Democrat, Republican, left, middle, or right, these are just ideological containers which divide us allowing us to be controlled. But I don’t fit into one of those boxes and I don’t think most people do either. So join me as I overlook those arbitrary barriers and explore issues that matter to us all, and propose solutions for a better future.

The Ninth Circuit Rules – Court Sanctioned Authoritarianism

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is an affront to all who value truth, justice, the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for mandating Covid injections for all employees. We argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. We contended that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case from 1905, did not apply to our case because Jacobson was predicated both on the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification.

Nearly a year later, in September 2022, the district court ruled against the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. In June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. That petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case.

It bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. This case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such an ignominious reputation.

Indeed, the recent ruling is so egregious that it warrants a thorough breakdown of the main issues:

{1} The Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1995), in which the court held, “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” To be clear, nowhere does our Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people. Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since Jacobson when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that our society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false.  By this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. In actuality, Jacobson did not allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. Instead, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receipt of an injection.

{2} The Ninth Circuit not only claimed that Jacobson is binding but it ignored ample and more recent SCOTUS jurisprudence that holds otherwise. In recent decades, SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v. Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v. Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the immoral and century-old Jacobson.

{3} Perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Bennett wrote, “Jacobson holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” But this contention is false.  Jacobson did hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease. Clearly, absent that ability, there is no public health rationale. Most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health.

{4} In Jacobson, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” (197 U.S. at 30). [Emphasis added.] The Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox. No comparison could be further from the truth. Evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, LAUSD’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

{5} In Jacobson, Justice Harlan wrote, “According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” Since the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection, they do not “protect the public health and the public safety” and are not “reasonable”—the Ninth Circuit, or any court for that matter, cannot conclude that Covid injections do protect public health and safety when they do not affect either.

{6} In further justifying the court’s ruling, Judge Bennett wrote, “The SAC [Second Amended Complaint of plaintiffs] concedes that COVID-19 vaccines “lessen the severity of symptoms for individuals who receive them.” From this, the LAUSD could have reasonably determined that the vaccines would protect the health of its employees.” Here, the Ninth Circuit slyly and dishonestly shifted from public health and safety to the individual health of school district employees. But since when has it ever been a school district’s job to direct the medical treatment of individual employees? Going forward, will LAUSD also mandate that its employees get regular exercise and eight hours of sleep? Will cholesterol-lowering drugs be forced on teachers? Will their consumption of sugar and of alcohol be monitored and regulated? Where does Big Brother stop?

{7} When a plaintiff files a lawsuit, courts are obligated to accept the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations at the initial stage of proceedings as long as the claims are plausible. In our case, both the three-judge panel and the dissent in the latest ruling acknowledged that we had plausibly pled that Covid injections do not stop infection or transmission. It is our right, according to the rules, to have the opportunity to prove our case in court. However, the Ninth Circuit robbed us of that right. In addition, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has denied us the right of any plaintiff to dispute the issues of fact in front of the court. If the Ninth Circuit can abdicate its duties and thereby violate the basic principles of our judicial system, what is the point in attempting to resolve disputes in the courts? Moreover, how can any American have faith in our judicial system?

{8} When a party disagrees with a ruling from a district court, the party may appeal to the circuit court. If a party disagrees with a ruling from the circuit court, the party may petition the circuit court for an en banc review by a broader panel of judges than the small panel. A review of the en banc process in the Ninth Circuit reports, “To qualify for en banc review, the petition must show that the decision of the three-judge panel conflicts with “a decision of the United States Supreme Court,” “an authoritative decision of another United States court of appeals,” or “a decision of the court to which the petition is addressed” and consideration by the full court is “necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,” or “the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.” Rule 40(b)(2)(A)-(D).” None of these conditions were met in our case, yet the rehearing was granted. Was this apparent violation of the rules a politically motivated decision?

{9} The Ninth Circuit did not even acknowledge that in September 2021 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had suspiciously timed and conveniently altered its definition of “vaccine” from an injection that prevents disease and produces immunity to the “act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection.” This deceptive move allowed authorities to label Covid injections “vaccines” instead of categorizing them as “gene therapy.” It should be obvious that the public would be reticent to submit to a new gene therapy while it would be more comfortable with a vaccine.

{10} The Ninth Circuit repeatedly noted that Jacobson allows the legislature and executive decision-makers to enforce reasonable laws to protect public health. But there is no mention of school boards in Jacobson! And the California legislature did not enact any legislation regarding Covid injections. Therefore, pretending the 1905 ruling empowers school boards and legislatures is a fallacious claim. This is another instance of how the Ninth used deceptive sleight-of-hand in reaching its decision.

There are many more issues with the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling. But for brevity’s sake, I will make only a few more comments.

It is remarkable that no Ninth Circuit judge took the time to write a concurrence-especially in light of the tenor of oral argument before the en banc panel in March of 2025. During oral argument, the questions posed by the majority of the judges suggested they favored the arguments of plaintiffs and we left the court feeling very optimistic while counsel for the defendants looked downcast. Yet none of those judges championing the principles during the hearing took the time to write a concurrence in support of the majority opinion. I can only wonder why not.

The biggest takeaway from the ruling is this: If the state can mandate a medical product under a real or a fake public health scare, can it mandate any medical intervention it chooses? What are the limits of the state’s power? Can it mandate psych meds to improve public morale? How about Adderall to enhance public productivity? Or regulate sugar to improve immunity? And why not forced pregnancy to ensure a stable population base? Of course, all of these dictates would be for the greater good!

Judge Bennett wrote, “We reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit Jacobson to only those vaccines that prevent the spread of a disease and provide immunity.”

By the court’s logic, there is no limit to the power of the state—a conclusion that should terrify us all. Equally concerning: The Ninth Circuit has abdicated its power and authority to hold public servants accountable. When the courts cannot be relied upon to hold public servants accountable, who can? And where does that leave us?

As Judge Lee wrote in the fitting conclusion to his powerful dissent, “As a practical matter, I fear we are giving the government a blank check to foist health treatment mandates on the people—despite its checkered track record—when we should be imposing a check against the government’s incursion into our liberties.

