The Office of the Attorney General in Nebraska issued an opinion Friday in response to the request of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services that states there’s no “clear and convincing evidence that a physician who first obtains informed consent and then utilizes Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 violates the UCA (Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act).” [...]
“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.
The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ.
After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments. A striking example features one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals–the Lancet. In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lancet published a paper denouncing hydroxychloroquine as dangerous. Yet the reported statistics were so flawed that journalists and outside researchers immediately began raising concerns. Then after one of the authors refused to provide the analyzed data, the paper was retracted, but not before many countries stopped using hydroxychloroquine and trials were cancelled or interrupted. The Lancet’s own editor in chief admitted that the paper was a “fabrication, “a monumental fraud,” and “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.
The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.
Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conductI] clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.
Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for
COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”
That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
A federal judge struck down the vaccine mandate at a Louisiana medical school, holding that it violates religious liberty rights under the Louisiana Constitution, and issuing a temporary restraining order against the school for the pendency of the case.
According to the temporary restraining order, the students objected to the vaccine because they (accurately) believed them to be “devised from aborted fetal tissues, violating their religious beliefs.” They also dissented because the vaccine is approved for emergency use only “and is therefore experimental.”
According to the court:
Even if [the law] allows for restrictions to be placed upon a student’s dissent, the
restrictions placed by VCOM [Via College of Medicine] on Plaintiffs are excessive. Restrictions that keep students from completing their curriculum defeats the purpose of having the right of dissent.
On the day before their COVID-19 Committee met, VCOM sent Plaintiffs an email telling them, for the first time, that they had a dissent option, without
providing any information as to what the requirement or consequences of such a dissent option would be.
The religious exemption provided to Plaintiffs by VCOM was the exercising of a dissent
pursuant to [the law]. VCOM had no right to restrict the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs have
not waived the dissent option.
Therefore, VCOM, by restricting the Plaintiffs’ dissents, has violated the provisions of [the law].
The court also noted that the college's Covid policy continually whipsawed between allowing and denying religious and medical exemptions.
A class action lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Lloyd Ausin, Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, and Food and Drug Commissar Janet Woodcock has been filed on behalf of miltary servicemembers.
According to the lawsuit:
Upon information and belief, the DoD is already vaccinating military
members in flagrant violation of its legal obligations and the rights of servicemembers under
federal law and the Constitution. Army Regulation 40-562 provides documented
survivors of an infection, a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection. “General examples of
medical exemptions include the following… Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests,
documented infection, or similar circumstances.” AR 40-562, ¶2-6a.(1)(b). Plaintiffs also seek a
declaratory judgment on the separate basis that the Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) DoD
COVID-19 Vaccine mandate, which they have been notified is imminent, cannot be issued in
violation of 10 U.S.C. §1107 and its implementing regulations, including DoD Directive 6200.2,
the FDA regulation of biologics at 21 C.F.R. § 50 et seq., as well as the law regarding informed
consent 50 U.S.C. 1520 (“The Nuremburg Code”).
Neither the President, nor the SECDEF, nor the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services, nor the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration have complied with the
requirements of those controlling pieces of federal law. Therefore, any forced vaccination of
Plaintiffs would be/are being administered in blatant violation of federal law, the attendant
regulations, and the U.S Constitution, denying Plaintiffs due process of law and violating their
bodies. Plaintiffs seek this relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §702, et
seq., the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
§1651. Plaintiff also seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief preventing their forced vaccination attendant to their claims for declaratory judgment."
As vaccine mandates continue to be used to coerce healthy and COVID-recovered students and physicians to take vaccines at colleges across the country, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) is taking the fight over medical privacy and freedom to the Supreme Court of the United States. The organization has announced the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in a case involving the University of California system, which AFLDS claims is violating the rights of students, particularly those who have natural immunity, by forcing them to take the COVID vaccine.
College age students without co-morbidities have a statistical 100% survival rate for COVID-19, even if left untreated.
A Writ of Mandamus is used when a lower Court has abused its discretion by ignoring the law and acting outside of its authority. In this case, AFLDS contends that the Federal District Court, where the case originated, abused its discretion by, among other things, committing an “extreme departure from law by asserting informed refusal of a genetic vaccine is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny.”
“The lower court’s decision on this matter clearly applied the wrong legal standard,” stated AFLDS Legal Director Michael Hamilton. “The University of California has been ignoring the law and medical science to create an environment of coercion. Segregating healthy students and treating those who are COVID-recovered as second class is a dangerous scheme that cannot be allowed to continue.”
In the 54-page filing with the Court, AFLDS also points to the FDA’s own disclaimer listed on all fact sheets for COVID-19 vaccines which states, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the [Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen] COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it; it will not change your standard medical care.” This precise language is required by Federal statue because COVID-19 vaccines are not FDA approved but rather are Emergency Use Authorization (E UA) only. The vaccines therefore cannot be mandated.
Further, AFLDS claims the District Court ignored the medical science related to natural immunity. The University of California’s own Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo provided expert testimony for the plaintiffs stating, “The indisputable scientific facts are that natural immunity exists and is not arbitrarily limited to 90 days…”
“It is our sincere hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that there are serious Constitutional issues here that are backed up by both law and science. The State of California has established a pattern of this abusive behavior and it must be stopped to protect public health, freedom and safety,” stated Hamilton.
