​Concerned parents across the state of Virginia are reaching out as they receive letters from their local school boards about NEW immunization requirements.

These letters are demanding their children be injected with several immunizations for rare illnesses. These immunizations come with incredibly high rates of permanent adverse reactions, chronic illness and death. 

In 2019 Delegate Hope, who has long standing ties to the pharmaceutical industry, was the patron of HB1090. This bill removed the legislature from the processes of adding to the school requirements and handed the power over to an unelected group of bureaucrats. This bill succeeded and goes into effect this summer.

Thousands of parents across the state actively opposed this bill by calling non stop, emailing, testifying and protesting. Not one member of the community spoke for this bill at anytime. Prior to the final vote the Governor called any democrats considering opposing it to his home for breakfast and ensured they would further the bill. Each one that promised to oppose this bill changed their vote after this breakfast. Almost every Senate Republican opposed this bill. One brave Democrat Senator abstained from voting. Prior to legislative session Governor Northam made a lucrative deal with a pharmaceutical company and has since worked diligently to further their influence and profit in the state. 

Mandates are contrary to liberty and freedom. Mandates violate bodily autonomy. Mandates of liability free products remove all incentive for companies to make safer products. 

The Supreme Court has ruled the vaccinations are "unavoidably unsafe."

In Virginia we have a facade of informed consent. Parents are given a VIS that has very limited information. True informed consent shows all aspects, consequences, risks and benefits. 

Informed consent is an essential component of the Patients Bill of Rights, and must include the ability to decline. Informed consent and ability to decline without punishment is a human right. 

Religious exemptions are still valid. Join the fight to oppose ALL mandates, secure liberty and ensure freedom.

https://youtu.be/4MKoZvBOqjs


Right now, as congress and the Biden Administration focuses on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they'e simultaneously expanding the wireless broadband infrastructure at a staggering rate. These two goals are in direct conflict with one another because the Communications Technology (CT) industry is one of the largest polluters of GHG.


As it stands, the CT industry which includes wireless devices, cell towers, small cell facilities, cloud computing, data centers, and more is projected to use 51% of the world's power by 2030 - and the resulting GHG from fossil fuels will increase pollution exponentially; not to mention the detrimental impact of wireless radiation on our health, animals, plants, and all life on earth.


Our elected officials are voting to put pressure on farmers to give up agricultural land for reforestation and carbon sequestration, yet the telecom industry is getting a free pass from any industry mandates or accountability for CO2 reductions. Instead, the American Jobs Plan bill is slated to award the wireless industry at least $65 billion and there are 28 federal bills to further deregulate wireless broadband across the United States, including on federal land (think national parks). This is extremely concerning because ZERO of this money has been set aside to address any sort of enforcement or controls regarding the maximum permissible exposure limits to radiation, the carbon emission levels, and impact on public safety, our environment, cyber security, property values or privacy. 


It’s never been more urgent to get protective radiation enforcement legislation passed in congress because the stakes are higher than they've ever been before. To help Virginians for Safe Technology and the National Health Federation build this grassroots effort, fill in your contact info in the enforcement and mitigation proposal below to trigger an email to be sent your US Rep & both Senators!


https://national-health-federation.rallycongress.net/ctas/enforce-mitigate-5g-wireless-broadband-emissions

It is imperative to consider the serious legal, ethical, humanitarian and future societal changes related to the ‘vaccine passport’. Actions and legislation towards the implementation of systems that would validate an individual’s COVID-19 Vaccination status, AKA “COVID Passports” must be addressed.
COVID passports would be unprecedented, likely illegal, and contrary to the
principles and laws supporting privacy, freedom of assembly, individual choice in
how one’s health and wellbeing are created and sustained, bodily autonomy and,
not the least -- the impact to the loss of one’s liberty through a draconian division
[1]
Nothing could be more clearly singular in thinking than creating a (universal) system that demands that the whole ‘world’ meet the one metric of ‘proving health via vaccination’ than demanding a need for a global technology (likely digital – block chain) in order ‘prove’ the existence of one’s health status via a ‘passport’ preceded by the ‘uptake of the vaccine’.
“Global/Universal Digital Technology Mandated”
The concept of the COVID Passport introduces and demands evidence that others have participated in this effort – therefore – the need for a singular (universal) ‘smart technology’ to ‘prove receipt of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. The outcome, without going any further -- will have the effect of creating a tiered ‘health’ system and societal structure that will disenfranchise anyone who approaches health in a manner inconsistent with current dogma.
The obvious challenge – the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection or
[2]
of the ‘vaccinated’ versus ‘unvaccinated’ across societies.
and new legal rulings be needed to enforce the compliance of separating the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? How many adults will lose their jobs because the decline to participate in the one monolithic ‘health’ model?
prevention of transmission.
the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that “...there was not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee
A serious point of fact is that on April 24, of 2020,
Will police powers
the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free’ certificate’.” [3] [4] The WHO position has not changed as of this date.
Segregation and Discrimination
It is also important to stress, the ‘one’ solution imposed within this argument is that there must be a system in place whereby one can only associate with other ‘like vaccinated’ people verse freely associating with others - -while living a fully healthy life outside of one’s vaccination status.
This either-or (only two choices) choice is antithetic to the very existence of human behavior, thinking and endeavors. There is not, nor will be a ‘one’ society whereby all are in agreement on how to create and sustain health. There has never been, nor through the imposition of a technology, a ‘one’ method to determine “health”.
Any actions towards this end will have long-lasting detrimental, chaotic and dangerous effects on humanity. This will cause tremendous upheaval between individuals, societies, competing belief systems, and societal modes of maintaining health. In other words – this won’t end well.
Precedent and Some additional points to consider:
• Virtually all existing U.S. vaccination requirements for schools[5] [6] [7], U.S. citizenship, the Military[8], and health care workers contain exemptions for medical reasons, or reasons of religion or conscience.