Idaho Leads the Nation with Landmark Medical Freedom Legislation

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Ketchum, Idaho — April 6, 2025, Idaho has made history as the first state in the nation to enshrine sweeping protections for personal medical autonomy into law. With the passage of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, the state has taken a bold stand to ensure that no Idahoan will ever again be compelled to undergo unwanted medical interventions as a condition of employment, education, or daily life.

This transformative legislation, written by Leslie Manookian, president and founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), prohibits schools, daycares, businesses, and state entities from denying access, services, or opportunities based on an individual’s medical choices. The bill states:

“A business entity doing business in the state of Idaho shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person because that person has or has not received a coronavirus vaccination or used a medical intervention.”

These protections apply across both the public and private sectors, safeguarding Idahoans’ rights in the workplace, educational settings, and beyond.

For Manookian, the law’s passage represents the fulfillment of a long-held vision. “This is a dream realized,” said Manookian. “Medical freedom is a basic and fundamental human right, and the Idaho Medical Freedom Act sets a powerful precedent not only for our state but for the entire country.”

HFDF was founded with the mission to restore and preserve health freedom, and the successful enactment of this bill marks a significant milestone in that journey.

In response to the overreach experienced during the Covid era, the Idaho Medical Freedom Act reaffirms the right of individuals to make informed medical decisions—free from coercion, discrimination, or fear of exclusion.

Idaho has spoken clearly: medical freedom is not negotiable. And with this landmark legislation, the Gem State now lights the way for the rest of the nation to follow.

Testimony: VOTE NO on SB 1210

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Dear Senators,

Monday, March 31st, Governor Little’s staff met with Senator Dan Foreman, sponsor of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, a bill that I wrote, to address the governor’s claim that the bill would prevent schools from sending sick children home — this claim is an outright lie, as nothing in the bill alters existing code on communicable disease. During the meetings, however, the governor’s team shifted their focus and insisted that SB 1023 be amended to EXCLUDE all daycares.

They want to EXCLUDE daycares from the Medical Freedom Act and add this to code right now BECAUSE the Idaho Supreme Court will hear a case regarding whether private daycares may exclude unvaccinated children on MAY 5TH. If they can ram this through now, the court will refer to the daycare exclusion as the most recent intention of the legislature and rule that private daycares are not required to honor vaccine exemptions. It’s diabolical. Tens of thousands of people have moved to Idaho for our vaccine exemptions and tens of thousands of children will be forced to get vaccinated so their parents can earn a living if this goes through. Parents have moved their families to Idaho to PROTECT their children, their most sacred responsibility.

Vaccine injury is real and it is common. Federal research found that 2.6% of vaccine recipients are injured by a shot but fewer than 1% of injuries are reported. The CDC schedule today recommends over 85 doses of 18 vaccines before age 18, the vast majority of those before age 6 – which is likely why they want to go after babies and young children. Autism afflicts 1 in 36 children, 1 in 22 boys in some states. Research shows that vaccinated children suffer from more allergies, asthma, chronic illness, autoimmune disease, and neuro-developmental disorders than unvaccinated. More than half of American children suffer from a chronic condition. The US Supreme Court and federal law both acknowledge that vaccines injure and kill some and the Court has ruled that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

Parents have watched their children change after vaccines and forcing them to vaccinate them by removing exemptions for children in daycare is unconscionable. The answer is not force or denial, it is transparency and truth. The vaccine industry has no liability for its shots and therefore every incentive to remove vaccine exemptions but this is profoundly abhorrent and should not be tolerated. Just last week a 1-year old baby died only 12 hours after receiving “catch up” vaccines. Parents alone know what’s best for their children and have to live with the consequences of their choices.

PLEASE STOP THIS!!! SB 1210 must die. Representative Tanner introduced a bill this morning which contains the exact language of the original bill but adds language that nothing in the bill is intended to conflict with existing code authorizing schools to send home sick children. This addition addresses the Governor’s stated concerns and if he is a man of his word, he will sign the bill.

Please support Representative Tanner’s bill, the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, HB 472.

Sincerely,

Leslie Manookian
President/Founder Health Freedom Defense Fund

Re: An Open Letter to Idaho State Senators – Protect Human Right to Medical Freedom – Especially Children

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Dear Senators,

Yesterday, Governor Little’s staff met with Senator Dan Foreman, sponsor of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, a bill that I wrote, to address the governor’s claim that the bill would prevent schools from sending sick children home — this claim is an outright lie, as nothing in the bill alters existing code on communicable disease. During the meetings, however, the governor’s team shifted their focus and insisted that SB 1023 be amended to EXCLUDE all daycares. Now I know why they did this.

They want to EXCLUDE daycares from the Medical Freedom Act and add this to code right now BECAUSE the Idaho Supreme Court will hear a case regarding whether private daycares may exclude unvaccinated children on MAY 5TH. If they can ram this through now, the court will refer to the daycare exclusion as the most recent intention of the legislature and rule that private daycares are not required to honor vaccine exemptions. It’s diabolical. Tens of thousands of people have moved to Idaho for our vaccine exemptions and tens of thousands of children will be forced to get vaccinated so their parents can earn a living if this goes through. Parents have moved their families to Idaho to PROTECT their children, their most sacred responsibility.

PLEASE HELP US STOP THIS!!! SB 1210 must die.

Representative Tanner introduced a bill this morning which contains the exact language of the original bill but adds language that nothing in the bill is intended to conflict with existing code authorizing schools to send home sick children. This addition addresses the Governor’s stated concerns and if he is a man of his word, he will sign the bill.

Please support Representative Tanner’s bill, the Idaho Medical Freedom Act #2.

Sincerely,

Leslie Manookian
President/Founder Health Freedom Defense Fund

An Open Letter to Idaho State Senators – Protect Human Right to Medical Freedom

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Re: An Open Letter to Idaho State Senators – Protect Human Right to Medical Freedom

Dear Senators,

It is not easy to confront deception and hypocrisy, but failing to do so betrays the very people you serve. Governor Brad Little and his allies believe they control you and hold sway over Idaho, but they have miscalculated as the days of a complacent populace are gone. We now have the most liberty-oriented legislature in our state’s history—one committed to truth, transparency, and truly representing the people.

Governor Little’s actions during the pandemic were not just misguided or an innocent mistake—they were deceptive. He imposed lockdowns on Idahoans, then lied about it. He warned citizens to take precautions, citing fears of overwhelming our hospitals, yet I saw with my own eyes that more than half the hospital beds were empty.

