Incompetent Minor – this is the original problem.

This is what it is really all about – The bottom line – The error was asking the state for a marriage license. – Please read entire document but begin on page 10 with Family Ties. http://www.teamlaw.net/Warn1.pdf – Now I don’t necessarily agree with every word printed here on this or other articles but for the most part, this does describe how we got to this point. Civics being removed from school curriculum hastening the reduction of knowledge of our rights as a people making it easier to mislead the populous. Just asking the govt. for a marriage license gives them the power to own your children. If you have to ask the govt. for a license to marry, you are considered to be incompetent to make any decisions of your own therefore incompetent to look after your children, in the eyes of the law. Very simple logic on their part that we must, as a people understand where they are coming from so we can do something about it. The lawyers helping fight this must come from this angle which is common law, not what they have been taught. Common law is the supreme law of the land and if presented properly always wins. The marriage contract the state told you was required is a tort of deceit in contract law and voids their misrepresented contract.

Marriage

In America, people with children are usually married — with a corporate state granted marriage license. Now, everybody knows that a license is “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal”; and, Where Common Law or better yet, Natural Law marriages are lawfully recognized in every state, it is not otherwise illegal to be married without a license.

Do you remember how you first learned about common law marriages. I was walking to school with a friend. A new family had just moved into the neighborhood and my friend told me they had a common law marriage. I asked, “What’s that?” My friend said it meant they lived together in sin for over seven years, so now their marriage was legal. Most of us learned about marriage from parents, churches, or from school. But, did we learn the whole truth?

The truth is “common law” means the law that is common among the people. We can know what that is by looking at the court rulings among a people and common law is the way the courts rule on the cases before them. Thus another name for common law is standard case law. The seven year rule in common law is actually Biblical. It’s a property law called the “Law of Jubilee”, which says that every seven years (grand jubilee = 50 years) all debts are forgiven, and whatever has been called something for seven years, or more, is what it was called. Though a responsibility in marriage is proven by jubilee, that is not the only limit of natural law marriages. Natural law marriage is defined by “agreement” and “consent”. Jubilee proves the existence of both agreement and consent, because if no one contests the union within seven years jubilee says all contest rights are waived; therefore, any necessary consent was granted by tacit admission.

In a natural law marriage the “agreement” is between the spouses to be — they must agree to be married. “Consent” comes from the father of the bride. He must agree to give his daughter to the bridegroom. Under natural law, if a couple has both agreement and consent they are, by definition, married. That’s all there is to it. The moment agreement and consent are in place the bride and groom are married, and that marriage can lawfully be consummated. Marriages often result in the creation of children. Children are created “in the image of God.” Therefore, such a union is sacred and often tied to a great deal of ceremony, religion, pomp, and circumstance.

Marriage License

Whereas, “license” means, permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal’; and,

Whereas, it is not otherwise illegal to be married under the law; and,

Whereas, the only other reason it would be unlawful for two consenting adults to be married is if they were otherwise incompetent;

Therefore, if a couple goes to “the state” and asks the state for a license, where there is no other reason for them to need a license other than incompetence, in law, those requesting a license must be incompetent because that is the only reason they could possibly need a license.

Now, one must ask, “When a bride and groom are incompetent to be married without a state license and that state grants that license,

Who is responsible for the marriage?” Answer: The grantor, the state.

Who is responsible for anything created in such a licensed marriage? Answer: The grantor, the state.

And, what, typically, is the only thing “created” in such a marriage? Answer: Children.

So I ask you, “Who do the children created in a state licensed marriage belong to?” Answer: They belong to the state.

Believe it, or not. Just check out the evidence:

Evidence #1 — The state social services stand their authority on a doctrine called “Parens Patriae” which is Latin for “parent by the country”. In modern usage parens patriae is understood to mean “the state is the parent”.

Evidence #2 — When U.S. doctors deliver children from the womb they are required to create a document known as a: Record of Live Birth. Is it given to you? No. You’re given a: Birth Certificate. So, what happens to the Record of Live Birth? It’s sent to the, “BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS”. And, what is that? It is a sub department of the, “Department of Commerce”. And, what is the, “Department of Commerce”. It is where the U.S. keeps track of its possessions. This evidence indicates that the state is declaring the children as their possession at birth.

Evidence #3 — New statutes, policies and or procedures require hospitals to assign Social Security Numbers to each child before birth, with or without the natural parents signature or permission. (read “Independence Day” in this issue)

Evidence #4 — Why are each of the childbirth performing hospitals in the U.S. registered as “Ports of Entry” into the U.S. when virtually none of them have incoming foreigners?

