An Open Letter to Vaxx Freedom Advocates

We Have the Means for Vaccine Victory In Our Hands
But We Are Presiding Over Total Defeat
An Open Letter to All Health Freedom Advocates
From the Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation
Advance Vaccine Directive:
https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

Dear Health Freedom Advocates:

Our side is losing the Vaccine Battle and therefore, whatever else we might succeed at, our side is losing the entire Health Freedom Battle.  Losing the Vaccine Battle means that we have lost the battle for our individual and collective genomes, genetics, health and future.

Instead of playing our powerful winning strategy, we are allowing vaccine mandates to overtake us although we know that vaccines kill and maim, having no independent science behind them. We know that they are supported only by science-for-hire relayed mindlessly by breathless, and compliant, “journalists” who parrot the Oh-So-Well-Funded Forced Vaxx Party Line.

While the tyrannical Vaccine Juggernaut gathers its deadly momentum, we, frankly, shout and stamp our feet and wave our hands as we are silenced, marginalized and defeated. Yet the reality is that we already have the only tool that we need in the United States and most of the other nations of the world to end this catastrophic invasion of our bodies and curtailment of our rights.

The tool is called “Informed Consent” and is guaranteed to each of us by International Treaty, binding national law and Supreme Court Case Law.

This is not a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of legal fact, no matter how well, or little, known it might be. No national or state legislature has authority to abrogate Informed Consent because it is international treaty law.

We, the Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation, want to be crystal clear about this: it does not make a bit of difference if you “believe in” the Right of Informed Consent or not.  It is not open for debate: it is a legal reality which must be properly asserted in order to control the outcome of a demand for submission to vaccination (or any other unwelcome medical procedure).

If you do NOT “believe” in the Right of Informed Consent as a binding legal principle which must be enforced against every unit of governance, you are uninformed, mis-informed or resisting reality for whatever reason.

It does not matter if you ‘believe in’ the Eiffel Tower or not.  That is your choice and your issue.  The Eiffel Tower is real and can be documented and climbed if you wish to do that. Or not.

The Right of Informed Consent is, likewise, not a matter for belief like Heaven, Hell or the Phlogiston Theory[1]. It is real and enforceable.[2]

It is, in fact, the ONLY way that we are going to win the central health freedom struggle: who owns your body?  Can the State/School/Employer/Airline/etc., coerce you to accept a medical procedure you do not want under US law?

The answer is a resounding “NO, it cannot!

Yet we are struggling to win unwinnable battles instead of focusing on the absolutely protected and absolute Right of Informed Consent that each of us has and ignoring our slam-dunk victory: correctly asserting the Right of Informed Consent.

After extensive legal research confirmed our strong belief in that Right, our Foundation created the Advance Vaccine Directive Card and offered every organization and health freedom advocate whom we could reach an incentivized opportunity to spread the reality of Informed Consent to the people they reach on this issue.

Did you discuss this with us?  Did you do your own research on the issue? Did you make this information available to your Circles of Influence?  Why not?

To our knowledge, virtually no one and no organization went so far as to discuss with us the legal grounding upon which this iron clad Right rests or how we could bring it to the widest possible population.

Shortly before his untimely and unnecessary death, the Founding President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine III, stated, correctly, that Informed Consent is the defining battle of the 21st Century.

So it is.  And we, the Health Freedom side, are losing it.

While vaccine mandates are praised by lapdog press and disingenuous ‘scientists’, legislators and employers, superintendents and pediatricians are waging war on our freedoms and our genomes.

HR 2527, a bill to vaccinate every child in the United States, is making its way through the House of Representatives. Insanely, the bill has overwhelmingly black congressional sponsorship despite the fact that African American boys are 6-10 times more likely to respond cataclysmically to vaccines like the MMR before 36 months of age.

Where, exactly, are we in telling the American Public that no matter what the Congress of the US passes or does not pass, no law that they can make can undo the absolute Right of Informed Consent guaranteed by both international treaty and US law?

We are drowning in defeat when we have the means of victory in our hands.  Why?

Is it not of intense interest to us as Health Freedom Advocates that every man, woman and child in the United States, and most other countries in the World, as ratifiers of the Geneva Convention, has the Right of Informed Consent and their governments are OBLIGED to protect that Right? If not, why not and what would be of interest to us if that is not?

It makes sense to focus on what we will win with and, quite frankly, from a tactical and a strategic point of view, there is, quite literally, nothing else to focus on that can and will win this titanic struggle for our freedom, our genetic integrity and our health.

Nothing.  State exemptions were created by States and can thus be revoked by them – and are being so revoked. So far in California and New York the courts have rejected all our attempts to protect religious and philosophical statutory exemptions from repeal.

And then what? Nothing much unless you believe that you can successfully have those exemptions reintroduced and readopted by legislatures whose votes are already bought and paid for by Big Pharma.

Dream on.

Let me reiterate: if you are currently under-informed and do not know about the Right of Informed Consent, that does not mean that you are correct in concluding that it is not the core issue and the only winnable issue.  It is both.