In the fall of 2020 I watched Governor Little, Tom Luna, and two colleagues exit an SUV after sitting inside for three hours—unmasked and unconcerned. They hypocritically donned masks for a photo op before mingling unmasked at a high-ticket fundraiser with a hundred guests. When Governor Little thought no one was watching, his behavior told a very different story from his public message.

The consequences of Little’s actions were devastating. Doug Cameron is now paralyzed in a wheelchair for life. My own father-in-law died in a hospital room, alone for all but the last few minutes, his door marked with a yellow star for declining the Covid shot. Scores more were injured and killed. Businesses were shuttered, Idahoans were arrested for worshiping, lost their jobs and were refused entry to businesses. Teenagers—facing isolation and despair—took their own lives. These are not just anecdotes; they are tragic facts rooted in one man’s decisions and the Medical Freedom Act would prevent these atrocities from ever occurring again.

On Saturday, a mere hour before it would take effect, Governor Little vetoed the bill that would secure the basic human right to direct one’s own medical care claiming it would prevent schools from sending sick children home—an outright lie, as nothing in the bill alters existing code on communicable disease. Rather, it ensures that adults won’t be coerced into medical interventions in order to live normally.

Instead of acting in good faith, Governor Little cynically avoided any discussion with the bill sponsors, then quietly issued his veto.

There can be only one explanation for this behavior – he wants to preserve his power to do it all over again.

As you make this choice, ask yourselves, do you genuinely believe you or any other human being has the knowledge or moral authority to dictate another person’s medical care? And how can any person claim that power when they do not have to live with the consequences of those medical choices? 

No one else knows what’s best for us or has to live with the consequences of our choices. Conditioning participation in normal life on medical interventions is unconscionable.

I ask you to protect Idahoans from medical tyranny by overriding the veto. Which side of history will you choose?

Sincerely,

Leslie Manookian
President/Founder Health Freedom Defense Fund

Testimony of Leslie Manookian on the Idaho Medical Freedom Act – Senate State Affairs Committee

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

February 5, 2025

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:

My name is Leslie Manookian. Although I am the founder of a nationally recognized nonprofit, I am here in my personal capacity as a long-time resident of Idaho. My family moved here in 1976 when I was twelve and I’ve called Idaho home ever since. Growing up, I could have never imagined that Idaho would become a place that locked its people down, forced citizens to cover their faces, stand on floor markers 6 feet apart, or produce proof of vaccination in order to enter a venue or business, but that is exactly what happened. Idahoans lost their jobs, suffered isolation and mental health issues, were denied participation in normal society, and dozens even died – all on the basis of empty promises, if not outright dishonesty. These are the reasons I am here today, because I want Idaho to lead the nation in ensuring that such intrusive and authoritarian infringements never happen again and in recognizing that no right is more fundamental than the right to choose what medical interventions we accept.

This right, medical freedom, is foundational to our nation, our Constitution, and our shared human dignity. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act, sponsored by Senator Dan Foreman, would restore this ethical principle in Idaho and ensure that Idaho stands as a beacon of liberty in declaring that no individual will be coerced into receiving a medical intervention against their will, with the exception of those organizations which receive CMS funds. It ensures that employment, education, entertainment, and public participation remain accessible to all, regardless of their medical choices.

The right to bodily autonomy is enshrined in the very fabric of the American legal system. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the American ideal that individuals have the right to make deeply personal medical decisions without interference or coercion.

The Constitutional Foundation of Medical Freedom

The principle of bodily autonomy is so deeply embedded in American jurisprudence that even forced medical procedures in the name of law enforcement have been struck down as unconstitutional. In Rochin v. California (1952), the Court ruled that forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach to retrieve evidence was a violation of bodily integrity.

In Griswold vs. Connecticut(1965), the Supreme Court ruled that every American enjoys a zone of privacy around them into which the state may not intrude.

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health(1990), the Court held that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.” This ruling reaffirmed that the right to refuse medical intervention is not a privilege—it is a fundamental right.  

In Washington vs. Harper 1990, the Court ruled that even prisoners have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical interventions unless they pose a threat to themselves or others due to their mental state.

Finally, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Court reaffirmed the fundamental nature of deeply personal medical decisions, recognizing that autonomy over one’s body is an essential aspect of liberty.

The right to make one’s own medical decisions is not granted by the government. It is not a privilege subject to approval. It is a sacred, God-given, inalienable right, woven into the very fabric of our constitutional republic. And it is a right that has been consistently upheld by our Supreme Court. This bill is in no way radical, it is merely a codification of our basic human rights.

This right is as fundamental to a free and just society as are our cherished rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly. I would argue it is the most basic human right because absent the right to control what medical interventions we allow into and onto our bodies, what meaningful rights do we truly have? I care not about my speech if my body and the direction of my health do not belong to me.

Furthermore, if the government may not force a person to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of another, how then can we justify forcing individuals to accept medical interventions to participate in society?

The Dangers of Medical Coercion

When we allow medical coercion—whether by the government, employers, or businesses—we set a dangerous precedent and history has shown us that whenever bodily autonomy is sacrificed for the greater good, injustice follows. Just consider, for a moment, how those engaged in worship outdoors in northern Idaho during Covid were arrested. Or how the family whose newborn baby was kidnapped by hospital staff and CPS when the parents declined a hepatitis B shot in the first few days after birth, although hepatitis B is a disease for which only IV drug users and the sexually promiscuous are at risk.

Consider the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough” – all for the greater good of society, of course. That decision, later recognized as a moral stain on our society, serves as a grim reminder of what happens when government is given power over personal medical decisions.

It is a slippery slope when we allow even well-intentioned policies to infringe upon individual rights. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act ensures that such infringements will not happen in our great state. It ensures that no business, school, or government entity may force an individual to choose between a medical intervention and their livelihood, education, or access to public life.

What This Bill Protects

Under this act, no individual may be:

  • Denied employment or forced to undergo a medical intervention as a condition of employment, except in very limited circumstances involving federally funded entities.
  • Excluded from schools or universities for their personal and private medical decisions.
  • Refused entry into public buildings or services due to their medical choices.
  • Discriminated against based on their medical choices.

