Page 98 - Bioterrorism

97

health, happiness and life in spite of the government asking them for a debit in terms of requiring
them to take a vaccination and so accept a jab and a disease into their bloodstream.

By contrast, a vaccine programme that leaves the majority of people of America overwhelming
in deep debt, suffering a loss of health, life and property or in detention, and in a manner that
prohibits them from seeking a legal or financial redress in the form of compensation, that is,
suffering a damage that is irreparable, is illegal, and the profit of a tiny group from this is illegal.

It follows therefore not only from the Preamble, the Constitution and Bill of Rights but also from
the application of the principles of Equity law that no mass vaccination programme should be
conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or injury will occur on a scale
that far outweighs any benefits.

As part of their legal and binding obligation under the Preamble to ensure the health, justice and
life of the people of America, the US government is prohibited from taking a reckless gamble
with the very lives, health whose maintenance is the sole purpose and object of the Constitution
by forcing on the People a random, unnecessary and unknown drug.

In the judgement of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the
plaintiff was forced to take a small pox vaccination because, it was argued, such a vaccine helped
to protect the whole community. A citizen has obligations to the state in which that citizen is
embedded. Nevertheless, the protection of the whole was considered to be the legal justification
for forcing an individual to take the vaccine.

The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's
"'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him
best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade
Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination:

This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property
are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health,
and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was,
or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are
concerned."' (at 26)

With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of civilization: an individual must give up
some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson
sought to enjoy the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated for smallpox without personally
accepting the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim, which it viewed
as an attempt to be a free-rider on society. „

However, scientific advances have shown that vaccination itself can actually increase the
virulence of a virus and so increase the danger to the community.

In view of all the evidence of adverse events from vaccinations recorded upon a mass of people
with a range of genetics, no court can nowadays argue that it is for the "public good" that people
are vaccination. The idea that there is a "herd immunity" has been proven to be without any
substance. Scientific advancement has shown that "herd immunity” is not only outdated but
actually false.

It was the act of mass vaccinations in 1918 that actually caused the deadly Spanish flu pandemic,
according to experts. [reference]