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

The Advance Vaccine Directive is a valid Advance Health Directive or Living Will binding on the medical community under the law of Informed Consent.

Do you feel like you have no choice in the matter of vaccination or other medical decisions for your children or yourself? STOP!

You make your own decisions. No one makes them for you. You have a right to refuse any medical procedure.

As the primary care provider for your children, you have the right to act on their behalf. Know your rights, and proclaim it.

“The Advance Vaccine Directive is a valid Advance Health Directive or Living Will binding on the medical community under the law of Informed Consent. The Wallet Card our legal team developed is based on the latest US Supreme Court “I Do Not Consent” case, Missouri vs McNeely (2013). It covers circumstances in which you may find yourself facing not-consented vaccination, such as being brought into an ER and being subjected to immediate vaccination.” Ralph Fucetola JD

Summary of Legal Justification for the AVD Card: 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…” (Missouri v. McNeely, US Supreme Court, 2013

Read the brief on informed consent. Forced vaccination is against the Nuremberg Code on Medical Ethics and the Geneva Convention.

You can carry an AVD card with you at all times, the same as anyone who carries a medical information bracelet. Dr. Rima Laibow’s website:

Vaccine - Advacne Vaccine Directive

US Supreme Court Says:                                                     Your Right to Refuse Only Exists IF You Assert It!
Assert Your Right to Refuse ALL Vaccines
With ADVANCE VACCINE DIRECTIVE Card
CARRY IT AT ALL TIMES
IMPORTANT NOTE: Each Member of Your Family Must Carry His/Her Own Signed Card

Order your card here – http://drrimatruthreports.com/advance-vaccine-directive-card-faqs/

Also, have these on hand to pass out to anyone requesting you vaccinate – http://vaccinecommonsense.com/2015/12/13/physicians-warranty-of-vaccine-safety-form/

[Question] Who should be informed that an Advance Vaccine Directive has been created?

 .Once the Advance Vaccine Directive card has been signed and dated (or signed for another person and dated), potential vaccinators should be notified and a copy of the front and back should be placed in the medical or other records of the signer.

 .We recommend providing your primary care physician, your child’s pediatrician, any specialists with whom you are in treatment, the health officer at your place of employment and other health personnel with a copy of the front and back of the card and a letter requesting that the copy be placed in the permanent medical record of the signer.

 .The card should be presented, but NOT surrendered, if hospital, urgent or other emergency care is needed.
.
We recommend carrying a copy of the card with you as well as the original so that you can provide that copy without losing control of, and therefore proof of, the card itself.
.
At a hospital the card can be exhibited with a request for a notation on the patient’s Chart.

.[Question] Does a Vaccine Advance Directive protect your vaccination rights when you may not be able to decide for yourself?

.Local governmental units such as counties, school boards, States and even nations may pass laws mandating vaccinations.  These are superseded by treaty law, which overrides local and national laws. For example,the 126 countries which have ratified the Geneva Conventions.

The relationship between various international conventions and Informed Consent is discussed here:  Law Note on Informed Consent and the Geneva Conventions: http://drrimatruthreports.com/the-sources-of-the-law-the-right-of-informed-consent/

 

Support Medical Exemptions to Vaccination in California!

The California legislature is considering a bill, AB2638, that would protect physicians’ rights to write medical exemptions to vaccination without fear of discipline or liability.

Since the passing of SB277, which eliminated all non-medical exemptions to vaccination, many doctors are refusing to write medical exemptions to anyone for any reason. This is because California law currently provides physicians freedom from liability for administering vaccinations, but not from writing medical exemptions.

In this environment, where physicians are denying medical exemptions to patients with qualifying medical circumstances due to fear of retaliation, the health of our most vulnerable patients is at risk.

Write to your representatives in the Assembly and urge them to support AB 2638!

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2907

Need to Know Vaccine Medical Exemption Information

Dear Parents,

I feel like I am writing to old friends, because together we worked on getting Personal Belief Exemptions late in 2015, just as the option to get PBEs was about to expire. Thank you for reading my e-book (3 Things Every California Parent Needs to Know about the New Vaccine Mandate Law)!

I wanted you to be the first to know about my two online webinar on medical exemptions, one free to get you started, and a paid webinar with an early bird special ($27).

You and I share a conviction that parents are eager to be educated, and are seeking a voice in their children’s vaccination protocol.

As you know, new PBEs are no longer available. Now SB277 allows only medical exemptions, given by a licensed MD / DO, to change a vaccination schedule in California, or else a child may not attend school in the state.

This is a high bar to cross! Parents have struggled mightily, been afraid for their children, and wondered what is the right thing to do.

Would you like to know how to request a medical exemption from your doctor? 

Have you heard they are impossible to get? 

Are you surrounded with people emphasizing a belief that only vaccines protect us from disease?