Evidence #5 — Birth records and Census reports are used as collateral for U.S. loans and as proof of the subservient nature of the people under control of the U.S. government. It’s Scary. It’s proof of the war. It’s fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. And, if we don’t do something to change things we’ll have no promise from the King of Kings (other than judgment).

So what do we do? First we learn what happened. In times past, there were no licenses of marriage except in cases where it was unlawful to otherwise marry. For example, Biblical Law shows God sanctions marriage and forbids intermarriage of races. Therefore, the contract of marriage is traditionally bound by a religious ceremony provided by an official minister; and, the laws of the land forbade miscegenation. So, when a white person wanted to marry a black, if the state was willing on request, it would license miscegenation with a marriage license. Marriage records were kept in family Bibles, then with the advent of licenses, in the County Clerk and Recorder’s offices. Statutes were created to allow anyone desiring a license to obtain one. Churches were used to assist in getting people to use marriage licenses as a manner of recording marriages. Over time, people began to believe licenses were required by law, even though they were only required if you were otherwise incompetent to marry. Now, remember, the promise given to Israel was, if we maintain our stewardship, we’ll inherit the earth. Our stewardship starts with our families.

Isn’t it ironic that the document typically used to begin a marriage is the same document used by the corporate state to remove our children from us?

And, nobody ever even warned us, because government employees were just doing their jobs. Whenever we discover we’ve erred, we can repent. The error was asking the state for a marriage license. Repenting includes fixing the damage. Some people would tell you, ‘To remove the marriage license you have to revoke or rescind your signature from the request for the license.’ However, as a matter of law, revoking or rescinding a signature admits you signed it in the first place. What if you never signed the request for license? Then there would be no license in existence. In contract law there is no signature if full disclosure is not given with presentment of the agreement.

In the case of most marriage licenses, the state does not inform:

  1. The grantor of the license is a privately owned corporation;
  2. Licensing with them wasn’t necessary for the marriage;
  3. Requesting a license constitutes a declaration of incompetence; and,
  4. Signing such a license admits the state is the responsible parent of your future children, and will be used by them as state collateral.

Therefore, if any of the above points are true in your case, then the contracting license is void and without a lawful signature, from the beginning.

So what about your marriage? Legal & Lawful Marriage? Well think about it. If the two of you went to get a “required” license, you must have had agreement. And, if you had her father’s blessing you had his consent and therefore under Natural Law (Biblical Law) you were married without the license before the license was issued.

The churches rightfully want people to have “legal and lawful” marriages.

A natural law marriage is a “lawful” marriage, meaning it fulfills law. The accent in the lawful marriage is the fact that the parties of the marriage have an agreement, they have the fathers consent and they are bound by their acceptance of, and consummation of, the marriage.

A “legal” marriage indicates a written contract of marriage. The written legal record for a legal marriage evidences the authority the marriage was bound by.

All you have to do to make a lawful natural law marriage “legal and lawful” is, make a legal record of the union made under natural law. In other words, if you legally record your contract of marriage with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a record is a legal record and the natural law marriage is both a lawful fact and a matter of legal record; thus, “legal and lawful”. Even if your original marriage agreement was verbal, you can later legally reduce it to writing and make it binding from the first moment of your agreement and consent by making your contract “nunc pro tunc”, which means, “now as if then”.

Knowing these things prior to marriage brings on some interesting questions especially if you or the father of the bride have religious beliefs (like I do) that cause you to desire to go through an ecclesiastic leader that may be unaware of the truth and therefore believes you have to have a state issued marriage license. The solution is simple. If it was me, I would obey the law. With agreement and consent, I would:

1/ create a Notice of Marriage stating: I and my spouse to be have an agreement to marry,

2/ show we have consent of the bride’s father, and,

3/ give notice of the intended ceremony which when performed will bind, seal and/or begin the Marriage union.

4/I would have all related parties sign the document.

5/ I would then go to the County Clerk and Recorder’s office and legally record the Notice with the marriage licenses.

6/ I would then get a couple of state certified copies of the Notice.

7/ I would take a state certified copy to the ecclesiastic leader as evidence of the legal right to lawfully marry.

In Law your Notice has a greater authority than the state issued marriage license. The authority you will be using is the authority of natural law in original jurisdiction, as was endowed upon man by birth.

It is the same authority and power that makes you sovereign. It follows law. The Notice is in accord with the laws of the individual states and is binding.

Taking your Family back

This problem started many years ago. It won’t be removed overnight. The state took charge of our stewardships because we signed the agreement and or allowed it. People are a great source of wealth. If the state can convince you that you are under their control, as their asset or subject, then you won’t control them.