• No existing U.S. vaccination requirements contain any vaccine not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccines are currently authorized under an
  [9] [10] [11]
• Record of an individual’s visit to a healthcare facility, and the administering of a vaccine, is a record of provision of health care to the individual. By definition, this is PHI.
• Even though the letter of HIPAA [16]defines “Covered Entities” and that definition is limited in its application, the systems by which a business or other

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [12], Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) [13] [14] [15] and the manufactures are all clear that an EUA vaccine is optional.
. Language around these EUA
•
The business-customer use case for required vaccinations currently does not
entity would legitimately validate this PHI (the COVID passport) would be the actions specifically intended to be protested by HIPAA: Obtaining consent from the individual and transmitting, reading, and possibly storing PHI.
o The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy
Rule”) establishes, for the first time, a set of national standards for the protection of certain health information. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued the Privacy Rule to implement the requirement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).1 The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information—called “protected health information” by organizations subject to the Privacy Rule — called “covered entities,” as well as standards for individuals' privacy rights to understand and control how their health information is used. Within HHS, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Privacy Rule with respect to
[17]
voluntary compliance activities and civil money penalties.
exist. As mentioned above, current vaccination requirements are limited to
schools, military, healthcare workers, and those applying for citizenship. And
these requirements have readily available exemptions. There is no precedent for
a place of business, an airline, a sports arena requiring vaccinations upon entry
with no accommodation for exemptions. While there appears to be demand for
the passport in industries such as the airlines, there is still much debate as to who
[18]
‘infrastructure’ to maintain such a global endeavor
made for the need for serious scrutiny behind demands for such efforts as
[20]

• The Americans for Disability Act (ADA)[21] [22]defines “disability” [23]as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.” [24]
• Immunity passports would likely be illegal in the United States because the ADA not only protects people with a disability but, also, those who are “regarded as” [25]having a disability. Therefore, if employers begin to regard

is really ‘demanding’ the passport.
disagreement among nations and states with regard to how to build the
[19]
financial and economic control is embedded in these efforts.
It is also clear that there is much
. There can also be a case
individuals without COVID-19 antibodies as physically impaired and limit their
[26]

• The ADA protects individuals ‘regarded as” have an impairment from discrimination by businesses, employers, and other entities. The courts may consider a lack of COVID-19 immunity to meet this standard of an impairment, especially if exemption for medical or religious reasons is not accommodated.
  o Discrimination will become a significant intended or unintended result of any passport efforts.
  o With the extraordinary (mis)use of police powers witnessed by law enforcement around the world - to enforce the separation of individuals from each other during this current pandemic -- the logical extension of this will be the criminalization of any behavior (regardless of a declared pandemic) that fails to meet the perceived ‘new vaccinated’ ways of interacting within society.
• The EEOCs DEC 2020 guidance for employers desiring to require vaccination
  stated an employer would have to prove the unvaccinated would pose
  “significant risk of substantial harm” to other employees and that this risk
  [27]

ability to perform their jobs, this would likely be a violation of the ADA.
could not be reduced with reasonable accommodation
could be proven, employers must then provide accommodations such as working remote. Further, the guidance stated that the employer must provide reasonable accommodation for an employee unable to receive a vaccination due to disability, sincerely held religious belief, practice or
observance.” Finally, the guidance specifically pointed out the current EUA status of COVID-19 vaccines.
COVID Passports would, by design, coerce [28] individuals to be vaccinated in order to function in normal society. Coercion, tactics designed to ‘incentivize’ and to advantage one group over another is illegal.
The Covid Passport would be an unprecedented overreach and a massive infringement of individual liberty. And, as already stated – it has the very real potential to create a caste system and it could likely precipitate great civil unrest by favoring the vaccinated while discriminating (police force) against the un- vaccinated.
. In the event this
Please do everything within your power to ensure individuals continue to have the right to make their own private healthcare decisions.
ANNEX
COVID Passports: Contrary to HIPPA and existing US Domestic Vaccination Requirements
The purpose of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is to define and protect the privacy of your Health Information and its intent was to cover entities who could potentially have access to your information.
HIPAA defines

• Your PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION (PHI) – includes your past, present or future physical or mental health condition, the provision of health care to the individual care to the individual, or payments regarding health care.
• Who is allowed to see and transmit your PHI – “Covered Entities” (CE) which include any Health Plan, Health Care Clearinghouse, or Health Care Provider and by extension, any “Business Associate” (BA) which many handle PHI as part of business with any Covered Entity.
• How CEs and Bas are to secure, and store your PHI.
• How CEs and Bas are to have PHI rules enforced.
• Procedures and policies CEs and Bas must follow if there is a breach
  of your PHI.
• Requirements and necessary documentation required before
  exposing PHI to other individuals and entities, including obtaining written acknowledgement/permission from the patient to exposé that information.
  Documentation and record of your vaccine shot is PHI

• Record of your visit to a healthcare clinic and the administration of a vaccine is a record of provision of health care to a patient. By definition this is PHI.
Determination of your Vaccination Status by a business or entity would require transmitting and reviewing the PHI.