Addressing the Public Health Argument

Some may argue that public health concerns justify medical mandates. But our freedom is not conditional. Our Constitution does not grant rights that are subject to the whims of fear or political pressure. It guarantees them outright. The Covid era serves as a stark reminder of what happens when we sacrifice our principles due to fear, pressure, or money.

Public health should be restricted to public concerns such as controlling waste in our public spaces or effluent from businesses. The intrusion of public health into our intimate private health matters must never be tolerated again and was never envisioned when public health laws were originally enacted.

Nowhere in state or federal law do we find the power or authority to dictate personal medical choices, but during recent years, the scope of public health has been increasingly and alarmingly construed to include private health. This must be stopped.

The Role of Informed Consent

At the heart of medical freedom, is the ethical principle of informed consent—a pillar of modern medical ethics. It has been universally acknowledged that every individual has the right to evaluate the risks and benefits prior to any medical intervention and to make a voluntary decision which means free of any type of coercion.

The Nuremberg Code, established after the horrors of forced medical experimentation under the Nazis wisely and resolutely determined that voluntary consent is “absolutely essential” in medical decision-making. This principle is echoed in international law and treaties such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the US Belmont Report, and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in more recent decades.

When a person is forced to undergo a medical intervention under threat of losing their job, education, or public services, that is not consent—it is coercion and it does not belong in a free or just society.

My dear family friend, Doug Cameron, is here today. Doug was a vital and fit man until he was catastrophically injured and paralyzed by the Covid shot which his employer pushed on him due to his employer’s fear. That employer fired Doug after Doug was disabled by the shot as he was no longer able to do his job as well. Doug’s employer has since passed away but Doug will have to live the rest of his life in a wheelchair for a medical intervention he categorically did not want.

This must never be allowed to happen again.

Time to Codify Medical Freedom

I urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee to vote yes on S-1023. Medical freedom should not be a partisan issue. This is not about whether you personally choose to accept or decline a medical intervention. This is about the fundamental right of every individual to make that decision for themselves. Idaho already banned Covid shot mandates in the Coronavirus stop act, why should we treat any other medical intervention any different?

If we fail to defend this principle now, what comes next? Will someone decide we need to be chipped to participate in society? Will an employer require us to alter our DNA to enhance our productivity? Will we be barred from society if we don’t take some pill or injection? If we accept the idea that bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for the “greater good,” where do we draw the line?

I ask you to consider: Do we want to live in a society where other people, entities, or organizations have the power to dictate what medical interventions we receive or do we want to live in a society where individual choice is not just respected but held sacred, and where medical freedom is upheld as an inviolable human right?

I believe in the latter. I believe in freedom. And I believe that this bill is necessary to protect that freedom.

I urge you all to support the Idaho Medical Freedom Act—because Idaho rejects coercion. Because we recognize that no one—no employer, no business, no government—has the right to override the personal medical decisions of an individual or to condition our lives on them. Because no one else knows our medical background or health needs. And because no one else has to live with the consequences of our medical choices.

Let us stand for liberty. Let us stand for bodily autonomy. And let us ensure that Idaho remains a state where medical freedom is not negotiable—because in a free society, it is not a privilege, it is a human right. S-1023 will enshrine this most sacred and basic human right in law.

The Winds of Change

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Three decades ago, I took nearly every drug and vaccine that was recommended to me. It never occurred to me that the pharmaceutical industry might be misleading me—or the public in general—or that my own health might be at risk.

That changed when I heard the CEO of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world explain that, in rare cases, his company’s new promising blockbuster drug had killed a few people during the Phase III clinical trials. He mentioned that the FDA would therefore require the company to place a “black box” warning on the packaging, cautioning doctors and patients about the drug’s potentially deadly side effects before it could be licensed.

Then, without hesitation, the executive looked me in the eyes and said words I will never forget: “We still think we can do $7 billion in peak sales.” He was referring to the revenue potential of the drug—despite knowing that it could take lives.

As shocking as this story might seem, this is, unfortunately, standard operating procedure for the pharmaceutical industry. Naïve and unsuspecting Americans are merely collateral damage in the industry’s relentless pursuit of ever-increasing profits.

According to Violation Tracker, the pharmaceutical industry has paid an astonishing $122 billion in penalties for fraud, false marketing, and pervasive misconduct. While this might seem punitive enough to encourage self-regulation, the truth is that $122 billion is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the industry’s colossal profits of $1.9 trillion between 2000 and 2018. This figure only includes the 35 largest drug manufacturers and excludes the past five years, when COVID-19 vaccines were globally promoted under questionable pretenses.

When it comes to vaccines, this industry—so deeply rooted in questionable practices—benefits from a liability shield granted by Congress in 1986. While American health authorities assure us that vaccines are unequivocally safe, the vaccine industry itself does not stand behind its products. It bears virtually no legal or financial liability for the injuries and deaths its vaccines might cause.

Educated and informed Americans understand that our healthcare system is hopelessly corrupt and broken. That’s why the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) exists: to protect our rights and hold bad actors accountable. HFDF envisions a country where healthcare prioritizes health, healing, and well-being. We understand that health does not come in a bottle, pill, or injection, and that our system needs a fundamental overhaul.

Reforming the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subsidiary agencies is a monumental task. We extend our best wishes to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as he assumes the role of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. perhaps knows better than anyone the playbooks of Big Pharma, Big Chemical, Big Agriculture, and others. We hope he can bring meaningful and much-needed change to Washington, D.C.

The winds of change are blowing, and we’re rooting for you, Bobby!

Policy Imperatives for Health Freedom

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Written By: Leslie Manookian | President | Health Freedom Defense Fund

As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the USA, we must first define what is meant by health freedom. A simple definition is: the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience, and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or something airborne.

In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience, it’s an imperative. In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs, or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed, and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors, and chemicals.

Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society which values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another. Moreover, government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever – Americans are merely chattel.

In order to create a society based on true health freedom, the following policy shifts should be implemented, as a first step. There are many more changes which should be implemented as well, but these proposals would address some of the most glaring, pernicious anti-liberty and anti-health aspects of our system as it exists today:

1. Ban all Medical Mandates:

The Declaration of Independence states, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”  Medical mandates are prime facie violations of our founding documents.