We are living with alleged contractual bonds to parens patria, and we have been doing so in condemnation for at least three generations. It’s time we recognized the truth. It’s time to take responsibility for our families, our stewardships and our lives. Removing the marriage license won’t remove the entire problem in and of itself. It will, however, remove the foundation upon which the state builds its entire “parens patria” doctrine. With the state’s foundation removed you’ve taken the

first step to prepare for any battle that may come up where the state attempts to use social workers, or other forces, to interfere with your family rights. You’ll be beginning to act like the sovereign you are. If your marriage is not made under their authority, they have no lawful right to interfere with your family unless you invite them to.

Step two: Stop inviting them to solve your family problems. Be self reliant. It doesn’t mean they won’t ever interfere. It does mean that if they do you’ve disarmed their #1 weapon from their presumption. You’ll need to learn more and to prepare to turn back any attack they bring against you, but foundationally you’ll be ready. Even after we resolve our marriages, the problem is, the system that set up the parens patria system of control still exists and government officials still want us to believe we are their incompetent servants. We need to solve that problem by eliminating the incompetence; thus, Step three: You’re sovereign and therefore you’re responsible, so start acting like it.

Learn the Law — Obey and apply it, and when others trespass against you or yours, mercifully and justly hold them accountable to their trespasses. Accountability is the key. If you’ll do it you’ll be well on the path to true freedom and liberty, and we’ll get our nation back. Team Law can help. That’s why we’re here, to help people wake up and learn the law. Re-tie Family Ties Typically for about the same reasons we had the marriage license problem we have the problem of raising our children in that same system that taught us we needed to have the marriage license.

That system wanted us to be incompetent workers providing all of the “government’s needs”, believing the “government” was supposed to provide our needs. When in reality we are responsible for providing all of our own needs and government’s responsibility is to govern itself and help us maintain our rights and property, without trespass.

The question is, “What are we allowing that system to teach our children?” Perhaps the question should be, “Why are we allowing that system to teach our children?” You don’t have to take your children out of the public school system. Though many have, successfully. However, if your children remain in the public school system, you must take an active part. At the very least pay attention to what your children are learning. I’m not referring to the school’s alleged subject matter, I’m referring to the public school’s end results: drugs, immorality, codependency and crime. You decide what’s best for your children. After all, ultimately, when it comes time for you to stand accountable for your stewardship, you won’t be able to blame the school for the outcome. After all, you are the sovereign.

See full articles here: http://www.teamlaw.net/Warn1.pdf

The Supreme Law of the Land

“Law of the Land”, “Due Course of Law” and “Due Process of Law” are synonymous. – People v. Skinner, Cal., 110 P.2d 41, 45; State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323, 326; Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R.1058; Stoner v. Higginson, 316Pa.481, 175A. 527, 531

“All laws, rules and practices, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void” – Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution), it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, no courts are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

“Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as [to] his/her conduct to[wards] others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US22, at 24.

“A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113

HEP B TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BELKIN BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES — CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (February 17, 1999) — Atlanta Georgia

HEP B FOR YOUR INFANT ! Rethink it ! Here is a fathers testimony about his now Dead baby!

Thanks Laura:
Q. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BELKIN BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES — CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (February 17, 1999) — Atlanta Georgia

My name is Michael Belkin. I am a father, businessman, former quantitative strategist at Salomon Brothers, and Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center(NVIC).

The NVIC has studied Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act covering the last nine years on hepatitis B vaccine adverse events — and in 1996 there were more than three times as many reported serious adverse reactions as reported cases of the disease in the 0 to 14 age group. Of the total 2,424 adverse event reports made between 1990 and October 1998 in children under age 14 who only received hepatitis B vaccine, there were 1,209 serious events and 73 deaths. Thus, one half of the reports for children under age 14 who received only hepatitis B vaccine were for serious events that required an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or caused life-threatening health problems or permanent disabilities.

As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.

A benefit/risk analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine for the average infant in America, not born to infected parents, must conclude that the VAERS data on adverse reactions shows the real-world risk of a newborn infant dying or being injured by the hepatitis B vaccine is a greater threat than the remote chance of contracting the primarily blood-transmitted disease.

My 5-week old daughter, Lyla Rose, died within 16 hours of her hepatitisB vaccination, which she received because of the universal vaccination policy this Committee instituted in 1991. At her death, Lyla had four of the eight highest-reported symptoms in the VAERS hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction data. The NY Medical Examiner observed brain swelling at the autopsy but refused to record that or mention the hepatitis B vaccine Lyla received in the autopsy report.

I hold each one of you who participated in the promulgation or perpetuation of that mandated newborn vaccination policy personally responsible for my daughter’s death and the deaths and injuries of all the other beautiful, healthy infants who are victims of the hepatitis B vaccine. Your negligence is the proximate cause of my daughter’s death and you have failed to exercise reasonable care.

