Tag: Leslie Manookian

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.

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

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.