Tag: mandatory vaccination

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

Philly DA’s comments about ‘flat-out unscientific’ people come back to haunt in lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine mandate, possible ‘anti-religious hostility’

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the progressive Philadelphia District Attorney must face a lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish former Assistant District Attorney for denying her religious exemption to the office’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Because it was unclear whether the office’s policy was rooted in hostility toward religion, the matter was sent for a jury to decide.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed Rachel Spivack’s case against Larry Krasner (D), the elected District Attorney of Philadelphia whose 2022 impeachment was overturned as constitutionally unsound. As a result, the case will move toward trial.

The panel included Barack Obama appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, and Joe Biden appointees U.S. Circuit Judges Arianna J. Freeman and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves. Freeman penned the 42-page ruling for the panel.

Keep reading

20 US Universities Still Require Covid Vaccine Despite Recent Studies

No College Mandates compiled a list of 20 U.S. universities that still require students to receive the Covid vaccination, despite an ever-growing list of medical research indicating that the gene therapy injections result in major physiological, psychological and reproductive destruction as well as death.

While the majority of U.S. universities required the injection for enrollment in the couple years following it’s initial rollout in 2021, three years on from it’s introduction and with the pandemic mania largely a figment of the past in American’s lives, the mandates have loosened at most campuses for most programs.

One of the strongest holdouts is medical programs at universities.

“Today, almost four years since the COVID pandemic began, nearly all U.S. medical students, nursing students, and students training in other health care fields are still being forced to choose between accepting continual booster doses of the COVID mRNA vaccines or being kicked out of their training programs,”  Dr. Clayton Baker wrote on No College Mandates Substack in March.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to COVID-19 Shot Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected appeals to two COVID shot mandate-related cases brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). In one case, CHD appealed a lower court ruling that the non-profit group lacked standing to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its authorization of the COVID-19 shots for young children. In the other case, CHD challenged the COVID shot mandate for students at Rutgers University in New Jersey.1

The Supreme Court did not issue an explanatory statement along with their denial of these appeals.2 By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the opinions of the lower court to stand.3

Appellate Court Dismissed CHD’s Claims Against the FDA

CHD, together with five sets of parents, sued the FDA over its emergency use authorization COVID shots for minors. The District Court dismissed the case finding that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and the 5th Circuit Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. Plaintiffs alleged that when the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to distribute the experimental biologicals, it did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) reasoned decision-making requirements. Plaintiffs sought an injunction forbidding the marketing or promotion of the shots.4

A Plaintiff will have standing to sue when it has been demonstrated that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is, “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;” the defendant caused the injury; and the injury would likely be redressed by the court.5 The injury must also be concrete, which has been defined as “whether the alleged injury to the Plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”6

The Appellate Court agreed with the District Court that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of showing that their injury was concrete, particularized or imminent, rather than merely speculative.

The Appellate Court wrote:

To begin, it is insufficient that Plaintiff allege that some hypothetical third party might, at some hypothetical point in the future and through some hypothetical means, will vaccinate their children against their wishes.7

The Appellate Court added that CHD also lacked standing because the organization has not “diverted significant resources to counteract” the EUA granted to the COVID shots by the FDA. The Appellate Court ruling went on to state that the Plaintiff also has not shown that the FDA’s authorization, “concretely and ‘perceptibly impaired’” its ability to fulfill their mission. The courts dismissed the action due to lack of standing.8

Keep reading

‘Really Scary’: FBI Asked Employee About Views on COVID Vaccine Mandates During Security Clearance Review

FBI officials asked a longtime employee if he opposed COVID-19 vaccination, supported former President Donald Trump or had ever attended a pro-Second Amendment rally, according to memos obtained by Just the News and published Monday.

Describing the incident as “The New McCarthyism” and a “shocking litmus test,” Just the News reported the memos “prompted a complaint to the Justice Department’s [DOJ] internal watchdog alleging political bias inside the bureau.”

The questions were asked during a spring 2022 security clearance — several months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers and another federal court issued an injunction on the government’s vaccine mandate for federal employees.

The employee’s security clearance was subsequently revoked, Just the News reported, noting that the interviews “confirmed his support for Trump and gun rights and his concerns about the COVID vaccine.”

“I think it’s becoming more and more apparent that we have entered the new American McCarthyism era,” said journalist Kim Iversen on Wednesday’s edition of “The Kim Iversen Show.” Iversen said people are routinely and openly punished for their views and opinions.