At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical — and is a crime against the children of America.

General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent – Ralph Fucetola JD

General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent
Ralph Fucetola JD

INTRODUCTION
Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination. Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished. The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Vaccination.

Informed Consent FAQs: http://drrimatruthreports.com/advance-vaccine-directive-card-faqs/
Law Note on Informed Consent and the Geneva Conventions:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/the-sources-of-the-law-the-right-of-informed-consent/

In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.

Introduction

Point One: The Legal Basis for Informed Consent Point

Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation

Point Three: International Law Protects Informed Consent

Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected

Point Five: The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions

Conclusion .

Point One: The Bill of Rights’ Speech, Privacy and Association Rights are the Basis for Informed Consent.

Implementing the general law as applied to the protection of human life is mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the courts “are not without power…” regarding vaccination in the case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts[1] . In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming medical intervention without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass:

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”[2]

Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board (IRB – required for FDA approved medical experiments) overseeing experimentation.[3] The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “final stage” of experimentation on drugs (including vaccines) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation, “…Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks…”[4] . With regard to all communications about health care decisions, the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions, even if a decision may be considered a “bad” decision by the Government. The Supreme Court indicated, in Thompson v Western States[5]:

“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.” . The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials[7] and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties, including the death penalty. The Geneva Conventions (the international treaties that govern humanitarian requirements) [8] require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles. Thus the United States is treaty-bound to implement fully Informed Consent.

informed consent 1

Even in an emergency situation the Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion…”[9]

The public has a right to know, and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide, clear information regarding the Informed Consent, to the end that government approvals, requirements, mandates and recommendations are understood to be subject to the Right of Informed Consent. Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right.

Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation

Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest in Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates in Violation of Informed Consent.

In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant “advertised himself as a ‘nonmedical physician’… [and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by ‘a system of drugless healing’…” p.401.

That Court held that there could be no “state system of healing” p.402 and while “Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined… those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the ‘practice of medicine and surgery’ as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases…” p.402.

There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in State v Biggs, supra., at p.405:

“Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, ‘Forbid them not.‘” (p.405).

FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system.[10]

Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual’s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent, the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principle that “silence is acquiescence”[11] martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that you consent to even experimental medical interventions, as we saw imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic[12]. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”.

After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.

A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [and therefore meaningfully willing] consent.

This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and
Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…”[13]
.
informed consent_raggedy ann

Point Three: International Law Protects the Right of Informed Consent

Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration[14]and the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”[15]

“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”[16]

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”[17]

This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated, such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration [18] about which it has been said:

Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR, ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “general principles of law” under article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The reference to “civilised nations” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.[19]
Informed Consent defining

Defining Informed Consent

“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “‘informed consent.’” Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.”[20]

.Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Preserved

Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived. International Humanitarian Law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized informed consent, it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld.

The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.[21]

.The Court opined,
Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” (page 15; emphasis added).

If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe”[22] will also give rise to such concerns.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. Without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society, including the Right to Informed Consent.

An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.

While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake:
…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” [Emphasis added.][23]

In a regime of verbal obfuscation of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…” If McNeely had not engaged in protected speech stating he did not consent, the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed.

The question then becomes, “How is one to effectively assert the Right to Informed Consent, enshrined in International Humanitarian Law, for oneself and those over whom one has guardianship?” Thus, there is a need for strong Statutory and Regulatory protections for the Right, whether exercised by Advanced Medical Directive or otherwise, in situations that do not involve a formal IRB.
Access to the AVD Card Here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/advancevaccinedirective

Regulatory Petition to FDA Here: http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentPetition

Model Protective Law Here: http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentProtection
informed consent 3

Point Five: Government Action Imposes an Unconstitutional Condition
on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Informed Consent

The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in the case before any Court wherein a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from the public benefit of public education, required by law for all children. Any law, regulation or policy imposing school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with denying his or her own expressed beliefs or preferences (beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment) or denying the child access to public education, is an action “under color of law” that forces coerced consent..

This is precisely the type of duress condemned by the Nuremberg Code.

It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees.
We do not pretend to more expertise on the issue than the Court’s own pronouncements.

The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 543 (1876) (Badley, J., dissenting) “Though the State may have the [police] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions…

In Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583,594 (1925) the Court held it “would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.”

More recently the Court applied the principle to First Amendment speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved. In Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958)
“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”

And finally, of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972):
“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”

CONCLUSION

It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty, Speech, Assembly and Petition Rights. Rather, these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be, together, “expressive association.”
informed consent 4

We consider meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law. Truly, no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions.

