delivery technologies, hinting at pre-pandemic preparations.
  • International Drone Use During COVID-19: Governments worldwide deployed drones for “disinfecting,” but studies debunk the effectiveness of this practice, raising suspicion about the true purpose of these operations.
  • A Coordinated Bioengineering Agenda?: The alignment of DEFUSE, DARPA, and drone advancements reveals an unsettling intersection of gain-of-function research, bioweaponized delivery systems, and self-spreading vaccines.
  • Urgent Transparency Needed: The DEFUSE project raises alarming questions about the origins of COVID-19, the ethics of aerosolized bioengineering, and the U.S. government’s role in these developments. The public deserves truth and accountability, especially considering a potentially incoming bird flu pandemic.

Keep reading

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling Allows Schools to Administer COVID Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent

Numerous mainstream media outlets are deliberately lying to American parents about the law regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

In August, Vermont’s Supreme Court that ruled a 6-year-old boy administered a COVID-19 vaccine against his parents’ specific instructions that he not be jabbed has no state tort remedies, and that the family’s sole recourse is a federal claim requiring proof of serious bodily harm or death to proceed.

All other traditional causes of action for violating these parents’ rights, and fundamental constitutional informed consent protections for patients, are extinguished completely. And yet, numerous media outlets reported the precise opposite. This is blatant misinformation.

The Associated Press (AP) launched an utter deception titled falsely: “Fact Focus: Vermont ruling does not say schools can vaccinate children without parental consent.” This is the opposite of the truth: Politella v. Windham Southeast School District, et al. held exactly that:

“Other state courts faced with similar facts have concluded that state-law claims against immunized defendants cannot proceed in state court in light of the PREP Act’s immunity and preemption provisions, including claims based on the failure to secure parental consent.”

In support of its abject lie, the AP cited a Vermont Law School professor:

“Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling ‘merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.’

“‘Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,’ he wrote in an email.”

Professor Smolla is an embarrassment to the Vermont Law School of which he is President. Politella specifically holds that all state tort claims, including those alleging willful jabbing, are preempted by federal law.

In observable fact, the court ruled that the Politella family could not proceed with their case — even though the complaint alleges that the school “vaccinated a child against the instructions of the parent.” Where did professor Smolla not learn the law? — a 6-year-old can read the case and see the falsehood of his statement.

The Politella court specifically determined that “each defendant is immune from plaintiffs’ state-law claims, all of which are causally related to the administration of the vaccine to [the minor child] L.P.”

Keep reading

PREP Act Empowers Gov’t to ‘Administer’ Drugs, Biological Products, Devices to Citizens in Secret

Big Picture: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d, grants the government extraordinary authority to deploy countermeasures during public health emergencies. These powers allow for sweeping actions that include administering drugs, devices, or biological products to populations—without requiring public knowledge or consent. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, as part of the Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863), the PREP Act was intended to prepare the nation for biological threats but has since raised questions about accountability and transparency.

Focus: The PREP Act’s language reveals how liability immunity, broad discretion for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and exemptions from disclosure requirements create an alarming framework for secretive government actions.

Keep reading