• In order for a vaccine passport to be properly verified while minimizing the possibility of fraud and forgery, a system would need to be instituted that pulled a verified copy of your vaccine record.
• An airline, concert venue, grocery store, etc. would have to have a device capable of reading, transmitting and possibly storing your vaccination status.
• By definition, this is the behavior of a Covered Entity (CE) or the Business Associate (BA) of a CE.
  While CEs and Bas are explicitly defined in the letter of HIPPA law, this entire process is contrary and in direct opposition both the intent and spirit of the HIPAA law.

• HIPAA and supporting laws like HITECH[29], were written to protect your PHI and define the rules that entities who might have access to your PHI must follow.
• The Difference between HIPAA and HITECH
• The difference between HIPAA and HITECH is subtle. Both Acts address the
  security of electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI) and measures within HITECH support the effective enforcement of HIPAA – most notably the Breach Notification Rule and the HIPAA Enforcement Rule. However, there is a difference between HIPAA and HITECH with regards to patients ́ rights.
• Prior to HITECH, patients were unable to find out who their ePHI had been disclosed to (both authorized and unauthorized where known). In 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services published a HITECH-required Rule that allows patients to request access reports. These reports explain to patients who accessed and viewed their ePHI and under what authority.
• Retail business, airlines, concert venues were never on the radar as possible CEs in 1996.
• To apply strict, enforceable, and extremely specific laws to HIPAA, CEs and Bas, while potentially setting precedent for allowing a grocery store, concert venue, airline, or other entity unfettered access to PHI, is in direct opposition to the intent of HIPAA and the Privacy Rule for PHI.

[30]
• And even more dangerous, HIPAA requires the individual to be given the opportunity to consent to their PHI being exposed. In a COVID Passport scenario, refusal to consent could mean denial of entry, service or even employment. All - an unprecedented violation of civil liberties.
HIPAA – if at all -- should clarify the definition of what can be considered Covered Entities and by extension, Business Associates, so that when a Public Health Emergency is declared by the Department of Health and Human Services (or government entity) -- a patient’s private PHI and civil liberties are protected as per the original intended laws.
SOURCES
See inserted notes and:
https://law.stanford.edu/2020/04/14/covid-19-immunity-certificates-practical- and-ethical-conundrums-2/
https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/covid-immunity-passports/
[1] https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm
[2] https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-do-immunity-passports-and-vaccination-certificates-mean-covid-19- restrictions
[3] In April, the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned against the use of immunity passports saying: “there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’.” It recently confirmed that this
position has not changed.
[4] https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 [5] https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
[6] https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspx
[7] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter110/section80/
[8] https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/Immunization-Healthcare/Clinical-Consultation- Services/Exemption-Guidance
[9] https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-21-food-and-drugs/21-usc-sect-360bbb-3.html
[10] https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-21-food-and-drugs/21-usc-sect-360bbb-3.html
[11] https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring- vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/
[12] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/records/index.html
[13] https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo- laws
[14] https://www.eeoc.gov/coronavirus

            [15] https://www.eeoc.gov/update-april-6-2020-memorandum-processing-information
[16] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
[17] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
[18] https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/safracenterforethicswhitepaper8_1.pdf
[19] https://institute.global/policy/digital-identity-missing-piece-governments-exit-strategy [20] https://institute.global/policy/architecture-containment-getting-gold
[21] https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm
[22] https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm
[23] https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12111
[24] https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/covid-immunity-passports/
[25] https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12111
[26] https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/covid-immunity-passports/
[27] https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus- mandatory-vaccinations.aspx
[28] US Bases in California: Mandating the RT-PCR and experimental COVID vaccines also violates California State law (CA Health & Safety Code § 24172). 10 Federal and State law on this matter rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.” [29] https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-and-hitech/
[30] https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-and-hitech/

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing as a (who are you).

It is of grave concern to me that the (CHURCH/SCHOOL/PLACE) is considering hosting a Covid 19 vaccine clinic. I am currently reviewing the many of the numbers of death and injuries attributed to these liability free medical products, and the numbers are sky rocketing. 

A huge concern is pathogenic priming. In every previous attempt to develop a Corona category virus vaccine all of the subjects initially developed antibodies. When they were later exposed to the virus they all died of cytokine storms within a short time because the antibodies they developed turned on their systems. 

There is significant concerns about the mRNA vaccines being tested on aborted fetal cell lines. Another concern is that the mRNA alters the current natural mRNA and changes the “messaging” to cells. The long term effects of this are unknown but even lead scientists at Gavi and Pfizer are predicting that it will be catastrophic. 

I would be grateful to discuss this with you further and provide the data and studies that support this information.

I urge you to provide full and complete informed-consent to anyone considering taking these medical products. This should include;
 1.  These products are liability free for manufacturers.
 2. They were tested on aborted fetal cell lines.
 3. The federal government has paid out over 4.6 billion in vaccine death and injury since 1986, and Harvard studies show that only attributes to less than 1% of the total numbers of death and injuries.
 4. These products were not animal tested, but in very similar previous animal testing all subjects died within the year.
 5. These products have no long term studies, have not been study to see if they cause cancer and were not studied in diverse populations or on those with chronic illness.
 6. These products are experimental and not FDA approved.  Long term effects are completely unknown.
 7. Manufacturers claim that vaccine will not stop transmission, but hopes to lessen symptoms if contracted. The same thing can be achieved with high doses of vitamins D&C.
 8. Initial licensing requests for the mRNA products have them listed as gene therapy, not immunizations.