There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government, or persons acting under color of state law, as are those who act to abrogate conscientious objections to mandated vaccines, can force a free and competent adult (or a child under the protection of such adult) to receive any medical treatment. That the treatment may be vaccination, which is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and, according to many courts, “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, rather than a slave. No free society can tolerate any such imposition.

“Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” – Thomas Jefferson[24]

Ralph Fucetola JD
Attorney at Law in New Jersey
1971 – 2006

PS: I’d like to recommend Mary Holland’s spirited defense of Informed Consent here:

———————————————-

[1] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

[2] Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)

[3] http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126431.htm

[4] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm

[5] Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357)

[6] omitted

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

[9] http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html

[10] “Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks, benefits, and optimal use, or to test the product in different populations of people, such as children.”
Downloaded July 8, 2015: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm

[11]qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ubi loqui debuit ac potuit“, that is, “when he ought to have spoken and was able to”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29

[12] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

[14] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties,and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for thehumanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the
agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

[15] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[16] http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html

[17] http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html

[18] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html which provides: Article 6 – Consent –1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [Emphasis added]

[19] http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/3/173.full

[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

[21] Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US _ (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely

[22] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.”https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html

[23] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

[24] http://www.successwallpapers.com/wallpapers/0068-liberty.php

EMAIL BLAST California senators and assembly members to STOP MANDATING VACCINES or they will be voted out of office.

vaccine ca senate and assembly member votes

Senator.allen@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.anderson@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.bates@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.beall@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.berryhill@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.block@senate.ca.gov, Continue reading EMAIL BLAST California senators and assembly members to STOP MANDATING VACCINES or they will be voted out of office.

Lawyers who may HELP you avoid vaccinations or provide legal representation for vaccine injury

********************************************

healthcare workersREGARDING MILITARY EXEMPTIONS:

I have helped many military members, families and children in military schools and daycares legally avoid required immunizations. There are medical and administrative exemptions, and under administrative is a religious exemption. There are multi-branch regulations, and in some cases, additional branch-specific regulations. There are also federal statutes and federal Constitutional laws and protections that apply.

In fact, I have twice written to top Navy medical people in Washington, D.C. and gotten them to agree to revise unconstitutional Navy regulations concerning religious exemptions and exemption procedures, but the exemption rights were there before that (just unconstitutionally over-restrictive).

BUT, you have to know what you’re doing, how to approach it, so I do recommend that persons serious about an exemption in the military (and any situation where, regarding religious exemptions, you have to state your religious beliefs) get professional help. After helping 1,000’s of people better understand their rights, I have seen that most people’s common sense approach to stating their religious beliefs (when you have to do that–sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t; in the military, you do), is not fully consistent with the way the law works. What matters when you have to state your beliefs is that your stated beliefs meet the legal requirements, and not just what you may think is “religious” personally.

Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney, the nation’s only attorney whose practice is focused on vaccine exemptions and vaccine legislative activism. http://www.vaccinerights.com/

********************************************

Regarding Vaccines, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for Vaccine Damages, and HHS/FDA

Attorney Walter Kyle of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, began representing Plaintiffs with vaccine injuries ten years before the Vaccine Injury Act began, and has argued more than forty cases before the Special Masters of the United States Court of Federal Claims [under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act] – 42 U.S.C.A. §300aa, et.seq. As a result, Attorney Kyle has unique insight into the nuances of vaccine injury law.

To start our interview, may I ask how you became involved in vaccine law?

I began representation of vaccine-injured clients in Arkansas in 1977. My first case out of law school was representing a paraplegic mother who acquired paralytic polio from mutated Sabin live trivalent oral polio vaccine [TOPV] viruses shed from her three-month-old infant’s diapers. Centers for Disease control classified the woman in the “immune deficient” category of “vaccine associated contact cases” from Type 2 Sabin vaccine.

Walter, you just mentioned the phrase “vaccine viruses shed.” For those who are not familiar with such terminology I’d like to say it means certain types of vaccines contain certain viruses that are alive and once injected into [orally administered to] an individual can infect others via contact with bodily fluids, excrement, and sometimes coughing or sneezing. In your first vaccine case, the mother contracted paralytic polio from viruses “shed” in her infant’s diapers soiled with urine and feces.

Walter, how did you present that case at court?

In the first case against the manufacturer, American Cyanamid, which defended based on the fact that the woman was categorized as “immune deficient” and implied the reaction was her fault, I countered with the position that the Type 2 vaccine caused her immune deficiency since she had never been sick in her life before contact with that vaccine. After settling that lawsuit against the manufacturer for failure to warn, I instituted a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit against HEW for regulatory violations in the license and release of OPV, in general, and the individual Lot of polio vaccine, in particular. In addition, I challenged the FDA’s intention to use Sabin’s live oral polio vaccine (OPV) for immunization of unwitting contacts of vaccine recipients as an unconstitutional invasion of their privacy (see Loge v. United States, 662 F.2d 1268 8th Cir. 1981), which evolved into civil actions of “battery” against the sole manufacturer of the Sabin vaccine –American Cyanamid.

