According to Alan Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others
As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts
According to Robert F. Kennedy, there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. Jacobson sued to avoid the vaccine and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which was $5. When he lost, he paid the fine. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will
According to a recent poll, about half of Americans say they want to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it
1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month
CENSORED DOC DOUBLES DOWN Dr. Daniel Erickson, owner of seven CA urgent care facilities, was thrown into the spotlight after his press conference on the COVID 19 stirred up enough controversy to get censored by YouTube. Here’s Del’s follow-up interview and this doc’s message is clear: he is not backing down. #CensoredDocs
Note: there’s been some confusion over this posting, however it appears to arise for some from the combining of two items. The lawsuit in 2018 & the pulling of funding by the US govt recently (the latter provide 15% of WHO’s funding so clearly not all of it). I’ve added the relevant links for clarity:
Finally, below here is an excerpt from nvic.org that provides the percentages & amounts of funding to WHO:
“Today, the WHO is the world’s largest and most influential public health agency with an annual budget for 2018-2019 of $4421.5M ($4.4 billion). 55 About 20 percent ($956.9M) of the WHO budget is funded by assessments on member states and the remaining 80 percent funded by “voluntary contributions.” The biggest individual programs funded by WHO are for polio eradication vaccine campaigns ($903M); vaccine campaigns for other communicable diseases ($805M); and corporate services/enabling functions ($715.5M).
Currently, the top 10 UN member state annual funders of WHO are the governments of United States of America ($125M); Japan ($49M); China ($40M); Germany ($33M); France ($27M); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ($23M); Brazil ($19.5M); Italy ($19M); Canada ($15M); Australia ($12M). 56
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest non-state funder of the WHO, having donated more than $2B in earmarked grants to the international health agency since 1998, and is the second largest WHO funder overall (after the U.S. government). Because Gates Foundation grant money is earmarked for specific programs, such as vaccine purchase, delivery and promotion, the Gates Foundation significantly influences the setting of WHO’s program priorities. 57 ”
They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were NONE! Zero, zilch, nada!
Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this victory for the American people:
This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been deceiving the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.
This may ultimately mean that the continuing existence — at least in their current form — of five US “healthcare” agencies is now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and the “Health” part of DHHS itself!
This may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and exclusive medical guilds like the AMA.
This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality and effectiveness — meaning that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years.
This case can now be legally cited by all parents fraudulently mandated by any government/ organizational regulation/ requirements that they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop the forced vaccination of their children.
This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be vaccinated in order to retain their jobs.
This case can now be legally cited by all those who seek compensation for vaccine injury.
The future of allopathic medicine in its current form is now in doubt, and the global pharmaceutical cartel, since almost all of the drugs allopathic practitioners prescribe come from pharmaceutical corporations that have also committed vaccine fraud and injury. (edited)
LIABILITY: All government officials who have passed laws legalizing vaccine fraud at the state, national, or international level, or otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud can now be charged with vaccine fraud, criminal malfeasance and in some cases, war crimes under the Nuremberg Code.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
GOOGLE WHISTLEBLOWER TELLS ALL Zach Vorhies, former Google engineer-turned-whistleblower, joins Del in-studio where he reveals what he found while working there, and why he had to sound the alarm on the tech giant.
Absolutely stunning admissions by WHO professionals. Those folk we’re directed to by the ‘fact checkers’ each time we post some truth on the lack of safety of vaccines, or truth according to the parents of vaccine injured children. Innocents taken down by the slack standards of a crowd who profess to have our best interests at heart. For starters we hear that since the ’80s injuries are up from 12.8% to an incredible 54%!! And they have the nerve to tell us the science is settled. It is NOT settled & is clearly illustrated here straight from their OWN MOUTHS!
The director of their Vaccine Confidence Project ADMITS that their biggest problem in our hesitancy is vaccine SAFETY! Next up they are seeing that the PROFESSIONALS (ie Doctors and nurses) are starting to wobble on vaccine safety. They’re losing confidence in safety! They ADMIT Doctors only get half a day’s education on vaccines at med school … get this … IF THEY’RE LUCKY! Not good enough. They’re losing confidence that they can reply to mothers’ questions. So your questioning parents is paying off. They are noticing the gap that you’ve been seeing all along, that your gut’s been telling you whilst they brush your baby’s reaction or even death off as ‘coincidence’. Coincidence is not cutting it any more. There is much more, read the notes below the video & please do watch these so called ‘professionals’ as they blunder through this ridiculous conference devoted to safety. What a farce. Thanks Del Bigtree for exposing the detail on vaccine ‘safety’. EWR
This 56-minute video is condensed from Highwire for easy sharing with your state Representatives, Senators, and US Congressmen and women. Markers are below for skipping ahead. Thank you to Highwire for exposing this conference! Please become a $20/month ICAN supporter: https://www.icandecide.org/support-ican
2:00 Dr. Heidi Larson, PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project says the biggest factor in vaccine hesitancy is vaccine safety.