For a virus with a survival rate of 99% in all age categories these experimental products are likely more dangerous then the illness itself. 

Please, decline hosting a clinic. It is imperative that your (members/clients/base) know these details and do not feel any coercion to participate. 


Thank you,
YOUR NAME

​Dear Superintendent and School Board Members,

Today, Parents and Virginia residents, focused on possible COVID-19 vaccine mandates as a condition of in-school and/or virtual learning, release a letter to Virginia School Supervisors, Superintendents and School Board Members, to include associated Virginia Board of Education (VDOE) members.  Specifically, this release applies to a possible mandate of products that have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).  

The EUA Statute authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to declare a health emergency and authorize the use of drugs, treatments, or other products that may be beneficial but have not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective and are thus only available for use under the EUA. The federal COVID EUA was declared by HHS Secretary Azar on April 1, 2020 and includes numerous authorizations for a wide range of products, none of which are fully approved, and all of which may be offered only on a voluntary — not a mandatory — basis.

These products include tests for SARS COV-2 and experimental injections for COVID-19, such as the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots, and the Johnson & Johnson recombinant vaccine.  

There are substantial known and unknown risks associated with using any EUA product, including in the context of COVID. EUA products are, by definition, experimental and investigational; anyone administering or receiving an EUA product is participating in a medical experiment. That is precisely why EUA products cannot be mandated.

Among the key product types authorized for COVID-related EUAs are:
1.    devices, systems and procedures that may detect the possible presence of some viral material in a person (i.e., “tests” or “RT-PCR tests” or “antigen tests” or “antibody tests”);
2.    wearable devices that may have some effect on reducing transmission (i.e., “masks” or “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”); and
3.    two different manufacturers’ mRNA injectable drug treatments delivered via two consecutive shots (i.e., “vaccines”).
4.    one manufacturer’s recombinant single-shot vaccine.
For these — or any other EUA products — to be distributed and used, disclosure documents published by the FDA for each product must be provided at the time of distribution to all potential users, detailing the potentially significant risks and benefits associated with use of that specific product.  Additionally, extensive protocols are required by federal law for assessing the effectiveness and safety of EUA products, while also protecting users’ medical health, privacy and other guaranteed rights.
Please find the letter below as it pertains to our concerns.  
Parents of children in Virginia schools are aware that there are several discussions across the State of Virginia addressing a need (possible mandate) to add COVID-19 products and shots as a condition of back to school in-person and/or virtual attendance.  Further, there are indications that amount to de facto mandates as a mechanism of coercion or compliance – such as threat of job loss or losing classroom access.  These concerns are also detailed in this letter.  De facto mandates are illegal.  

The purpose of this letter is to help you to understand the science, law and policy as summarized below. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to open safely, legally and ethically. 

As the world learns to navigate COVID-19, opening schools safely is of paramount importance and in everyone’s best interest. Broadly, we have learned some school districts across the US intend to mandate frequent Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing [1] on students and, when investigational COVID-19 vaccines are available to children, intend to mandate students and employees be vaccinated as a condition of attending school. This is a trend that is increasingly becoming evidenced in Virginia. 

Protracted school closures have created an educational and mental health emergency amongst students, due to learning loss from remote learning and isolation from their peers, canceled sports, cultural activities, religious gatherings, jobs and other support systems. More than one year after the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, one of the worst consequences may not be directly caused by the virus, but rather by school closures, isolation and lockdown measures that have sent the suicide rates surging significantly among children in the U.S. and other countries. [2]

Since the pandemic began in March of 2020 and schools closed their doors, reports of suicidal thoughts, attempts and cries for help among children have increased significantly across the nation, according to numerous studies.  
There are ways to open schools safely.  Many schools are opening without testing or vaccine requirements.  We invite you to learn more about how Alsea School Superintendent Marc Thielman opened schools in an Oregon county in Fall 2020 without incident. [3]

Mandating products approved for emergency use violates federal and state law since Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) means the products are investigational and experimental. Federal and state laws are very clear that mandates are illegal for EUA products. Both the RT-PCR test and all COVID vaccines are not FDA-approved; they are only available under an EUA.
The right to fully-informed consent has roots in the Nuremberg Code, which states the consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.”5 If an intervention causes greater harm, is ineffective for the stated aim, and illegal, as such you must re-evaluate implementing the proposed interventions as a condition for students to return to in-person learning.  

Below we address the issues with this approach in four sections:
1.    The law surrounding Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), under which both the RT-PCR and COVID investigational vaccines are being used on the public; 
2.    Peer-reviewed science regarding
1.    (2a) The RT-PCR test, demonstrating that it is not a diagnostic tool and cannot determine if someone is sick or infectious, and; 
2.    (2b) Emerging issues with the investigational COVID vaccine; 
3.    Creation of on-campus COVID testing and vaccination centers; and 
4.    Your institution’s real legal liability should you proceed with any plans to mandate investigational testing protocols or vaccines. 