She added:

“If you were any of those things that might red-flag you according to the FBI’s security clearance … if you were skeptical of Big Pharma vaccines and if you actually are pro-Second Amendment, a right that’s enshrined in our Constitution, then you potentially are un-American and you potentially need to be red-flagged … or you might just have the propensity to become a terrorist.”

Keep reading

9th Circuit and COVID Jabs

A lot is going around on social media related to the 9th Circuit ruling on Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Alberto Carvalho. There is discussion online that this means mandates are done. Unfortunately – that is untrue. This very short substack is to clarify the meaning of this case.

The case is related whether the mRNA jab mandates were allowed under the law. The important point that people are discussing is the part of the case referencing Jacob v. Massachusetts – the case that is relied on to impose vaccine mandates nationally. In the current case the court essentially held that there is a plausible argument that the COVID jabs do not fall under the definition of “vaccine” as it applies in Jacobson.

In Jacobson, the court allowed a small civil penalty to be imposed if someone refused a vaccine in certain circumstances. The definition of vaccine in Jacobson recognized that to be a vaccine an intervention would necessarily prevent the spread of smallpox. In the current case the argument is that, since the COVID jabs do not prevent the transmission of COVID it is not a vaccine but rather a medical intervention. I agree with that argument but this ruling does not mean that argument was won in court.

Keep reading

American Trapped in Japan Because Non-Citizen Wife Can’t Enter U.S. Without COVID-19 Vaccine Proof

An American citizen is stuck in Japan because his non-citizen wife can’t enter the U.S. without showing proof of taking the COVID-19 jab.

Kion, a U.S. citizen who’s been in Japan for over 15 years, reached out to activist TexasLindsay to tell his story.

Kion met his wife while studying abroad at a language school in Japan around 2009. “We’ve been married for about 15 years,” he said, “and our visa in Japan runs out next year.”

“I’m a U.S. citizen that’s basically stranded outside of the country because my wife [a non-U.S. citizen] is being refused an immigration visa,” he said, explaining that they had applied “about 3 years ago, at the start of the pandemic hoping the madness would be over by the time we got the immigration visa.”

“I thought that since we were moving back, I should look for jobs in the states, and never expected to be stuck this long,” he added.

Turns out the reason Kion’s wife’s visa is being denied is due to the Biden DHS and CDC’s immigration requirement for LEGAL immigrants to show proof a COVID-19 injection within the last 12 months.

Keep reading

‘Indefensible’: Courts finally scrutinize COVID vaccine mandates as religious infringement

Three years after COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to adults – at which point the CDC already knew they couldn’t stop transmission – courts are finally starting to put their foot down on the most basic legal question: Are mandates at least applied fairly, if not scientifically?

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not only knocked down the University of Colorado medical school’s original and revised 2021 mandates for discriminating against employees seeking religious exemptions, but knocked the trial judge for “abuse of discretion” by reversing the burden of proof to moot the case.

The Anschutz campus, whose dental school recently created a diversity, equity and inclusion award, made an early pivotal decision on COVID vaccine mandates by scrutinizing the content as well as sincerity of beliefs among employees and students seeking exemptions.

“The Administration’s September 1 Policy is not neutral on its face; the September 24 Policy is not neutral in practice; and both substantially burden” the religious exercise of the anonymous 11 female and six male plaintiffs, according to the majority opinion by Judge Allison Eid, who replaced Neil Gorsuch when President Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court.

“It is manifestly unreasonable to think” the Sept. 24 policy “would reach precisely the same results … by accident,” Eid wrote. “The Administration had spent weeks or months drafting and implementing a policy hostile toward and discriminatory against certain religions, only to adopt a new, purportedly neutral policy that reached precisely the same results.”

University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad celebrated the ruling for recognizing CU Anschutz administrators “set an indefensible policy,” while the plaintiffs’ lawyers at the Thomas More Society thanked the court for recognizing the university’s “value judgments … reeked of religious bigotry” and violated constitutional rights and “basic decency.”

The ruling is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s narrow finding against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “official expressions of hostility to religion” when it punished Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips for declining to make custom wedding cakes for gay couples based on his Christian view of marriage.

In the private sector, a high-profile vaccine mandate lawsuit by an actor fired from the Fox show “911” is heading to trial over whether Disney-owned 20th Television trampled Rockmond Dunbar’s views as a follower of the Church of Universal Wisdom, which The New York Times profiled in 2003 for its utility in circumventing childhood vaccination mandates.

“It appears that Disney vetted exemption applications on a case-by-case basis, investigating whether the religions constituted true religious institutions and whether applicants actually followed the beliefs,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep reading