Read the entire article here: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/exposing-fdas-vaccine-injury-cover-up.html

***************************************************

Over 100 Seniors Die After Receiving Flu Shot – Rite Aid Consent Form

image credit: pixabay

Over 100 Seniors Die After Receiving Flu Shot

This gives new meaning to the term, “conflict of interest.” Two clinical trial studies were performed to determine the safety of flu shots on elderly people. The studies, conveniently enough, were funded by Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine maker.  The studies were to be used as evidence of safety for the flu shot when given to elderly people. But both studies proved that the flu shot is anything but “safe,” and is in fact, a health hazard for the elderly.

Teleconference – The National Liberty Alliance

The National Liberty Alliance (SPECIAL) – Justice for We The People
A LIVE teleconference with:

Roger Landry (TLB) – Host, Founder of The Liberty Beacon Project
Randy Maugans – Co-Host, Off Planet Media Owner/Dir., TLB IT Dir. & TLB Radio Network Dir.
John Durash – National Liberty Alliance Founder and Facilitator
Gerard – National Liberty Alliance Founder and Facilitator

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com

The National Liberty Alliance: The difference between Common Law and the Law practiced in our courts today, called Statutory Law, is simply as follows: Common Law upholds the Constitution for the United States of America with its capstone Bill of Rights above all Statutory Law; Whereas Statutory Law is held above the Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights, and therefore your rights are whatever our elected servants may choose it to be for you at the time. This is what NLA is endeavoring to change in our courts and thereby bring all our elected and appointed servants back under the chains of the Constitution because right now you are under the chains of your servants, this is the definition of tyranny.

 

Vaccines – news from NY, NC, IL, France, flu shots for dogs…

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thevaccineagenda/2016/01/05/vaccines-news-from-ny-nc-il-france-flu-shots-for-dogs

Join Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, J.D. as he discusses recent vaccine news including a New York legislator’s hands in the pharmaceutical money pot, flu shots for pregnant women, 13 cases of whooping cough in vaccinated students in NC, the significant increase in anti-vaxxers in France over a 5 year period, flu shots for dogs in Chicago, expert opinions about the true agenda of those at the top of WHO agencies and pharmaceutical companies, and more!

Email Attorney Phillips at attorney@vaccinerights.com during the week and listen to your answer live on the air or in the archives.

Find vaccine studies at vaccineresearchlibrary.com, and

sign up for the Vaccine Rights E-Newsletter at vaccinerights.com/newslettersignup.html, and

listen to ad-free archives at the new Vaccine Rights YouTube Channel.

THE TOP 10 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: VACCINE STANCES

http://www.dinnerforthought.com/blog/the-top-10-presidential-candidates-vaccine-stances

The real question should be, which candidates own stock in any vaccine manufacturing companies?

Continue reading THE TOP 10 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: VACCINE STANCES

Allegations of Scientific Misconduct by GACVS/WHO/CDC Representatives et al An open-letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan

http://thinktwice.com/Scientific_misconduct_by_WHO_and_CDC.pdf

Allegations of Scientific Misconduct by GACVS/WHO/CDC Representatives et al.
An open-letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan chanm@who.int

Cc: The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, www-admin@nhlw.go.jp
Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, shiozaki@y-shiozaki.or.jp
Thomas Frieden, Director CDC, tomfrieden@cdc.gov
Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, The University of Auckland, s.mccutcheon@auckland,ac.nz

From: Sin Hang Lee, MD shlee01@snet.net

Date: January 14, 2016

Dear Dr. Chan:

As a medical doctor and scientist, I write to present grave concerns regarding the conduct of certain members of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), the World Health Organization, the CDC and other scientific/health professionals during the time shortly before the public hearing on HPV Vaccine Safety which was held in Tokyo, Japan on February 26, 2014. I have come into possession of documentation which leads me to believe multiple individuals and organizations deliberately set out to mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil® and Cervarix®, which were being promoted at that time.

I am sure you are well aware of the controversy currently surrounding these vaccines on a global level. I am also sure you are aware of the fact that public confidence in national and international health authorities is at an all time low throughout the world.

