Constitutional Violations in C19-vaxx Campaign

The current campaign to mass-vaccinate young people and children against COVID-19 has no scientific or medical justification. It seems to be driven by the arbitrary goal set by Joe Robinette Biden to vaccinate 70% of the adult US population by the 4th of July. The mass-vaccination machine has rolled over the children by inertia.

To achieve their goals, federal government officials lie to doctors and the general population; prevent the use of effective prophylaxis and treatment; silence the opposition through Big Tech bans, deplatforming, and illegal surveillance. In this case, Big Tech companies are state actors, bound by the same constitutional restrictions as the government.

The COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people is sponsored or even fully conducted by the government. Government-sponsored medical procedures can be performed only with the patient’s informed consent. This requirement derives from the Due Process Clause(s) of the Constitution and cannot be bypassed by issuing an EUA or any other document. This was established by the court ruling In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796 – Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1995 and cited by higher courts later on. For patients who are minors, parents’ informed consent is required.

The decision mentioned above also states that government officials cannot assert qualified immunity for this kind of human rights violations. They can be sued and charged in an individual capacity.

The government officials involved in this mad vaccination campaign violate the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment (prohibiting improper search and seizure), Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment (the Due Process Clauses).

One of the effects of this government-sponsored intimidation and silencing campaign is underreporting of adverse effects associated with vaccination.

In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation

Some relevant quotes from the ruling:

The right to be free of state-sponsored invasion of a person’s bodily integrity is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process“

“Fourteenth Amendment has been held to include medical decision-making, reflecting the “principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.””

the allegations in the Complaint amount to a claim that the individual Defendants blatantly lied to the Plaintiffs. Unlike in Washington v. Harper, a decision was not made by the treating physician that Plaintiffs’ medical condition required drastic doses of radiation. Rather, the allegations give rise to the question of whether Plaintiffs were receiving medical treatment at all. This absence of procedural safeguards alone is sufficient to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause.”

“In 1990, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the “forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty.””

This makes it possible to get a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

“Thus, in accord with Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565 (2nd Cir.1986), the Court is compelled to hold that the individual and Bivens Defendants may not assert the defense of qualified immunity.”


“The common law origins of the right of the individual to exercise control over health care decisions have also been recognized throughout this country’s history. … “Tort law has embraced this basic principle of informed consent in order to guard a patient’s control over decisions affecting his or her own health.”

In other words, the violators are subject to both criminal and civil liability. The decision also states that the Nuremberg code is applicable in the US as a federal law, but this is probably incorrect.

Possible exceptions to the informed consent requirement include when the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of giving consent, or if the intervention involves no more than a trivial risk. Neither applies here.

Denial of Access to Medications

Do not forget – health officials still claim that there is no cure for COVID-19 and try to block access to Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. Some state governments have pressured pharmacies to refuse dispensing one or both of these prescription medications for COVID-19 patients. (This is a list of prescribers, who also help patients to obtain IVM). Something is happening to Quercetin now.

HHS Lies

The FDA, CDC, and NIH are agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services. Many public and healthcare professionals have come to rely on the CDC as a top source of information for government-sponsored vaccination; therefore, lies by the CDC are especially damning. CDC officials lie and encourage others to lie and even to coerce individuals into submitting to COVID-19 vaccination.

For example, CDC officials “recommend” that Institutions of Higher Education force students who are not vaccinated to wear masks and practice physical distancing (i.e., to treat unvaccinated persons as inferior race, members of which must wear a symbol of their inferiority and stay at least 6 ft from normal people). Unfortunately, IHE administrators are too glad to accommodate these recommendations. The most repeated statement on the CDC website is the unqualified “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective”; at least the first part of this statement is a lie. Unlike most other drugs, vaccines are designed to impact human bodies for many years after injection and require long-term observation to judge their safety. So far, all observations of the COVID-19 vaccine effects have been short-term, so it is impossible to draw conclusions about their long-term safety.

Another typical lie: “The risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity.”

HHS officials also falsely deny the existence of effective treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Such treatments and prophylaxis exist, and many of them are based on Ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine.

Censorship of Criticism of COVID-19 Vaccination

When government officials force or coopt a private company to censor speech, this private company is legally considered a state actor, bound by the same constitutional restrictions that restrict the government, including the First Amendment. Even threats of regulation or of legal action are sufficient to determine that a company is a state actor.