4:26 Dr. Larson: doctors and nurses are “very wobbly” and “starting to question the safety of vaccines,” and it’s a “huge problem.”
6:20 Dr. Larson: doctors don’t have confidence in vaccine safety to stand up to mothers asking questions. Doctors only got a “half day of vaccine instruction in medical school.” 8:06 Dr. Larson: the WHO’s issue with social media is not vaccine “misinformation,” but that the information “seeds doubt.”
10:24 Dr. Larson admits that global health replaced natural immunity with dependence on vaccine-induced immunity on the “assumption that populations would cooperate.” People got the 6 vaccines in the 1960s-1980s, but now it’s a problem. But since they got the world dependent on vaccines, global health has no choice but to continue pushing vaccines.
13:10 Dr. Larson: there is a lot of safety science needed, they can’t keep repurposing old science that isn’t relevant to the new problem that vaccines are causing.
16:04 Dr. Marion Gruber, FDA, admits that vaccines NEED to have safety monitoring specifically tailored to the one vaccine under consideration. Risk management plans WILL NEED to take into account all of the safety evidence they have. (These safety measures do not exist.)
19:40 Dr. Martin Howell Friede, WHO, cautions vaccine makers against using adjuvants because they cause adverse events. If makers must use an adjuvant, they should use an old one with a “history” (that allows the vaccine maker to say the adverse event wasn’t the adjuvant). The new adjuvants will be accused of causing adverse events, but there will be no new vaccines without adjuvants. His solution is to build confidence, not make them safer.
25:15 Professor Stephen Evans says “It seems that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens they’re added to; they multiply the reactogenicity, so it’s not unexpected they multiply the adverse reactions. Is my thinking is correct?”
27:22 Dr. Friede: the “major health concerns they see are the long term effects of vaccines,” not the sore knot on your arm. Adjuvants act differently with every antigen, and impurities. We need larger studies and we need to measure the appropriate things. 31:28 Dr. Friede: it’s necessary that we figure out how adjuvants work so they can start to assess how plausible it is that adjuvants are causing the major health concerns.
31:38 Dr. David Kaslow, Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access admits that they do their studies on very small groups of people. Says that “one of the things they need to invest in” are better biomarkers and mechanistic understanding of how adjuvants work so they can understand the adverse events.
32:25 Dr. Gruber: one issue that complicates the safety evaluation is the length of follow-up because the longer you study the group, the more “coincidental” adverse events pop up. Giving adjuvants to the elderly may do nothing, but be reactive in younger people. 38:13 Dr. Kaslow: “Coming down the pike relatively quickly is a new target population for us in vaccines: maternal immunization. We don’t have a strong pharmaco-epidemiologic baseline in that target population to say ‘is this an expected adverse event due to pregnancy, or is this the vaccine?’ We need an investment in that study so we don’t derail our pregnancy vaccines as they go into low-resource settings.”
40:07 CDC ACIP meeting vaccinating pregnant women is “off-label.”
41:24 The FDA admitted they have no studies about vaccines and pregnancy.
41:55 Nigerian doctor asks if there are any safety studies on injecting multiple vaccines, from multiple makers, with multiple adjuvants, into a child at once.
44:12 ACIP meeting, the CDC admits they have no data on injecting multiple adjuvants at once, but they recommend it anyway, in different limbs.
45:22 Dr. Robert Chen admits no, they don’t have data on injecting multiple adjuvants at this time, they need to link databases together to “start to answer these types of questions.”
50:01 Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist with the WHO, says in a commercial that vaccine safety tracking is robust, and examining the data lets them promptly address problems. They are “thoroughly monitored.”
52:40 Dr. Swaminathan in the WHO meeting, admits, “We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries. We can’t give answers about the deaths. We need to put mechanisms in place to monitor what’s going on. With many drugs, we only learn about adverse events after they are introduced to the populations.”
Araujo’s wife is a nurse, and they didn’t even question the science behind vaccines until they were expecting their first child, when Araujo’s wife began asking him questions about vaccines.
Araujo relates that as he began to ask questions about vaccine efficacy and safety, the answers were not there. His research showed him that the robust science and quality controls present in regular drug manufacturing did not seem to be present with vaccine manufacturing.
So he and his wife decided not to vaccinate their children, and today they are all “super healthy.”