Note that while vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability by 42 USC 300aa-11 and 42 USC 300aa-22, your institution is not protected.6 
You are hereby officially on notice that if you illegally or irresponsibly mandate products on students or public-school employees, we may have no recourse but to take legal action. As an example, Children’s Health Defense has initiated a related suit in New York against the NYC Department of Education and Mayor de Blasio for arbitrary school closures and coerced PCR testing as a condition to in-person learning privileges.7 (Aviles, et al. V. de Blasio, et al. 20-CV-09829 (PGG))  
(1) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA): Illegal to Mandate Products Under EUA
PCR testing and COVID vaccines are not fully licensed products. They are EUA products,8 which by their very nature are legally considered investigational. As these are experimental medical products, it is unlawful and unethical for schools to mandate either the RT-PCR test or any currently available COVID vaccine. Federal law confirms explicitly that an EUA product must be voluntary because the federal statute requires “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”9
Federal and State laws on this matter rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.” This is a bright line that cannot be blurred.
Of note, specific laws such as the US Federal Regulations, notably the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348],11 Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46]12 and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50]13, [21 CFR 56]14, [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]15, [10 CFR 745]16, [45 CFR 46 Subpart B]17, [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]18) specifically and permanently guarantee that all persons in the United States are entitled to exercise the right of informed consent to accept or to refuse to enroll in any medical experiment.

The CDC admits that it is illegal and unethical to mandate PCR testing in schools.19 Moreover, the States, and therefore public schools, cannot mandate the PCR test or COVID vaccines because the FDA and courts have found the federal preemption doctrine prevents states, and therefore public schools, from going outside the bounds of the Emergency Use Authorization law.20

       This was also confirmed again last year at a CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in August 2020, where ACIP Executive Secretary Amanda Cohn, MD stated:
 “I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”21  
 In conclusion, the law is clear that States, and therefore public schools, cannot mandate experimental products and are preempted from mandating an EUA product.22 The soonest the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech experimental vaccines could be considered by FDA for full licensure (in adults only) is when the trials are expected to conclude, on October 27, 2022 and January 31, 2023, respectively.
(2) The Faults with RT-PCR Testing and Emerging Dangers of the COVID Vaccines
The FDA may someday grant full licensure to the RT-PCR test and some COVID vaccines. For now, these products are approved for investigational emergency use only, as described above, so the problems with the reliability of the test and vaccine efficacy and safety are not technically relevant to the illegality of mandates.
Since the FDA may grant full licensure at some point, which may make it legal to consider mandating them, we must also advise you of the medical and scientific issues that make school mandates dangerous to the health and safety of the educational community under any circumstances.
Below we detail (a) documented issues with the reliability of the PCR test; and (b) COVID vaccine science showing no disruption of person-to-person transmission, concerning safety data, and other issues regarding COVID vaccines and children. 
(a) Issues with PCR Testing as a Condition for In-person Learning or Teaching
In the event that Virginia tries to enforce PCR tests as a stipulation and requirement to return to school, with the penalty of withholding access to in-person education if testing is not completed, we remind you that the CDC has declared mandatory PCR testing unethical and illegal. 
The RT-PCR test does not confirm infectiousness. The tests cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments (live or dead nucleotides).
 
Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance states the RT-PCR test must only be used in the presence of symptoms. As such, the RT-PCR should never be used on healthy people, and should only be used in a clinical setting combined with an exam by a licensed medical professional. 
On July 17, 2020 and updated on July 20, 2020, the CDC recommends a symptoms-based strategy for testing, meaning only those with symptoms should consider being tested.23

The EUA for the Roche PCR test states “positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status.”24
The Roche EUA also states “positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.” Any positive PCR test is unconfirmed if the patient is not also tested for flu, pertussis, tuberculosis, or many of the other 1400 human pathogens associated with symptoms similar to COVID-19. Skipping this standard differential diagnosis results in confirmation bias, attributing all symptoms like cough or a fever to COVID.

Since the RT-PCR test Cycle threshold (Ct) in the U.S. is set too high – at a Ct of 40 – it can amplify a low viral load and be erroneously conflated with infectiousness.25   On January 21, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) further clarified that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The Ct needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different nucleic acid test (NAT) technology.”26 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, acknowledged in July 2020 that a positive RT-PCR test above a 35 Ct is meaningless. 

(“[I]f you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, …the chance of it being replication-competent are [sic] miniscule. And we have patients – and it’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians – somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like 37 cycle thresholds, but you almost never can culture virus for a 37-cycle threshold. So, I think if someone does come in with 37-38, even 36, you got to say, ‘You know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”27

Anthony Fauci’s “Dead Nucleotide” Statements
The primary issues that must be called into question is that there will be many that don’t have the ‘disease’ yet may still test positive for the presence of viral fragments based on the flawed testing and kits, inconsistent assay and lack of standardization across labs around the world.  Further - Anthony Fauci recently referred to the ‘viral fragment issues as the “dead nucleotides” problem.   
Dr. Fauci: “Right again, a good question and what is now sort of, uh, evolving into a bit of a standard that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule so that if somebody and you know we do we have patients and it’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37 cycle threshold but you never if you almost never can culture virus from a 37-threshold cycle so I think if somebody does come in with 37 38 even 36 you got to say you know it’s just it’s just dead nucleotides, period. – Anthony Fauci (This Week in Virology, July 17, 2020)

In fact, 97% of PCR positives are false positives if the cycle threshold is higher than 35. A critical review of the seminal Corman-Drosten study which established PCR testing standards concluded:
“In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detect signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”28

If you only read one reference in this entire letter, it should be the above to the Corman-Drosten Review: www.cormandrostenreview.com.  This paper describes in detail most of the shortcomings of the PCR test that is driving the fear of SARS CoV-2, the virus said to cause the symptoms called COVID-19. 