Learn the truth about these and other common and confusing statements around vaccines and the new vaccine mandate law.

I am so happy to share with you my NEW FREE 30-minute WEBINAR: 3 Vaccine Mandate Myths

https://www.raphaelmedicine.com/3vaccinemyths-em

You are my travel companions, and we are revisiting a subject we care about. I welcome you to join me once more, taking another step in learning.

My free webinar has a wonderful BONUS from the new important medical book Vaccines & Autoimmunity. Don’t miss this opportunity!

https://www.raphaelmedicine.com/3vaccinemyths-em

Then, as you follow the information stream which I offer you, you will be led to my 90-minute webinar that takes you through the steps to educate you deeply in the vaccine science that supports having caution in administering vaccines in a one-size-fits-all program for all children. And right now, I have an EARLY BIRD SPECIAL for the long program!

Both the free 30-minute webinar and the paid 90-minute webinar are packed with helpful information. They work together, so don’t miss either one!

Here’s the link to get started >>https://www.raphaelmedicine.com/3vaccinemyths-em

and the link for the paid webinar – https://www.raphaelmedicine.com/corneredtoconfident

You may see my ads online for this program. Please tell your family and friends.

It’s nice to be working together again!

To healthy children and a healthy future,

Dr. Kelly Sutton MD

P.S. If you know now you want an appointment with me to request a medical exemption to change your child’s vaccination schedule, please email my office manager, Denise, to get the process started and save time:  info@raphaelmedicine.com

Watch the webinars too, to deepen your knowledge of the choices to make.

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

2nd source for Medical Exemptions

What is a Medical Exemption?

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.

Epi 30 | Dr. Michael McLean – Stopping Bills that Remove Vaccine Exemptions

Healthy Alternatives to Vaccinations

Dr. Michael McLean, former President of the International Chiropractors Association and long term advocate for patient’s rights discusses with me the Bills that are being presented across the country to remove an individual’s right to Informed Consent and to opt out of vaccinations.

Vaccines - Dr Michael McLean

a podcast which was created due to the lack of credible information regarding holistic health care and the benefits vs the risks of vaccinations.

Dr. Michael Mclean, former President of the International Chiropractors Association, co-founder of the Virginia Society of Chiropractic and Chiropractor of the Year. We discuss the multitude of Bills being introduced across the US to remove philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccinations. We also talk about the dangers associated with vaccinations, the vaccine court which is limiting compensation to families with vaccine injured children, and the toxic ingredients in each vaccine.

He recommends everyone contact Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to subpoena Dr. William Thompsen, CDC whistleblower at www.chaffetzhouse.gov so that the truth about the CDC study of the MMR vaccine and it’s association with the MMR vaccine can come out.

www.lightforcechiropractors.com

http://healthyalternativestovaccines.com/epi-30-dr-michael-mclean-stopping-bills-that-remove-vaccine-exemptions/

Worth Remembering – Never Talk to Police – law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells…..

A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
031408_DontTalktoPolice.wmv

Preparing to Vaccinate

Preparing to Vaccinate

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Our government tells us babies need vaccines to be safe and healthy. The reality is that there is a level of risk in giving vaccines and the CDC is fully aware of the risk. Many parents accept what they are told. Others question. Some families have differing opinions on the need for vaccines with one spouse in favor, and the other opposed.

If you are considering giving your child a vaccine for any reason, please do a few things first:

Continue reading Preparing to Vaccinate

Must I sign my doctor’s HIPAA policy receipt form?

Must I sign my doctor’s HIPAA policy receipt form?

My son and I share a doctor who recently declined to treat my son, and said she would need to bill me directly for past services, because we each refused to sign the form acknowledging her office’s HIPAA policy. Doc said that by not signing the acknowledgement form Jorge Ivan and I made it impossible for her office to bill our insurance provider. I said, “I’ve been told that you need to ask for my signature on this form, but that I am not obliged to sign it.” Eventually, Doc and I agreed that I would do some research to prove my case, and if I couldn’t prove it – and still refused to sign the form – that I would agree to pay for her services directly.

Today I had a bit of time and did that research. I learned that I’m totally within my rights not to sign and that actually, my doctor’s conformance with law could be improved in several ways:

  1. My doctor’s form asks me to certify that, “I have received, read and understand your Notice of privacy Practices,” when the law provides only for requesting that patients acknowledge receiving a copy of that policy; and
  2. Our doctor didn’t actually give my son and I a copy of her HIPAA policy. I’ve noticed that most doctors never do provide this although they all ask patients to sign indicating receipt.
  3. Refusal to sign the form should not affect a patient’s medical treatment. When a patient refuses to sign the HIPAA policy receipt form, the doctor should still treat him/her.

Continue reading Must I sign my doctor’s HIPAA policy receipt form?

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