Health freedom demands prior voluntary informed consent before a medical treatment or intervention is administered. Medical mandates are thus, by definition, antithetical to voluntary consent and therefore must be prohibited in a free and moral society. No single individual in government knows the medical history of any American, knows what is best for Americans, or has to live with the repercussions of any choices made by Americans, thus, medical mandates are never justified in any circumstance.

2. Repeal the Bayh-Dole Act:

“The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, is a federal law enacted in 1980 that enables universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs within their organizations.”

Under this program, government scientists may receive up to $150,000 per year on their patents.

In theory, Bayh-Dole incentivizes bright scientists to seek employment at federal health agencies rather than entering more lucrative private industry by allowing these taxpayer-funded scientists and other individuals and entities to retain the patent rights to intellectual property developed during their taxpayer-funded research and development activities.

In practice, this Act forever realigned the interests of taxpayer-funded scientists away from the American people and toward their own interests and profits and the profits of the private industries with which they collaborate. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team at NIAID infamously owned half the Moderna Covid vaccine patent which incentivized the misguided covid era policies leading to a colossal violation of the rights of Americans demonstrating the perverse incentives created by Bayh-Dole and the necessity of repealing the act.

3. Repeal the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992:

“The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug review and approval process.”

In 2022 alone, the pharmaceutical industry paid $2.9 billion in user fees amounting to 46% of FDA’s entire budget including $1.4 billion or 66% for FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries and $197 million or 43% of the biologics (vaccines) program budget. As a direct consequence of PDUFA, the FDA has a vested interest aligned with the profits and success of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the health and wellbeing of the American people.

4. Repeal the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration.

“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

  • of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions
  • determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency
  • to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures

A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.”

The PREP Act desecrates the ethical principle of informed consent by protecting individuals from liability even when they expressly act contrary to patients’ wishes and instructions and must be repealed.

5. Repeal the Affordable Care Act:

The Affordable Care Act anchors Americans to the pharmaceutical and drug-based medical paradigm even though a majority of Americans used at least one form of “alternative” medicine in 2021 and spent $30.6 billion in out of pocket expenses for those holistic medicine services in 2023 according to Statista. Instead, implement a health savings program which permits Americans to access the health and medical modalities of their choice which in turn would foster more competition and reduce the exorbitant health care costs in the US by breaking the extant monopolies held by the medical and insurance industries.

6. Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA):

NCVIA shields vaccine makers and those who administer vaccines from liability (except for willful misconduct), creating a perverse incentive to industry to develop a never-ending stream of vaccines which are then mandated by the states and a perverse incentive to medical professionals to charge for and inject patients irrespective of the harm they may cause. Further, the NCVIA protects industry, medical professionals, and vaccine programs by creating a separate administrative federal court structure lacking due process and discovery, managed by “Special Masters” instead of judges, all in violation of the constitutionally protected right to due process. While NCVIA contains other provisions designed to protect American families and ensure the safety of the national vaccine supply, Congress is not conducting proper oversight and the promises made in 1986 at the time of the Act’s passage have not been upheld. As such, Americans who have been injured or killed by vaccines are left with astronomical medical bills and to fend for themselves.

7. Prohibit Private Donations to Government Entities:

Prohibit private individuals, foundations, corporations, contractors, any other person or entity from donating or otherwise giving money to any agency or entity of the federal government. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept money from private actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer thus skewing the interests of the agency in favor of these private actors and away from the American public. Gates has collaborated with FDA and the CDC Foundation takes money from the pharmaceutical industry whose products CDC is responsible for monitoring for safety.

8. Cooling-off Period for Senior Federal Employees:

Enact a 5-year cooling-off period before which agency leadership, deputies, and other key officials may depart federal agencies in order to enter the companies they regulate in the private sector.

9. Prevent Conflicts of Interest:

Eliminate conflict of interest waivers so that no person serving on a health agency committee, board, or other regulatory entity may have a conflict of interest. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is insufficient to ensure the agencies pursue the interests of the American people. Individuals with financial or ideological conflicts of interest should not serve as decision makers in any capacity.

10. Prohibit Government Grants to Nonprofits:

Prohibit government from allocating taxpayer dollars to nonprofit. Nonprofits exists to serve the public interests and should be funded directly by American citizens. If a nonprofit has a worthwhile mission, the public will gladly support it. Government exists to protect our rights and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers nor should it be using third parties to pursue policies outside the reach and review of the public.

11. Ban Water Fluoridation:

While water fluoridation programs are broad spread, they are not only dangerous from a health standpoint, they are forced medication in violation of the ethical principle of informed consent. Research comparing the health outcomes and IQs of communities that do and do not fluoridate their water supply reveal that children in the fluoridated water communities have reduced IQs and therefore inferior prospects in life. Other research has documented the health hazards of fluoride, an industrial waste product.

In addition, as fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, residents of those communities have no way to opt out and therefore are subjected to involuntary forced medication. No one should be forced to consume drugged water in order to maintain a biological necessity.

12. Ban Release of Genetically Modified Insects

Two tenets of good health are abundant exposure to sunshine and fresh air, however in some states, the state governments have collaborated with private business to release genetically modified mosquitoes into communities. While these mosquitoes are often designed to breed with one another and eliminate the “dangerous” species going forward, the health impacts of humans being bitten by these insects is not well understood. Nor should a person have to be risk being bitten by one of these creatures in order to venture outside. This amounts to a form of forced medication absent any form of consent and must be ended.

These recommendations should be understood as necessary first steps to begin correcting the disastrous health policy environment that exists in the United States today and to restore true health freedom in the US which would allow all Americans to decide what medical interventions to allow into or onto one’s body, which health and medical modalities to utilize in maintaining their health, and the ability to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or the air we breathe.

Update October 3, 2024: Policy Imperative 6. has been edited to note that the NCVIA shields medical professionals from liability as well as the vaccine industry.

Originally posted on HealthFreedomDefense.org.

Pain is the Prompt

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

Pain is the Prompt

It’s been a long time, I know.

It pains me that I haven’t written, that I haven’t been able to muster the energy, focus or heart to put pen to paper and express anything, but I do so now precisely because of the pain. As we all know, life is unpredictable and can be painful, sometime dishing up as much as we can handle. I suffered a spate of heartbreaking losses in the past year and a half and while those were very painful, the feeling prompting me to write now is the pain of witnessing and living through the moral decay and utter breakdown of our society.