Returning to the most egregious problem with the RT-PCR test, a scientific literature review study by Tom Jefferson MD found specific Ct values correlate with infectiousness or lack thereof, and suggests that a Ct of 35 is still too high: “The inability of PCR to distinguish between the shedding of live virus or of viral debris, means that it cannot measure a person’s viral load (or quantity of virus present in a person’s excreta).” In the review, all tests with Ct >30 resulted in non-infectious specimen. Jefferson also stated “weak positives (those with high Ct) are unlikely to be infectious, as a whole live virus is the prime requirement for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR.”29 

The RT-PCR test being set at a Ct of 40 in the United States is indeed far too high and creates what has been termed a “casedemic,” disrupting all of society but especially children’s education and mental health. We do not think Virginia public schools should consider furthering this problem by requiring a test that the scientific community has found to be utterly unreliable.

Even if RT-PCR tests do gain full licensure someday, Virginia schools would need to certify to the students, staff and family the following, before our education system is further disrupted by a test that delivers a majority of false positives and doesn’t measure infectiousness:
1.    Provide all students and staff with fully informed consent and advise them of their right to decline taking a test, and the right for asymptomatic students and teachers to be in the classroom. In other words, testing must be voluntary.
2.    Refer symptomatic children and staff to their primary care physician for voluntary testing and treatment. Students and staff can return to in-person learning or work when they are symptom-free or have quarantined for the recommended 7 to 10 days.
3.    The primary care physician must rule out – via antibody or PCR testing – the other human pathogens that can cause symptoms similar to COVID-19.
4.    For any tests run on a student or staff member by the primary care physician, confirm the RT-PCR Cycle threshold is 28 or less, since that is the highest Ct with proof of replication-competent virus.
5.    Confirm with a DNA or RAT test that the presumptively ‘positive’ sample is positive and not just picking up dead RNA fragments or background noise by using Sanger sequencing on every potentially positive test, and then confirming any potential positives with a human cell culture to verify the existence of replication competent virus. If the sample is unable to be cultured, then the individual is not infectious.
6.    Demand that the test report includes viral load information, and not just a binary reading.
7.    Per the 1/21/21 WHO guidance, perform a second test if the first one is positive.
8.    Do not rely on antigen tests which are also fraught with issues of false positives and false negatives.
Current CDC guidance on testing in school settings states:
If a school is implementing a testing strategy [i.e., testing healthy and sick, not based on symptoms,] testing should be offered on a voluntary basis.  It is unethical and illegal to test someone who does not want to be tested, including students whose parents or guardians do not want them to be tested.30
Please also keep in mind that according to the CDC, schools should be the first to reopen and the last to close.31

Given the above, the best course of action for the CDE and Districts is to ensure that sick students stay home, as has been the policy for pre-COVID times. There are already many other evidence-based protocols in place to allow safe return to in-person schooling, such as: hand washing, temperature-taking, suggesting sick students stay home until symptoms have resolved, classroom disinfection, and improved HVAC systems. Students should not be the victims of an experimental test, which will lead to a furthering of the Educational Emergency and even more social isolation that leads to mental health issues and suicide.
(b) Children are Not Asymptomatic Vectors; Science Shows COVID Vaccines are Risky

It is well-accepted that children have a statistically zero chance of dying from COVID. The CDC shows the K-12 mortality rate from or with COVID is .00003.32 Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipients than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of administering to children an investigational vaccine with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Therefore, it is clearly irrational to vaccinate children with a COVID vaccine to protect them from death. 

Given these facts, an unfounded theory has emerged to use students as pawns who, if vaccinated, could somehow stop transmission to teachers and school staff. However, the data show: students are not asymptomatic carriers, they and teachers have far lower rates of COVID diagnosis than the general population, and the vaccine does not prevent person-to-person transmission. 

Contrary to popular opinion, asymptomatic transmission is unfounded. Students are not disease reservoirs and are clearly not COVID vectors. The School Response COVID Dashboard shows that students and staff are among the least likely to be diagnosed with COVID. Compared to the positivity rate of 8.1% in the general California population in the most recently available data period (12/13/20), only 0.56% of California students tested positive for COVID, and the staff positivity rate was only 1.46%, even though teachers are daily interacting with students. This proves it is a significant mistake to assume children are asymptomatic vectors.33 In fact, in Germany, students are valued as the “brakes” to COVID transmission.34 

A recent CDC-funded study in Wisconsin concluded no staff members were infected by children, and transmission rates were very low:
In a setting of widespread community SARS-CoV-2 transmission, few instances of in-school transmission were identified among students and staff members, with limited spread among children within their cohorts and no documented transmission to or from staff members. Only seven of 191 cases (3.7%) were linked to in-school transmission, and all seven were among children.35 

 You may be surprised to learn that Sweden – the country that famously did not lock down – had an excellent outcome among children. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”36

A meta-analysis of 54 studies on transmission amongst almost 78,000 participants found that only 0.7% of cases attributed to “household transmission” could have spread from pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers in the household.37 

Additionally, a study among 10 million residents of Wuhan China demonstrated that asymptomatic transmission was non-existent.38 Among 300 possible carriers, “virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and re-positive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study. All asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.” 
 In contrast, a widely-quoted CDC-endorsed study claiming 59% of cases were due to asymptomatic transmission enrolled no subjects and is merely a mathematical model.39 

In a 2020 Health & Human Services press conference, Dr. Fauci stated “even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.40 The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”

Given the statistically zero COVID death rate in children, the low rate of COVID positivity in children, and the lack of asymptomatic spread, there is absolutely no case for the vaccination of children to protect them or others from COVID. 
Should COVID vaccines become fully licensed in the future and still be (inexplicably) under consideration for schoolchildren and staff after reviewing the above, we explain below how the COVID investigational vaccines do not prevent person-to-person transmission and are fraught with mounting safety issues as reported in the media, in the V-Safe App (used post-vaccination by study participants,) and in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS.) Most significantly, the investigational vaccines have not been tested in children. 
(c) No “immunity” and those ‘vaccinated’ can also become infected and transmit – Now What?
Since the COVID vaccines do not prevent person-to-person transmission, it is irresponsible to think this medical product could somehow protect adults by vaccinating children. 

Among other scientific data and research – Virginia Educators and decisionmakers are directed to the results of the Moderna and Pfizer clinical trial results and the official data used to obtain the EUA. Regrettably, there has been a significant amount of misinformation on the meaning of the “95% Effective” statistical results. It is critical to stress that the protocols from Moderna and Pfizer did not choose ‘death’, ‘hospitalization’, ‘cessation of transmission’ or ‘prevention of infection’ as their primary efficacy endpoint.  Stated differently, these categories were not included for measurement and no data were submitted for EUA approval based on these categories.  The final trial data reported the ‘efficacy’ results of symptom reduction. This is key!
In other words, a proper interpretation of the results must clearly state that one would have a statistical chance of 95% ‘effective’ (relative risk terms used in the trial data) of having a symptom reduction.  The key statistical terms that must be understood are here: 
| Absolute Risk (AR) | Relative Risk (RR) | Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) | Primary Efficacy Endpoint 

In sum: A Statistical Chance of having a Symptom Reduction Does Not Equal “Immunity” post ‘vaccination’.
Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted in October the goal of COVID vaccines is to provide personal protection only, not to prevent death, or person-to-person transmission. Fauci said he and his colleagues would “settle for … the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease.”41 Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks stated “our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because … you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable,” citing the need for a five-to-ten times longer trial length and even higher costs.42

Through April 09, 2021, 2,602 U.S. deaths43 have been reported after COVID vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS.)44 There are almost 68,347 total COVID vaccine reactions reported to VAERS so far, including 5,074 reports for hospitalization-required adverse events.  A CDC-funded study at Harvard Pilgrim concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS, a passive reporting system. Therefore, it is reasonable to multiply any reported events by 100 to approximate the actual number of deaths and adverse events after any vaccination. In fact, the COVID vaccine serious injury rate, based on the December Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting covering the first five days of COVID vaccination is 2.8%.47 Note that all approved COVID vaccines require two doses, so these data are mostly based on one dose. In the trials, the second dose was much more reactogenic, so we expect the serious injury rate to be much higher after the second dose. 

In addition to these government-documented safety issues, hundreds of catastrophic injuries – like life-threatening anaphylaxis and a bizarre shaking syndrome – and deaths have been reported in the media and on social media.48 While there have been recent attempts to dismiss deaths that have occurred within minutes to hours after vaccinations, it remains imperative that these are investigated.  These vaccines use brand new mRNA technology with known complications — and we can certainly anticipate many more unforeseen complications.50

In fact, today there are about two dozen vaccines in use in the United States and another 66 have been withdrawn, most for safety issues, such as LymeRix, RotaShield and DTP.51 These fully licensed vaccines were judged as safe with government approval. This shows a vaccine withdrawal rate of 73%. If three-quarters of fully licensed vaccines are withdrawn, the probability of a warp speed experimental vaccine being withdrawn is far higher.

We urge you not to put schoolchildren in harm’s way with an untested new technology in a quixotic attempt to prevent them from being asymptomatic vectors. COVID vaccines are more like a high-risk prophylactic drug that might only benefit the recipient, not anyone around them. There is no place for medical mandates, especially not for interventions that only provide personal protection. That is an individual choice. As mentioned above, manufacturers enjoy full liability protection when people are injured or killed by vaccines. The school district does not.

(3) On-Campus COVID Testing and Vaccination Sites
The CDE and some public-school districts are contemplating or attempting to create COVID testing sites on school campuses. For all the reasons stated above, there should be no such sites established on any Virginia public school campuses or school properties. While voluntary community or school testing might initially seem benign, these sites could easily be converted into vaccination centers for students, staff and the public. Again, because of the experimental nature of the vaccine, this too would be highly inappropriate.
(4) School District and Department of Education Legal Liability 
In summary, mandating EUA products is illegal. Further, mandates do not allow for informed consent.  

Relying on the RT-PCR or any other investigational testing product will lead to over-diagnosis and avoidable harms to many students and staff, including a discriminatory system where those who test negative can move freely while those who do not wish to be tested or those who test positive – even falsely positive – are denied their rights to an education and to work. 

Those who are forced to learn remotely do not have equal access. Remote learning disadvantages the poor: some may not have a fast internet connection, and students may not have a quiet room with a computer to learn away from family distractions and household/neighborhood noise. Requiring students and staff to take an investigational vaccine with known safety issues is reckless and will cause injury and death for which school districts and the VDOE will be liable. 

It is our sincere hope that the quorum that represents the Virginia Educators would never seriously consider such mandates.