Should the information in this letter prove to be accurate, nothing short of an immediate independent investigation resulting in appropriate disciplinary actions for those involved will be able to restore the public trust. Therefore, I implore you to act quickly and decisively regarding this critical public health issue.
FOI Request and Significant Related Communications A series of emails recently uncovered via a Freedom of Information request submitted in New Zealand revealed evidence that Dr. Robert Pless, the chairperson of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), Dr. Nabae Koji of the Ministry of Health of Japan, Dr. Melinda Wharton of the CDC, Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris of Auckland University, New Zealand, and others (including WHO officials) may have been actively involved in a scheme to deliberately mislead the Japanese Expert Inquiry on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety before, during and after the February 26, 2014 public hearing in Tokyo. I believe the information supplied by this group led directly to the issuance of the GAVCS statement on the continued safety of HPV vaccination on March 12, 2014 which contains the following paragraph:

“Several papers have also been published pertaining to the finding of HPV L1 gene
DNA fragments in clinical specimens following HPV vaccination [13, 14]. These papers
claimed an association with clinical events of an inflammatory nature, including
cerebral vasculitis. While the GACVS has not formally reviewed this work, both the
finding of DNA fragments in the HPV vaccine and their postulated relationship to
clinical symptoms, have been reviewed by panels of experts. First, the presence of
HPV DNA fragments has been addressed by vaccine regulatory authorities who have
clearly outlined it as an expected finding given the manufacturing process, and not a
safety concern [15]. Second, the case reports [13] of adverse events hypothesized to
represent a causal association between the HPV L1 gene DNA fragments and death
were flawed in both clinical and laboratory methodology [16]. The paper described 2
fatal cases of sudden death in young women following HPV vaccine, one after 10 days
and one after 6 months, with no autopsy findings to support death as result of
cerebral vasculitis or an inflammatory syndrome. Thus the hypotheses raised in these
papers are not supported by what is understood about the residual DNA fragments
left over following vaccine production [17]: given the extremely small quantities of
residual HPV DNA in the vaccine, and no evidence of inflammation on autopsy,
ascribing a diagnosis of cerebral vasculitis and suggesting it may have caused death is
unfounded.” (the references 13-17 quoted were those listed in the GACVS Statement)

I believe this paragraph to be deceitful based on the following analysis:

The first sentence, “Several papers have also been published pertaining to the finding of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in clinical specimens following HPV vaccination [13, 14]” was apparently constructed for dissembling and designed to mislead. The study in reference 13 Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental? Pharmaceut Reg
Affairs 2012, S12:001] was about HPV L1 VLPs. The authors of reference 13 never mentioned HPV L1 gene DNA fragments at all. Dr. Pless knew the difference between HPV L1 VLPs and HPV L1 gene DNA fragments because in his February 18, 2014 email addressed to Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris and the others involved in this scheme, Dr. Pless specifically asked Dr. Petousis-Harris to address her “statement regarding the alleged role of aluminum binding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects.” (see copy of February 18, 2014 email attached- It was not about HPV L1 VLPs).

One cannot help but conclude that Dr. Pless intentionally put these two unrelated articles together and claimed that both articles studied HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in order to mislead the non-scientific readers and vaccination policy makers.

Click link above for full article/letter.

Posting FOIA Documents on HPV Vaccine Cover Up by Officials

January 23, 2016, Posted by: , Leave a Comment

Post image for Posting FOIA Documents on HPV Vaccine Cover Up by OfficialsIn case you have not heard, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a scientist and doctor, has written an open-letter of complaint to Dr. Margret Chan, the Director-General of theWorld Health Organization (WHO) alleging misconduct and cover up of HPV vaccine dangers by global health officials. The source of information for Dr. Lee’s letter is a trail of emails and other communication between global health officials obtained via an Official Information Request in New Zealand.

The trail of communications provides evidence that global health officials knew that HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix cause a dangerous inflammatory response greater than other vaccines but reassured the public that the HPV vaccines were safe, aided by a seemingly dishonest New Zealand doctor. Read our post on these revelations to get the full story.

Dr. Lee asked us to post the entire trail of communications on our website for the entire world to see and review.

Please spread the word and look for yourself to see what these officials charged with protecting the public health are really up to.

Official Information Request Document

Officials Cover Up Dangers of HPV Vaccines

January 23, 2016, Posted by: , Leave a Comment

Post image for Officials Cover Up Dangers of HPV VaccinesReports of official cover ups of vaccine dangers seem to be a recurring theme. Last year Dr.William Thompson a senior CDC scientist turned whistleblower revealed that he and other scientists and officials at CDC altered data in one of CDC’s studies to conceal the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Then as detailed by Congressman Bill Posey in his official comments on the floor of the US House, this same group of scientists and officials met in a conference room and covered their tracks by destroying the documents.