If the Writ is granted, the District Court will be ordered to halt vaccine mandates for doctors and COVID-recovered students until lawsuits surrounding the various issues over the mandates are resolved.
Attorney Robert Barnes described the suit as among the best vaccine lawsuits he's seen yet.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) along with 18 students on Monday filed a lawsuit in federal court against Rutgers University, its board of governors, Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway and others over the university’s decision to mandate COVID vaccines for students attending school in the fall.
According to the complaint, the Rutgers vaccine requirement “is an affront to human dignity and personal freedom because it violates our basic right to control our bodies.”
The lawsuit states that in a free society, “all people have the right to decide their own medical treatment — especially to decide what to inject into their bodies. And every person has the right to make that decision voluntarily, free from coercion by anyone, and to be fully informed of the benefits and especially the risks of that decision.”
The lawsuit alleges Rutgers’ policy is a violation of the right to informed consent and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments.
The complaint also alleges the policy is a breach of contract because in January 2021, the university assured students COVID vaccines would not be required in order to attend school. Just two months later, Rutgers flip-flopped and issued new requirements for taking the shot prior to attending classes.
According to the plaintiffs, Rutgers is working with all three manufacturers — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — to study and develop their vaccines in on-going clinical trials, and will benefit financially if more people are required to take the shots which, until fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are defined by the FDA as experimental.
The Rutgers requirement also constitutes a denial of equal protection, as administration, faculty and staff are not required to take the vaccine. It also conflicts with federal and state law, as neither has enacted legislation requiring COVID vaccines for citizens.
“This mandate undermines our Constitution and Bill of Rights by denying students the freedom to make their own medical decisions,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland.
“No one should be forced or coerced into accepting any medical procedure against her wishes,” Holland said. “When the low risk to young adults from COVID and the known and unknown risks from the vaccines are taken into account, Rutgers’ actions recklessly endanger its students.”
As confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, young people are at minimal risk of long-term effects or death from COVID and have a 99.985% survival rate if infected with the virus.
However, the most recent COVID vaccination injury update from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — one of the tracking systems of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — shows that between mid-December, 2020 and August 6, 2021, 559,040 adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 12,791 reports of deaths, many in young people ages 12 to 25.
In comparison, after approximately 50 total deaths following swine flu vaccination in 1976, that vaccine campaign was immediately aborted.
“The Rutgers mandate stems from the financial relationship the university has with the vaccine makers which is clearly a conflict of interest,” said New Jersey Attorney Julio Gomez, who represents the students.
“Unjustified fear and insatiable greed drive the vaccine industry, especially now, during the pandemic,” Gomez said. “This has created an opportunity for manufacturers to bring to market expensive, novel and patentable drugs, vaccines, biologics, treatments and medical devices that will reap huge profits.”
Rutgers student Peter Cordi, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said it is “ incredibly unnerving” that his own school would play Russian Roulette with the lives of the students it claims to protect, “with greed and ties to Big Pharma being prioritized over our safety and free will.”
In addition to Gomez, plaintiffs are represented by New Jersey Attorney Susan Judge of Scotch Plains, with support from attorneys Mary Holland and Ray Flores, special counsel to CHD.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey has refused to attend the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce's annual conference on Mackinac Island, citing the Chamber's demand he take an experimental drug as a condition of attendance.
Shirkey already had the Chinese virus, and studies show natural immunity is superior protection than the Big Pharma's experimental vaccines.
"I am extremely disappointed that the Detroit Regional Chamber declined to look honestly at the benefits of both naturally acquired and vaccinated immunity and, instead, opted to rely on an invasive vaccine mandate while dismissing the scientifically proven robustness of naturally acquired immunity," Shirkey said.
Shirkey might have also pointed out how outrageous it is that the Detroit Regional Chamber – a sleazy lobbyists' operation, even by Chamber of Commerce standards – would have the temerity to demand their honored lawmakers take a drug and show them proof as a condition of attendance.
It makes you wonder: How many Republicans in the legislature will allow themselves to be bullied by lobbyists like this?
I used to work for Representative John Reilly. He never attended the Mackinac Policy Conference. (Not to be confused with the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference, although I think he only once ever attended that one, either.)
But the Mackinac Policy Conference is considered a prestigious event by Lansing insiders, and politicians typically enjoy visiting Mackinac Island and partying on the lobbyists' dollars.
"The investigation as to whether there is a correlation between his death and vaccination is now at the federal level with CDC," said a joint statement issued by Saginaw County Health Department Medical Director Dr. Delicia Pruitt and Health Officer Christina Harrington. "Meanwhile, the health department continues to encourage families to speak with their physicians to weigh their own risks and benefits of vaccination."
The boy was 13 and statistically had a 99.9% chance of surviving the Chinese coronavirus itself.
"With COVID-19 cases surging, there is great urgency to encourage masking and social distancing," Gordon wrote in one email on Oct. 17. "These are the best tools available to slow the rise in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
"While some people will act because they believe it is important, for others, a credible threat of sanction is likely to be critical."
These emails were sent after the Michigan Supreme Court struck down her orders as unconstitutional.
The CEO of the Michigan Sheriffs Association replied to Gordon's email, in part:
MSA believes the administrative ticketing process would be difficult to enforce both legally and from a manpower perspective, and encourages all parties to refrain from emphasizing that message [of enforcement], as it is both counterproductive and negative.