I still remember the excitement I felt as a kid in 1976 celebrating our nation’s bicentennial. We played games in the neighborhood, lit fireworks in the street after dark, and scarfed ice cream flavors like Valley Forge Fudge at the iconic Baskin Robbins store. We felt pride at living in a free nation that had lasted for two hundred years. It was joyous and exhilarating. We lived in mostly happy communities, hopeful about the future. I’m not claiming it was some halcyon age, just that we weren’t sharply divided as we are today.

I know humans have a great tendency to reflect on years past through rose colored lenses, but that fact notwithstanding, there exists zero doubt that the tenor of our society has changed in the past couple of decades. Nowadays people behave in ways hitherto unthinkable so, maybe it’s time we attempt to redirect our society back to a more decent sociocultural space.

My father died quite unexpectedly on January 3, 2023 and not in the c-shot sort of way unexpected. I think he was heartbroken because he had had a successful heart procedure in December and wasn’t recovering the way he’d expected. He was almost 85 but looking forward to getting back to lifting weights, working out, and hiking, some of his beloved activities. I know that sounds weird for an 85-year-old but it’s not uncommon where we live or in our family – he was a fit man and doing all of that into his early 80s. So, when I got the call to go to the hospital, I thought I was going to see him and comfort him after a heart attack, but he was already gone. It was quite a jarring beginning to the year. 

But it didn’t end there. Over the coming months, several other beloved long-term friends passed on as well. It felt like a new blow every month or two and given what we’d all been through in the last few years it took time to process and digest so I focused my energy on leading Health Freedom Defense Fund, our lawsuits, and our clients. 

And that brings me to the pain of it all.

I live in a small community in Idaho, and have for most of my life. It’s always been a fairly tightknit community. If someone suffers a catastrophic accident like dying in an avalanche or car accident or develops cancer, the community rallies around that individual or the family to support them by raising funds, helping out, and much more. This had always been the case – until the Covid crisis.

Before Covid, our public servants generally tried to do the right thing by others, but when Covid mania began, the moral compass of almost all of them seemed drowned beneath the deluge of fear being poured upon us daily and they instead enacted a perfect example of obedience to authority in real time.

Despite being informed by countless members of our community that masks do nothing, that Covid dangers are being grossly exaggerated, that social distancing and all this other nonsense was just that – nonsense, they diligently (blindly?) genuflected to the utterances of Anthony Fauci and CDC no matter how illogical, contradictory, or lacking in scientific basis. Most troubling of all, some of these so-called public servants are apparently still ignorant of their mistakes and gullibility as they are still expressing a desire to possess and wield emergency powers for the next “crisis” despite all their failings and all the damage they caused. I wonder what leads them to believe they’ll do a better job next time when they were so lacking in critical thinking this last time.

The whole Covid experience has been hard enough to swallow, but what’s happened in the last month is what’s brought real pain to me. The Idaho primaries took place on May 21 and some of the races were hotly contested on both the Republican and Democrat side of things. While I have no problem with people arguing the issues or debating differences of opinion, I do have a problem with people spreading lies, people anonymously writing mendacious smear pieces and then distributing them, and politicians saying anything they believe an audience wants to hear only to say the exact opposite to another audience a week later, in order to gain votes. All these things happened here in my little community in the last couple of weeks.

I know this kind of stuff happens in bigger cities, bigger states, and on a national level much more than I’d likely care to know or understand, but when it happens in a small community, that has always been a refuge from the world out there, it hurts much more. Learning that someone I had once believed to be an upright member of our community allegedly wrote the anonymous smear piece riddled with malevolent lie after lie, and disseminated it in order to get a person elected, just boggles my mind. Knowing that another person distributed information that was seemingly mistakenly misinterpreted yet feels no compunction to correct the record – which on its own suggests the initial distribution was deliberate – is something I can’t comprehend.

What kind of people behave in such deceitful, immoral, unethical ways? Had I inadvertently disseminated incorrect information about someone, I would not be able to sleep unless I corrected the record with all of those to whom I’d first sent the information. But it seems that in this brave new world we inhabit, anything goes – at least for some. It’s open warfare, absent the shots. I guess it’s just as the saying goes – all is fair in war – but for me, this rationale is simply unconscionable.

If there is a silver lining within this situation, it’s that witnessing this kind of moral decay close up has galvanized me to not only express my utter heartbreak at this sorry state of affairs but also to state why I will never be silent about this kind of behavior and why I hope every person I know will join me in publicly condemning it. If we don’t call out, expose, and condemn those who lie, smear, and deceive, the behavior will not only persist, it will flourish. We don’t stop devious acts by turning a blind eye to them and the moral relativism that plagues our society will only expedite our decline. While we all have our own perspectives, some truths are simply not relative – cheating and deceiving are wrong no matter how we justify them. And a community that condones immoral behavior will ultimately collapse.

At the end of the day, all we really have is who we are in our relationships, in our actions, and in our hearts. For me, the guiding principles in life are doing the right thing to the best of my ability in all situations and doing my best at whatever I may undertake. As a human, I sometimes miss the mark, and that’s just part of life, but these failures are an opportunity to hone ourselves into the best people we can be. The real challenge is how we react when we do err so, for me the next guiding principle instructs me to own my shortcomings, apologize for them, and make amends whenever possible.

I think the only way for us to persist and thrive in this contentious and unethical world, is to embrace a moral life. We must endeavor each and every day to act from a place of good, to be guided by morals and ethics, and to answer to a higher purpose. This does not mean avoiding conflict or rolling over in order to be polite, rather it demands that we muster the courage to confront others when we witness them behaving in unethical and immoral ways. It means making our voices heard, even if we might get uninvited from parties or excluded from certain social circles. It means standing up and being accountable for what we say and do and how we live our lives.

We can’t remain silent about all the wrongs we see in the world – and I don’t mean disagreements about policy or politics, I mean actions that are clearly wrong like theft and other crimes, lying and deceit, corruption, and general dishonesty. While we may not have a voice on the larger national or global scale, we do have influence in our local communities and towns – where it matters most. Of course, this is uncomfortable if not downright frightening for us because our communities are where we are known and where our words and actions have the most potential to impact our daily lives.