Revisit either your law school or High School Civics classes and you may recall that international treaties are collections of laws and, once ratified they become the superseding law of the ratifying nation. That is the only purpose of treaties.  Any law in the treaty must, MUST, be followed by the ratifying nation.

Despite the puzzling misinformation to the contrary, the entire Nuremberg Code, which enshrines Informed Consent, is a part of our National Law. 

When the United States chose to conduct the so-called “Subsequent Nuremberg Trials”, resulting in the acquittal, imprisonment or death of 28 Nazi doctors on charges of violating the Right of Informed Consent, the restatement of international (including US) law, which we now refer to as the Nuremberg Code, was accepted as the law governing the crimes against humanity charges.

Without that, the US would have had no way to conduct those trials since, under the Geneva Convention, any law under which a vanquished person is tried MUST be the same law under which a citizen of the victorious side, now holding the trial, would be tried.

That was articulated and accepted in binding form in order for the trials to go on.  And prisoners were imprisoned and executed lawfully because it is the law of the land in the US, Germany and virtually everywhere.

By the way, it is totally irrelevant whether you believe that the prisoners should have been tried, imprisoned or executed.  The fact is that they were and they could only be treated in this way, including executed, because the Right of Informed Consent IS the law. [3]

What is our side waiting for?  What are you waiting for? Why are we not beating the drums about Informed Consent as loudly and as insistently as we can?  Everything else is an investment in defeat.  Informed Consent is already established as a right belonging to each of us.

I repeat: what are we waiting for?

On an experiential, evidentiary note, every time someone has used our thoroughly researched Advance Vaccine Directive Card, the legal threat of forced vaccination that they were facing has dissolved. Dr. Rima used it personally to protect General Stubblebine from any vaccination during his 158 days in hospital despite repeated and nearly daily demands that he be vaccinated.  The card convinced the legal staff of two hospitals to go away each and every time despite the fact that they asserted that it was a State and a Federal law as well as a hospital policy, that, as a patient, vaccination was required.

Properly asserted, national law, the Right of Informed Consent, trumped their assertions each and every time. No ethical doctor who understands the law will vaccinate without Informed Consent.[4]

And so it does for the citizens, parents and employees who assert this right properly.

We repeat: “What are you waiting for?”

Do you have a better, more effective and more immediate strategy than teaching people how to assert this critically important right? Please share it with the rest of the Health Freedom advocates seeking to lay this forced vaccination monster to rest.

Do you know of some case where the Right of Informed Consent was properly asserted and it did not trump assertions about required vaccination?  We do not. 

The law is clear. We’ve researched it and are convinced that Informed Consent is our last, best hope to stop forced vaccination.  Read Counsel Ralph’s brief here:  http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2019/09/general-brief-on-behalf-of-informed.html

Do you have some other reason that you chose not to win this essential war for our freedoms and our bodies that you are free to share.

You and your organizations have positioned yourselves as advocates for each of us having control over our own bodies, parental rights to determine our children’s health course, and the right to information and options that support those freedoms. 

Vaccines are not supported by independent science but they are dangerous, damaging, unavoidably unsafe, uninsurable, and rapidly being forced upon humanity by those who would take away all health freedoms – and health – from us.

Mandates are being issued by legislatures, pediatricians, employers and administrators for children and, increasingly, for adults.

The Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation invite you to reach out to your communities of interest as widely as possible to inform the public, legislators, administrators, employers and educators about the powerful legal reality offered by Informed Consent. Reach out to us to discuss your questions, thoughts, ideas, strategies, doubts, whatever you have.

Contact us at:

Counsel Ralph Fucetola, Ralph.Fucetola@Gmail.com, 973-300-4594, Skype: “vitaminlawyer”
Rima E. Laibow, MD, Dr.Rima@NaturalSolutionsFoundation.com, 908-337-6115, Skype: “Rima.E.Laibow.M.D.”

Learn more about Informed Consent and how the Advance Vaccine Directive positions each and every person who uses it correctly to assert successfully their Right of Informed Consent here: http://TinyURL.com/AVDCard.

Yours in health and freedom,

Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director and Trustee

Counsel Ralph
Ralph Fucetola, JD, Secretary-Treasurer and Trustee

————-

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

[2] 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. 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…” Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141

[3]The Doctors’ trial (officially United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.) was the first of 12 trials for war crimes of German doctors that the United States authorities held in their occupation zone in Nuremberg, Germany, after the end of World War II. These trials were held before US military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The Doctors’ trial (officially United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.) was the first of 12 trials for war crimes of German doctors that the United States authorities held in their occupation zone in Nuremberg, Germany, after the end of World War II. These trials are collectively known as the “Subsequent Nuremberg trials”, formally the “Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals” (NMT).

… Twenty of the twenty-three defendants were medical doctors (Viktor Brack, Rudolf Brandt, and Wolfram Sievers were Nazi officials), and were accused of having been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder under the guise of euthanasia. Josef Mengele, one of the leading Nazi doctors, had evaded capture.

     The indictment was filed on 25 October 1946; the trial lasted from 9 December that year until 20 August 1947. Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted and seven received death sentences; the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_trial

[4] 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 even medical interventions with good intent but 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.” Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914).

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of