Tag: body integrity

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

Patients Unknowingly Received Covid Jabs While Under Sedation at Hospitals, US Attorneys Claim

Patients at local hospitals were unknowingly given Covid vaccinations while under sedation, a group of lawyers has claimed.

According to the Freedom Counsel, which defends victims who were affected by the jab and mandates, they’ve received multiple accounts of people who claim they were injected with the experimental mRNA jab while under anesthesia for other medical procedures.

“Were you or a family member covid vaxxed while under sedation? We are hearing stories of this abominable covert act,” Freedom Counsel founder Warner Mendenhall wrote on X earlier this month.

Mendenhall went on to say he’s verified the accounts through health care workers, adding that many patients wouldn’t know if they were jabbed under sedation because it was probably not documented on charts.

Keep reading

Parents Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court After Vermont Courts Ruled Schools Can Vaccinate Kids Against Parents’ Wishes

A Vermont family whose 6-year-old son was vaccinated with an experimental Covid-19 intervention against the family’s wishes has appealed a Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations.    

Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around.      

Parents’ rights are being chiseled away rapidly. In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s Covid-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Opposes Informed Consent to Vaccinations

Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and the current Vice President under the Joe Biden administration, previously served as Attorney General for the state government of California, during which time she served the financial interests of pharmaceutical industry.

For that reason, she makes an appearance in my 2021 book The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board.

Here’s the relevant excerpt:

Paul Thomas’s approach of grounding his practice in the principle of informed consent and focusing on health outcomes stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by the state government of violating informed consent to achieve high vaccination rates.

Oregon, of course, is not alone. All the states have taken the approach of mandating vaccinations for school attendance. In the extremity of its coercion, Oregon was outdone by California, which in 2016 passed a law eliminating “non-medical” exemptions.

However, that did not have the intended effect because it incentivized parents to go to pediatricians who are respectful of informed consent to obtain a medical exemption. The problem, as perceived by those myopically focused on achieving high vaccination rates, was that physicians might grant exemptions “for indications outside of accepted contraindications”, such as on the basis of “family medical history”.

The law was considered to “work” not based on whether it achieved a healthier childhood population but whether it increased the childhood vaccination rate. Pediatricians who would write medical exemptions for reasons such as the patient having a family history of autoimmune disease were regarded as “accomplices”—as though by enabling parents to exercise their right to informed consent they were engaging in criminal activity.

The state Senator who spearheaded the elimination of “non-medical” exemptions, Dr. Richard Pan, subsequently introduced a bill he described as being intended strengthen “oversight” of physicians to stop them from writing “fake” medical exemptions, which were those found by the state “to be fraudulent or inconsistent with contraindications to vaccination per CDC guidelines.” (Emphasis added.)

With the passage of that bill into law in September 2019, the state declared for itself the authority to revoke medical exemptions written by licensed physicians, with the clear warning communicated to doctors that if they write exemptions for any reasons other than CDC-defined contraindications, the state was going to come after them for their “unscrupulous” behavior.

Richard Pan expressed his view on the matter very clearly in a commentary in the AAP’s journal Pediatrics. When physicians write medical exemptions to state vaccine mandates, he wrote, it is “not the practice of medicine but of a state authority to licensed physicians” who are “fulfilling an administrative role” on behalf of the state.

Thus, in Pan’s view, the state’s proper role is to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship by dictating how pediatricians should practice medicine, and informed consent for the parents is not an option.

Keep reading

These 12 Policies Need to Change If We Want True Health Freedom

As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the U.S., we must first define what is meant by health freedom.

A simple definition is the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply or something airborne.

In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience; it’s an imperative.

In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors and chemicals.

Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society that values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another.

Moreover, the government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever — Americans are merely chattel.

Keep reading

We Need Medical Freedom

In a free society, people have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. If you want to take something that “orthodox” medicine says you shouldn’t, this decision should be up to you. If the government can ban “dangerous drugs,” why not dangerous ideas too? As the great Ludwig von Mises points out, “Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

Keep reading

New Zealand legalizes FORCED VACCINATIONS – refusers to be tied to beds and forcibly injected

Can you imagine a dystopian world in which the white coats are allowed to strap people down and force-inject them with whatever poisons the government says the public needs at any given time? Such a world now exists in New Zealand, which just enacted legislation legalizing the use of physical force in order to vaccinate.

Dr. Jonathan Engler tweeted a screenshot – see below – highlighting the specific passages in the bill, as summarized in a report, that authorize doctors to call on law enforcement to essentially strap their patients down on a table kicking and screaming while syringe holders standing nearby release the air bubbles and plunge the injections deep within the patients’ bodies.

“Section 71A states that a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71,” reads a passage under “Special powers” on page 125 of the New Zealand Pandemic Plan: A Framework for Action.

Keep reading

Vaccine by Cop

Heads up New Zealand

Every person alive right now PAY ATTENTION

New laws going in that involve those in charge of civil authority having the ability to use their position, and force for assistance to the chief medical officer of health. THE POLICE

  • for quarantine
  • for assistance with the medical treatment the medical officer of health prescribes

Section 71A

states that a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71.

section 70(1)(f)

The power to detain, isolate or quarantine allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals, or things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected’ 

thus a medical officer can suddenly detain, isolate or quarantine you.

section 70(1)(h)

The power to prescribe preventive treatment allows a medical officer of health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated or quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, AND UNTIL THEY HAVE UNDERGONE SUCH PREVENTATIVE TREATMENT AS THE MEDICAL OFFICE OF HEALTH PRESCRIBES

(va÷÷ine) Va÷÷ine by cop.

This get invoked is easy-

Page 125 of the Pandemic Plan-

“Special powers are authorised

  • by the Minister of Health or
  • by an epidemic notice or
  • apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.”

So lots of ways.

Keep reading

No Means No: The Child in Vermont Said No, So What Good is the Vermont Supreme Court Ruling?

During the height of the COVID19 pandemic debacle, suggestive reasoning in advocating for Federal vaccine mandates was used to nudge the unthinkable. This observation is directed at a 2022 article by Fraser and Neuss in the journal Chest. At a time when it was already known that the vaccines failed to prevent transmission, the authors nevertheless attempted to nudge subtly toward a nationalized approach to vaccine mandates without explicitly stating this position. Their approach is easily criticized for its passive-aggressive tone, lack of clarity, and failure to fully engage with counterarguments.

I will argue that via a detailed analysis of the principle of informed consent. I will argue that solicited, explicit, and voluntary agreement before administering medical procedures, particularly vaccinations, without pretext, coercion or presumption, is a basic human right. The Vermont Supreme Court’s recent ruling, interpreted by some as allowing schools to vaccinate children without explicit parental consent, is highlighted as an anomalous but significant threat to informed consent and parental rights. In particular, in addition to rights to choose (accept or decline) proferred medical options, this ruling potentially enables the state to enroll children in long-term vaccine safety studies without parental knowledge or consent, contravening ethical standards outlined in 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule, and other federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations.

Case examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri (2024) and Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v. Bassett (2023), are used to illustrate the importance of maintaining individual rights and informed consent in public health policies. These cases underscore the necessity for clear legislative frameworks and robust protections to prevent overreach and maintain public trust.

I call for more direct and transparent discussions on vaccine mandates, urging a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and informed consent while addressing public health needs. The current trend of suggestive reasoning and ambiguous policy advocacy undermines ethical principles and fails to provide a solid foundation for public health strategies.

Keep reading