Big Tech (or “social media”) companies are engaged in at least four activities, each of them would satisfy the legal criteria of state actors. Big Tech companies:

  • Have been explicitly granted the “right” to censor citizens by an executive order by Joe Biden;
  • Receive and fulfill censorship demands from the federal and state officials with the letter D after their names;
  • Have intertwined their business with the government business;
  • Have been granted monopolies on the internet communications by the so-called “net neutrality” regulations by FCC in 2010-2015. When those regulations were repealed, many state governments restored them by legislation.

Certain Democratic Senators and Attorneys General have pressured Big Tech to block and remove criticism of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination from their platforms, and those Big Tech companies complied. On March 24th, 12 Democratic Attorneys General sent a letter to Facebook and Twitter, demanding the removal of undefined ‘vaccine misinformation’. The following is a quote from the letter:

“As safe and effective vaccines become available, the end of this pandemic is in sight. This end, however, depends on the widespread acceptance of these vaccines as safe and effective. Unfortunately, misinformation disseminated via your platforms has increased vaccine hesitancy …”

A demand made by state Attorneys General is obviously a threat.

“The updated community guidelines you have established to prevent the spread of vaccine misinformation appear to be a step in the right direction. However, it is apparent that Facebook has not taken sufficient action to identify violations and enforce these guidelines by removing and labelling misinformation and banning repeat offenders.”

“Facebook has allowed anti-vaxxers to skirt its policy of removing misinformation that health experts have debunked, by failing to prevent them from using video and streaming tools like Facebook Live and sites like Bitchute, Rumble, and Brighteon to evade detection.”

Note how these state AGs attempt to leverage Facebook and Twitter to choke off debates on COVID-19 vaccines even on other websites by restricting links to those sites.

A usual device in such letters is to point to real examples of false information, negatively painting COVID-19 vaccination, and then to brand all dissent from the idea of mass COVID-19 vaccination as misinformation. This also allows the writers of these letters to demand Big Tech companies that submitted to their demands to remove or downrank any other content they do not like.

In another example, U.S. Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) pressured Facebook on June 22nd:

“We write to express our concern over recent reporting alleging that Facebook failed to remove vaccine misinformation from its platforms. As the U.S. struggles to reach vaccine hesitant individuals and the world grapples with new variants, it is more important than ever that social media companies such as Facebook ensure that its platforms are free from disinformation.”

Of course, they use the words ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ to also describe accurate information that contradicts their party line. These are strong words when used by high level officials. They are intended to intimidate not only Facebook, but the public in general.

“In a February 2021 blog post, Facebook promised to expand “the list of false claims [it] will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines. This includes claims such as: COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured; Vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease they are meant to protect against; It’s safer to get the disease than to get the vaccine; [and] Vaccines are toxic, dangerous or cause autism.” “

This proves that already in February of 2021, Facebook was removing COVID-19 and vaccines-related content under pressure from Democratic Senators, thus being a state actor. It is important to note that Mark Warner also pressured Facebook to moderate content in ways that would benefit Democrats before the 2018 midterm elections. He is one of a few Senators with hands-on experience in the telecommunications industry.

Deplatforming, deletion, or downranking of certain content (criticizing COVID-19 vaccines and/or their use) by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and/or Microsoft also serves as a signal for the rest of the Silicon Valley – Fake News Media ecosystem, which accepts it as the party line that they must toe.

Big Tech have been state actors for about six years, but this fact became totally obvious this year.

Big Tech state actor’s status was further enshrined when Joe Robinette Biden allowed them censorship by revoking Trump’s Executive Order 13925 Preventing Online Censorship. From the Trump’s Order:

“Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.”

“At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party,  and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.”

Even before that Big Tech intertwined its business with the government when the government created thousands accounts on Big Tech platforms, putting owners of these platforms in control of a large chunk of internet communication between citizens and the government, and between citizens about governments (especially in retweets and reposts).

Even before that, Obama administration established Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft etc. as Internet gatekeepers by so-called net neutrality regulations (Obamanet). When this Obamination was repealed by FCC, California, New York, and other dark blue states legislated it on the state level. That allowed Big Tech to continue harvesting our private information without consent, obtaining our labor without compensation, and deciding what medical care we receive.

CDC-Sponsored Surveillance

The CDC has attempted surveillance of the so-called social media, traditional media, and private meetings for “vaccine misinformation.” The latter seems to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. All forms of such surveillance have chilling effects on related speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *