Tag: body integrity

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

‘Really Chilling’: Five Countries to Test European Vaccination Card

Five European Union (EU) countries in September will pilot the newly developed European Vaccination Card (EVC), which “aims to empower individuals by consolidating all their vaccination data in one easily accessible location.

The pilot program marks a step toward the continent-wide rollout of the card, according to Vaccines Today.

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Latvia and Portugal will test the new card in a variety of formats, including printed cards, mailed copies and digital versions for smartphones.

The program aims to “pave the way for other countries by harmonising vaccine terminology, developing a common syntax, ensuring adaptability across different healthcare settings, and refining EVC implementation plans,” Vaccines Today reported.

The plans will be made public in 2026, “extending the EVC system beyond the pilot phases and enabling broad adoption across all EU Member States.”

Keep reading

Pandemics: The Healthcare Dilemma of Our Time

Humans have always faced disease outbreaks, sometimes spreading widely as pandemics. Dealing with these, reducing their frequency, and reducing harm when they occur are important reasons why we now live longer than our ancestors. As human society has progressed, we have become very good at managing risk and harm. A reduction in inequality and evidence-based health policies have been central to this success. Understanding how we got to this point, and the forces that are pulling us back, is vital to maintaining this progress. 

The World Around and Within Us

Infectious disease outbreaks happen. They once defined much of life, removing half the population in childhood and sometimes coming in waves that killed up to a third of entire populations. These historic outbreaks and life-shortening endemic diseases were mostly caused by bacteria, spread through poor hygiene and living conditions. Since we (re-)invented underground sewers, and (re-)understood the importance of clean drinking water and a good diet, mortality has greatly declined. We now live, on average, much longer. The development of modern antibiotics brought another huge step forward – most deaths during the Spanish flu, before modern antibiotics were invented, were due to secondary bacterial infections. 

Viruses also kill people directly and have devastated populations that had been relatively isolated for thousands of years. Measles and smallpox came close to wiping out whole populations, such as those of Oceania or the Americas, at the beginning of the European colonial era. But now, with perhaps the exception of HIV and respiratory viruses in the very frail elderly, the risk to most of us is low. Vaccination has further reduced this risk, but the vast bulk of reduced mortality in the wealthy occurred well before they became available for most vaccine-preventable diseases. This fact was once taught routinely in medical schools when evidence-based medicine was a primary driver of policy. 

Humans have evolved to live with bacteria and viruses, both friendly and harmful. Our ancestors have been dealing with them, in different variants, for hundreds of millions of years. We even contain descendants of simple bacteria within our cells – our mitochondria – containing their own genome. They and our far, far distant ancestors found a happy symbiosis where we protect them, and they provide energy for us. 

We also harbor billions of ‘foreign’ cells within our body – most of the cells we carry are not human but have a completely different genome. They are bacteria living in our guts, on our skin, and even within our blood. They are not an enemy – without some of them, we would die. They help us break food into forms we can absorb, they produce or modify essential nutrients, and they protect us from bacteria that would kill us if left unchecked. They produce chemicals that allow our brains to think critically and face the outside world with humor. Our bodies are a whole ecosystem in themselves, an unbelievably complex and beautiful symphony of life that sustains our being and gives a home and face to our spirit.

Keep reading

The Era of Informed Consent is Over

In a significant blow to patient autonomy, informed consent has been quietly revoked just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremberg Code.

On the 21st of December 2023, as we were frantically preparing for the festive season, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed 

…an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject…

This ruling went into effect on January 22nd, 2024, which means it’s already standard practice across America. 

So, what is the 21st Century Cures Act? It is a controversial Law enacted by the 114th United States Congress in January 2016 with strong support from the pharmaceutical industry. The Act was designed to

…accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st-century cures, and for other purposes [?]…[emphasis added]

Some of the provisions within this Act make for uncomfortable reading. For example, the Act supported: 

High-risk, high-reward research [Sec. 2036].

Novel clinical trial designs [Sec. 3021]

Encouraging vaccine innovation [Sec. 3093].

This Act granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) legal protection to pursue high-risk, novel vaccine research. A strong case could be made that these provisions capture all the necessary architecture required for much of the evil that transpired over the past four years.

Overturning patient-informed consent was another stated goal of the original Act. Buried under Section 3024 was the provision to develop an

Informed consent waiver or alteration for clinical investigation.

Scholars of medical history understand that the concept of informed consent, something we all take for granted today, is a relatively new phenomenon codified in its modern understanding as one of the critical principles of the Nuremberg Code in 1947. It is inconceivable that just 77 years after Nuremberg, the door has once again opened for state-sanctioned medical experimentation on potentially uninformed and unwilling citizens.  

Keep reading

Hospital Pays Job Applicant Who Refused Mandated Flu Shot

A hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., has agreed to pay a settlement to a job applicant who had been offered a position, but then was arbitrarily rejected because he declined to take a flu shot hospital officials demanded.

News of the settlement comes from Liberty Counsel.

The fight involved Trinity Health Grand Rapids, which previously was known as Mercy Health St. Mary’s. The resolution includes a consent decree that allows paying of some $50,000 to the worker who was rejected.

The case originally was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and charged the hospital improperly denied a job applicant’s request for a religious exemption to the flu shot.

The requirement for such shots later was dropped by the hospital, which agreed to train leaders on religious rights in addition to paying the settlement.

“According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, even though the hospital’s former flu shot policy allowed for a religious exemption, the hospital determined the applicant’s articulated religious beliefs were ‘insufficient’ to grant the exemption and denied it without an explanation. Trinity Health, which had made a conditional job offer to the applicant, then rescinded that job offer and did not give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns with his request.”

The EEOC accused the corporation of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The report explained federal law insists that employers make reasonable accommodations for religious employees – unless those accommodations create an “undue hardship” on the company.

Keep reading

New Jersey Bill Would Force Drivers Suspected Of Being High On Marijuana To Provide A Blood Sample To Police

Cannabis experts are concerned about a lawmaker’s attempt to require motorists suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana to provide a blood sample to police.

Critics of the recently introduced bill say it would not only give police more power that would likely be wielded disproportionately against people of color, but they also argue the testing methods called for in the bill don’t even work.

Joshua Bachner, a cannabis attorney at law firm Mandelbaum Barrett, criticized the move as an example of government overreach.

“The state should develop—and there’s many of us in the state happy to coordinate with them—a comprehensive, reliable method for determining impairment,” he said. “But these piecemeal approaches are only going to cause a lot of victimization, frankly, for those who are falsely accused.”

Under current law, anyone in New Jersey who drives is consenting to provide a breath sample if police believe they are driving drunk—it’s called “implied consent.” The new bill would expand that to include a blood test and apply to any narcotic, hallucinogenic or other drug. Someone would be deemed under the influence of marijuana if they test positive for 3 nanograms or more of THC—the chemical that gets cannabis users high.

The push to expand implied consent laws to apply to drivers suspected of marijuana use comes two years after New Jersey’s recreational marijuana market launched, and as legal cannabis becomes more prevalent nationwide.

Keep reading

CDC’s 2024 Child Vax Schedule: All Risks, No Liability

Childhood vaccines stand as a unique consumer product, enjoying unparalleled liability protection from the government. Given the corruption of the healthcare apparatus, it is no wonder that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) keeps expanding the list of recommended childhood vaccines, as happened in early 2024, says attorney Aaron Siri.

In his interview with The New American, Siri explains how the number of vaccine doses recommended for children under one year, including in-utero, surged from three to ninety over thirty-seven years, now including three doses of Covid-19 genetic therapy. This increase stems directly from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers for injuries and deaths caused by CDC-recommended childhood vaccines.