Trust me, I know this firsthand as I have lost many friendships since speaking out about the undeniable dangers of vaccines and the Covid debacle. But taking these stands and living in integrity with what I KNOW to be true has given me an inner strength I never realized I had while eviscerating any fear regarding what people think of me because when we come from a place of integrity while demanding honesty and decency, it’s empowering for us and disarming for others at the same time.

Let’s take some inspiration from the American Revolution when a minority stood for what is right, just, and fair – even though that stance risked severing friendships and relationships. Those brave souls gifted us a better system than ever before but that system demands moral fiber which means not only the willingness to act morally in our own lives, but to hold others accountable as well. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant. So, expose the malefactors. Start a local email list and share the truth, expose mendacity, expose corruption. Talk about the stories and scandals the local news media does not cover.

Why should we do this? It’s quite simple, because the cost of not handling our affairs in this manner means the destruction of the social fabric of our society, the end of our communities, and the end of our country. It means the end of essentially everything that we hold dear. It means that those who live by Machiavellian means will win the day. And that’s not something I want for myself, my family or future generations. Righting this ship takes a commitment by us all to do the right thing, to expect the same of others, and to hold one another accountable when we fail. Anything short of this will allow the sickening rot infecting our country to thrive and as a result any dream of a decent society will surely perish.

To be fair, all this talk of taking a stand is not only about self-sacrifice, there are selfish reasons to embrace this path as well, because living a moral life simply feels good. Being honest, fair, and upright gives a sense of well-being, calmness, joy, inspiration, hope, and meaning to our lives. Apologizing for our mistakes and failures lightens our hearts and teaches others the path of humility and responsibility for our actions. This way makes one’s heart swell and spirit sing. It makes one feel that this battle between good and evil, truth and deception, honor and immorality, decency and destruction will end in triumph for those of us who want what’s good.

What would happen if we all vowed to adopt an honor code to guide every moment in our lives? What if we vowed to speak the truth, to act ethically, and to hold others accountable when they violate the codes of society? What if we also vowed to pursue this ethos in a decent, respectful manner, seeking to expose dishonesty not to shame and humiliate the offenders, but to strengthen the social fabric of our communities? Wouldn’t we make clear that this conduct will be given no quarter in our communities?

We could right this ship. We could, indeed, one person at a time.

My Time with Peter (Hotez)

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

In the glorious aftermath of Robert Kennedy Jr. red-pilling Joe Rogan about vaccines; other toxic but government approved products like glyphosate, atrazine, and PFOAs; and the malfeasance of government agencies, vaccine developer Dr. Peter Hotez seriously miscalculated or suffered an unfortunate lapse of judgement when he accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation. He thus unleashed a storm of criticism he surely never expected. Rogan publicly offered Hotez $100,000 donated to the charity of his choice if he would come on the show to debate Kennedy. Other onlookers chipped in and the donation promise mounted. Last I looked, the offer stood at $2.6 million but Hotez is not taking it!

Never before has the refusal of vaccine apologists to debate vaccine critics spoken louder of their ties to big pharma, big media, big government, and big academia.

Observing the last few years, millions have not just awoken to the reality of conflicts of interest and captured media, industry, and government, but also to true authoritarian censorship. Unfortunately, while millions may be forgiven for believing this is a recent development, the reality is far different.

I’ve been smeared by media outlets like the New York Times and CBS. Congressman Adam Schiff wrote to big tech and had my movie The Greater Good and the movies and books of many others removed from big tech platforms. Those of us working on vaccine safety awareness and health freedom issues know this is nothing new and has, instead, been standard practice for decades.

And Peter Hotez has acted as a loyal foot soldier to the big pharma lobby in their condemnable battle against honest citizens who’ve witnessed vaccine injury close up. His dishonesty is now on full display for all to see – but again, it’s not new.

In 2021, Hotez tweeted false claims about investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson alleging she had endorsed an article comparing him to Joseph Mengele, placed him in harm’s way through “dangerous and hurtful” conduct, and called for his doxing. He even suggested she was connected to white nationalists and was sending him images of Nuremberg. To call Hotez a liar is an understatement. Hotez exhibits a particularity dangerous and pathological behavior in that he is not merely dishonest but a fabricator of falsehoods intended to destroy those with different opinions.

Unfortunately, I have had my own experience with Hotez.

On October 2, 2019, a pediatrician, the Idaho State Health and Welfare epidemiologist, Hotez, and I, were guests on the NPR/Boise Public Radio show Idaho Matters. Some might argue 2019 was a prelude to what was to come in 2020 as the relatively small increase in measles cases was being hyped worldwide and weaponized against those demanding bodily autonomy and truth in science. Hotez’ conduct on the show illustrates perfectly the kind of person we’re now seeing unmasked – and it’s not a very flattering image.

Hotez employs slurs, ad hominem attacks, and falsehoods to smear his challengers from the vaccine safety awareness community. Again, this kind of treatment is not new. During the radio show, Hotez made the following statements:

1) that there is an “aggressive anti-vaccine lobby”

2) that I repeated “anti-vaccine tropes”

3) that I compared the measles cases in NY to the national population to “deliberately mislead”

4) that the concept of health and medical freedom is a “phony concept”

5) that I and other parents “download vaccine misinformation” from the internet

6) that the “anti-vaccine lobby is a media empire” with over 480 “misinformation websites”

7) that parents can’t put children in harm’s way because of “misinformation”

8) that I stated 89,000 vaccine “injuries” have been reported to VAERS after MMR

9) that Hotez is going to “correct the misinformation” I gave and give the “real information”

Additionally, Hotez insinuated I was lying when I stated that a local woman developed MS from a vaccine by saying there is no evidence of that. The young woman in question had to leave our community with her three children as she was no longer able to care for her family. She spent time on a neurological ward at a hospital in Salt Lake City, UT and there were many others suffering neurological complications from flu vaccines.

So, let’s address his claims:

1) There is a genuine grassroots effort of vaccine injured families raising awareness about the lack of quality science on vaccines. Specific problems with vaccine safety studies are the lack of genuine placebos (mercury, aluminum or another vaccine is used), short duration (studies can last as few as 3 days), lack of comparison to completely unvaccinated populations, lack of studies evaluating all the combinations in which vaccines are given, lack of studies evaluating health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. There are a couple of studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children and they overwhelmingly show the health of unvaccinated children is superior. The truth is that big pharma, which includes the vaccine industry, is the largest lobby group in the US shelling out $250 million each year, spends $35 billion on ads annually thereby “owning” the media, pays more than half the drug approvers’ salaries at FDA, and controls the medical journals through the purchase of glossy reprints.