Now comes news that health officials like Dr. Melinda Wharton of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as officials from Japan, other nations and the World Health Organization all participated in covering up the dangers of HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix.

Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD, Director, Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, has submitted an official, open-letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Margaret Chan, alleging gross misconduct, malfeasance and what potentially amounts to criminal behavior to mislead the global public regarding the safety of HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix.

Dr. Lee’s lengthy letter detailing communications between global health officials documents that these officials knew that HPV vaccines cause an inflammatory reaction greater than other vaccines, yet reassured the public in official hearings and statements that the vaccines were safe, aided by a seemingly dishonest New Zealand doctor.

Specifically, certain chemicals contained in the HPV vaccines have been demonstrated to trigger the release of cytokines or proteins called tumor necrosis factors (TNF) in the body. TNF cytokines can cause cell death. The release of TNF can also result in a wide range of reactions such as tumor regression, septic shock (serious whole-body inflammatory response that can result in dangerously low blood pressure and death), and cachexia (a wasting syndrome where the body loses weight, becomes fatigued, and muscles atrophy). Administration of TNF has been proven to cause death in humans and animals.

The chain of emails shows what appears to be attempts to conceal the truth, cover up the dangers, and generally mislead the public about what is and is not known about HPV vaccines and the dangers inherent to them.

The officials discuss how to respond to the safety concerns raised by legitimate scientific inquiry rather than how to ascertain the true extent of the dangers uncovered in the independent research.

Official statements appear to be a deliberate attempt to confuse the public into believing the safety concerns have been addressed in the peer-reviewed, published scientific literature when this is not the case. They imply that two different chemicals in the vaccines, HPV “virus like particles” and HPV DNA fragments are the same and that science has proven they are not dangerous but neither assertion is true. They are not the same and the only “science” is something ghost-written by CDC and a blogpost written by the aforementioned seemingly dishonest New Zealand doctor. Proof of this claim does not exist in the published, peer-reviewed literature.

The open letter, alleging what amounts to crimes against humanity if they are proven true, is a wake-up call to officials around the world. An immediate investigation must commence, and all HPV vaccines should be withdrawn from the market immediately.

In addition, all vaccines should be subjected to further review, and a Congressional investigation of CDC Whistleblower William Thompson must commence.

You can read Dr. Lee’s open letter to the WHO Director-General here.

You can read the entire chain of communications obtained by an Official Information Request in New Zealand here: Official Information Request Document.

The UCC Connection – How to Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny – Howard Freeman

 The UCC Connection (Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207) – How to Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny – Howard Freeman

Published by ruralkiller

By reading this you will get a little better understand of the UCC. Read it and impower yourself to a certain degree cause this document is only a a drop of water into a very big bucket !!

More info:

Categories: Types, Research, Business & Economics

Published by: ruralkiller on Dec 29, 2012

Copyright: Attribution Non-commercial

This article has really filled in my “voids” that kept me from fully understanding things. I have found it to be one of the best discussions on the subject of freedom, and how our own Government has managed to take that freedom from us, all the while giving lip service to the Constitution. The title of the article is The UCC Connection. The author is noted as Howard Freeman. It is distributed by Americans for Constitutional Government, PO BOX 99, Lancaster, Ohio 43130. It also notes “without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207. And it is dated September 22nd 1991.(I do not know if reserving rights under U.C.C. 1-207 is a method of asserting “copyrights.” It is possible that the author did not want to use the conventional (c) as it might imply an implied contract with the US Patent Office, and thus the Federal Government. If this is the case, I apologize to Mr. Freeman, as I do not wish to infringe upon his rights.) Sincerely, Eric Gray sysop – The Desert Reef BBS ericg@flash.net eric-ucc1-207@usa.net THE UCC CONNECTION – How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by Howard Freeman (Originally published by the Oklahoma Freedom Council)

Continue reading The UCC Connection – How to Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny – Howard Freeman

Erin Brockovich takes on Gardasil

Erin Brockovich takes on Gardasil

merck1

This vaccine has only been on my peripheral

radar because they aren’t trying to shoot up

my infant with it (yet).  But, I do have friends

and family with young daughters approaching

the age where their doctor may insist they

need this poison.

Continue reading Erin Brockovich takes on Gardasil

DTaP, VAERS, ER

“The last vaccine injury for [my daughter] was within three hours of receiving a DTaP vaccine, and she had a grand mal seizure, she fell off the bed and hit her head. She stopped breathing while I held her head in my hands. Thankfully, she was resuscitated, and we went to the hospital in an ambulance. And while we were in the ambulance, I called our family doctor who had given her the vaccine, and I called his office and said, I want this reported to VAERS—Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System—as a vaccine injury.

Continue reading DTaP, VAERS, ER