Despite the CDC’s claims of rigorous safety trials, the truth is starkly different, according to the openly available information provided by the vaccine makers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Shockingly, most safety trials last for only several days, in contrast to the several years spent on drugs that are liable to lawsuits. Furthermore, trials for childhood vaccines are conducted against other vaccines, not placebos, raising questions about the reliability of the results. Thus, a complete safety profile for these products is unknown, as highlighted by the attorney.

Keep reading

The Loosening of Rules on Informed Consent

On January 22, 2024, amendments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations (21 CFR 50) covering Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were finalized and implemented. The amendments added a new section 50.22 that allows for exceptions to informed consent requirements for minimal risk research. 

While the addition of section 50.22 harmonizes FDA IRB regulations with the Dept of Health and Human Services (DHHS) IRB regulations (known as the Common Rule: 45 CFR 46) that are administered by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), the handling of the Covid shots over the past 3-4 years should raise red flags. 

Currently, I am chair of an IRB at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency that does research in which vulnerable populations are recruited. As such, I’m well aware that the foundational documents from which the OHRP developed the regulatory framework under which IRBs operate are the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report. 

Back in October 2023, my first Brownstone post, Where is the Office for Human Research Protections, asked the question as to how the approval of a Phase 3 research pharmaceutical product (mRNA vaccines) could be done without the formal involvement of IRBs. Specifically, the Nuremberg Code, covering informed consent, and the Belmont Report, covering among other elements, bodily autonomy, which are foundational to oversight of human subject research, and the requirement for a data and safety monitoring plan were completely discarded. Was the OHRP consulted for its input, and if not, did anyone from OHRP express concern? Given that these protections were put in place in response to medical atrocities (the Holocaust and the Tuskegee experiments), you’d think that they’d be sacrosanct. Think again!

While not providing a direct answer to the question I posed, Debbie Lerman’s posts, Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight and Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two, and Sasha Latypova’s post, EUA Countermeasures Are Neither Investigational nor Experimental, provided a detailed roadmap as to the actions that were actually taken in implementing Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Covid shot. To me, the most significant finding was that the legality of using EUA in civilian populations is rather tenuous, at best. 

With the foregoing as a backdrop, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of the new FDA regulations, noting that in addition to being chair of an IRB, I am also a retired physician, who has been in the healthcare field for 50 years. This includes 19 years of direct patient care in a rural setting as a Board Certified Internist, 17 years of clinical research at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency, and over 35 years of involvement in public health, and health systems infrastructure and administration. As such, I bring a breadth of training, knowledge, and experience to this matter that is fairly unique.

Keep reading

CRIMINAL FDA DECLARES INFORMED CONSENT NULL AND VOID

If we’ve learned one thing over the last three years, it’s that abiding by centuries-old medical ethics, like asking questions, is what White Supremacists™ and domestic terrorists do.

Via the soon-to-be-memory-holed American Medical Association webpage on informed consent:

“Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.

The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.”

That was then.

This is now, when respecting the Science™ requires that you shut your filthy masked mouth and do whatever corporate media news actors and Public Health™ technocrats tell you to do.

Via Federal Register:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). This final rule allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects. The final rule permits an institutional review board (IRB) to waive or alter certain informed consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, under limited conditions, for certain FDA-regulated minimal risk clinical investigations.”

Branch COVIDians surely don’t care about any of this, as they gave up long ago exercising their former right to be fully informed of medical experimentation risks anyway. In fact, they brag about their ignorance and apathy and doglike obedience as if they are virtues.

Listen to the New York NAACP lady explain:

“We must take the vaccine. Now, I’m going to tell you a personal story off script. So, today right after this I am going to have an infusion, and I’m going to have an infusion because I want to make sure that the cancer that was in my body does not return. I’m not asking what’s in the infusion, I’m not looking up all of the ingredients in the infusion, I am sticking out my arm and I am taking the infusion, and that’s what we have to do.” [seal-like clapping from the masked retards behind her]

Keep reading