2) Everything I stated was based on official data from US agencies or data from peer-reviewed published studies. It’s there for anyone to see – you just have to dig a little deeper than the mainstream media. In fact, these days, you may have to employ an independent search engine because google rigs its results to downplay anything that challenges officialdom. I don’t repeat tropes, I know the science and would gladly debate Hotez or any other vaccine pusher about the true science of vaccines, including all we don’t know.

3) I did not compare measles cases in NY to the national population. I compared the total amount of measles cases according to CDC to the total US population. To understand how the public has been misled about the dangers of measles, the cases, and the role of vaccines, check out these articles at Children’s Health Defense.

4) Health and medical freedom are not a “phony” concept. Children have been kidnapped by hospitals and CPS for refusing the Hep B shot at birth or deciding a fever has passed and there’s no need for medical attention. There is nothing phony about parents having their children stolen from them because they’ve done what they think is best for their children. Millions have been injured by vaccines and there is a mountain of science documenting the risks and shortcomings of vaccines. To suggest otherwise is not only dishonest, it’s immoral.

5) All the information I give in all forums is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and derived from published peer-reviewed research or US government data. It is not misinformation in any way, shape or form, no matter how often or loudly Hotez or other vaccine industry stakeholders shout about it. (Notice, Hotez and his ilk were calling us misinformation spreaders years ago – it’s not a new derision.) Rather, parents like me have advanced degrees and are highly educated. We can read science and discern when we’re being misled. We understand when an issue is being whitewashed. We understand experts can be bought and we’re smart enough, strong enough, and well-educated enough to call them out – we’re just not usually given the chance.

6) The vaccine awareness safety movement is largely not “anti-vaccine.” Rather, it is comprised primarily of ex-vaccinators who’ve witnessed the dangers of vaccines first hand. Would you call them anti-car seat for wanting safe car seats for their children? If someone chooses to only eat organic food, does that make them anti-food? If someone chooses filtered water based on the science related to a specific filter does that make them anti-water? If someone chooses to live in the countryside does that make them anti-city? This slur has been weaponized to smear and dehumanize individuals and their choices rather than address the damage sustained by them or their children from government approved products. It’s a ridiculous leap that has been normalized and is the go-to rhetoric for dismissing well-educated, well-researched individuals as loony dissenters. Many parents who once enthusiastically embraced vaccinations have now adjusted their posture choosing not to vaccinate and challenging the official narrative, but that results from personal negative experience, not some words they read on the internet.

7) Parents are protecting their children and themselves from the injection of known toxins that can damage the neurological system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, and more. Vaccines contain myriad toxins which have never been tested singly or in combination for toxicity, yet they are readily injected into our tiny, newborn babies as though no possible downside exists. This is prima facie not just wrong, but indisputably unethical.

8) I stated correctly that there have been 89,000 reports of adverse reactions to measles vaccines.  Hotez’ number of 221 is the number who actually received compensation from the impossibly corrupted Vaccine Compensation Program.

But Hotez didn’t just tell fibs about me, he told his own. He claimed that Dr. Greg Poland’s work shows 2 doses of the measles vaccine causes protection in 97% of recipients. Unfortunately for Hotez, Poland wrote in his January 2014 article The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines?:

“While the current vaccine is acknowledged as a good vaccine, we and others have demonstrated that the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine. The Table shows that this phenomenon continues to play a role in measles outbreaks. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced [8]. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized [8].”

Call me a lay person, but it does not take a scientist to understand words like “primary and secondary vaccine failure” or the “paradoxical situation of highly vaccinated groups being more susceptible.” Hmmm. When have I heard about vaccines undermining the immune system and rendering vaccinees more susceptible to illness?

While it wasn’t Hotez who made the absurd claim that vaccines are one of the best tested medicines available, I feel I’d be remiss by not correcting that whopper. The truth is vaccine safety studies do not use genuine placebos, they instead utilize another vaccine or solution containing mercury or aluminum as the placebo. Absent placebo-controlled studies, it is preposterous to claim that vaccines are well tested and one cannot make any claims about safety or efficacy without a proper placebo-controlled study. NONE. Not to mention that vaccine safety studies evaluate one vaccine but vaccines are administered in groups of as many as 8 doses of vaccines in a day. Nor are the health outcomes of vaccinated compared to those of the unvaccinated. To argue this is robust science is laughable. To understand the shortcomings of vaccine science, watch my movie, The Greater Good.

Hotez has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry, spent his career developing vaccines and holds patents on vaccines, rendering him a seriously conflicted participant in any debate about vaccines. One would never ask someone from the coal industry about the safety of coal-fired power plants but when it comes to vaccine-connected physicians and scientists, we somehow give them a free pass. Perhaps worse still is the glaring lack of disclosure made by media when media presents these so-called experts with vested interests. Nary a word was mentioned about Hotez’ background in his introduction on the show.  

In addition, Hotez makes disparaging remarks about those who deviate from the official orthodoxy of vaccines dispensed by the pharmaceutical industry and the health agencies that receive vast sums from that industry without any consequence or challenge from the compliant media.

As I wrap things up, let me share one last tidbit which illustrates the type of sick individual Hotez is; I did not have time to mention this during the show, but he has stated that the parents of vaccine injured children “hate their children and are a hate group.” Seriously.

It beggars belief that Hotez has any credibility as an expert but the pharma-influenced media doesn’t bat an eye at such outrageous comments.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would do the world a service by debating Hotez but my experience speaks volumes about Hotez’ true colors – he’s not interested in an exchange of different views, respectable debate, or an examination of the body of science. You can hear it yourself in the show, all he does is disparage me and those who have concerns about the safety of vaccines likely in the hopes that others will dismiss our concerns without further investigation.

Hopefully, his latest antics will undermine any vestigial credibility he may have had.

For a deeper dive read this article by the HFDF team.

NOTE: This post has been edited to insert the correct link to the whole Idaho Matters show in 2019 as we inadvertently posted a synopsis. Once you navigate to the Idaho Matters show page, click on the link that says, “Listen – 27:36” to listen to the full show.