We respect your position and fully appreciate your duty to educate children safely. The individual parents and Virginia residences that have raised these concerns will follow up with you to ensure you understand both the law and science. We aim to help you make the right decisions for the children of Virginia. 
Sincerely,
Concerned Parents across Virginia  
 
REFERENCES: 
 
[1] Usually conducted via nasal swab.
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7500342/%2523bib0030/
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm
[4] https://www.instagram.com/tv/CKUYGZGn4O8/?igshid=9xmjnp23bd8
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
[6] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section300aa-22&num=0&edition=prelim
[7] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-sues-nyc-dept-of-education/?fbclid=IwAR3edlSvDa2QMqNAoCO5pSj4am0OPz9o-V9SMGkkTrdPoZJ-iFBD1lQmtOI
[8] (Decl. Varma ecf 19 P.43.)
[9] ” 21 USCS § 360bbb-3 (“Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies”).
[10] http://leginfo.legislature.cahttp://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=24172.&lawCode=HSC.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=24172.&lawCode=HSC
[11] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg342.pdf#page=5
[12] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML
[13]https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=50&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:1.0.1.1.20.1
[14] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=56
[15] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/special-protections-for-children/index.html
[16] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title10-vol4/CFR-2011-title10-vol4-part745
[17] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML#sp45.1.46.b
[18] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/special-protections-for-children/index.html
[19] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-testing.html
[20] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities
[21] US Centers for Disease Control (September 2020), August 2020 ACIP Meeting – COVID-19 vaccine supply & next steps.  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/videos/low-res/acipaug2020/Covid-19Supply-NextSteps_3_LowRes.mp4 (@1:14:40)
[22] See e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570-71 (2001)
[23] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html
[24] https://diagnostics.roche.com/us/en/products/params/cobas-sars-cov-2-test.html
[25] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
[26] https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05?fbclid=IwAR2FnuSklIn9qtxve9EEEK9ht5WVw-QzWyeRUJJ203q0II4YBJecbJRylrA
[27] TWiV 641: COVID-19, Video interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, This Week in Virology, 4:22-5:10 (Jul. 16, 2020), at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE
[28] www.cormandrostenreview.com
[29] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4
[30] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-testing.html
[31] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e1.htm?s_cid=mm7003e1_w
[32] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schoolschildcare/k-12-testing.html
[33] https://statsiq.co1.qualtrics.com/public-dashboard/v0/dashboard/5f78e5d4de521a001036f78e#/dashboard/5f78e5d4de521a001036f78e?pageId=Page_c0595a5e-9e70-4df2-ab0c-14860e84d36a
[34] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-07-13/german-study-shows-low-coronavirus-infection-rate-in-schools and https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/925304/german-researchers-argue-children-may-act-brake-coronavirus-infections
[35] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm?s_cid=mm7004e3_w#F2_down
[36] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670
[37] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
[38] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
[39] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707
[40] https://youtu.be/vrAvjU2LBkg
[41] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fauci-vaccines-will-only-prevent-symptoms-not-block-the-virus-195051568.html
[42] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
[43] https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=NONE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&VAXTYPES=COVID-19
[44] https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&VAXTYPES=COVID-19&DIED=Yes
[45] https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&VAXTYPES=COVID-19&SERIOUS=ON
[46] https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
[47] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf
[48] https://prezi.com/i/byzl22mqwfaa/experiences-following-cvv/
 [50] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-dengue-vaccine-a-cautionary-tale/
[51] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/discontinued-vac.pdf
[52] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=24172.&lawCode=HSC


[1]  Usually conducted via nasal swab.

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7500342/%2523bib0030/

[3] https://www.instagram.com/tv/CKUYGZGn4O8/?igshid=9xmjnp23bd8

The implementation of community water fluoridation is considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be one of the “top ten public achievements of the 20th century” (Pollick, 2014). Fluoride’s vital role in preventing tooth decay is praised and promoted in the dental profession and taught determinedly in dental and dental hygiene schools. Some may conclude that with both the government’s support and implementation of water fluoridation as well as the heavy emphasis that is placed on fluoridation by the dental community, it would seem absurd to question such a miracle substance. However, fluoride has been shown to not only fail to meet the claims of reducing caries and decay, but has also been linked to many major health concerns such as interfering with thyroid function, decreased fertility, lowered IQ, premature birth and low birth weight babies, and more. 

The first city to be introduced to community water fluoridation was Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 (Pollick, 2014). Since that time, water fluoridation has become a standard for cities throughout the United States, with over 64% of the U.S. participating in the program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Ethically, it is argued that community water fluoridation contributes greatly to the core value of justice and fairness, ensuring that all people have access to such a preventative measure. 

​But the question must be asked: is community water fluoridation truly ethical from a healthcare standpoint to begin with? Informed consent is a major legal and ethical concept that is required of healthcare providers. By definition informed consent “is the process by which the treating health care provider discloses appropriate information to a competent patient so that the patient may make a voluntary choice to accept or refuse treatment” (DeBord, 2014). By treating water with medication in the form of fluoride, the government is violating an individual’s right to consent to this mass medical treatment of water. Swedish pharmacologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, stated: “In modern pharmacology it’s so clear that even if you have a fixed dose of a drug, the individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose. Now, in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption of this drug...it’s against all modern principles of pharmacology’’ (National Health Federation, 2010). 

​The status of one’s overall health can be related to his or her oral health. Oftentimes dental professionals are the first to notice signs of vitamin deficiencies, illnesses, and diseases such as diabetes or AIDS which manifest themselves in the oral cavity. However, when asked about fluorosis and the significance of its presence, dental professionals answer that fluorosis is a cosmetic discoloration of teeth due to excessive fluoride. The CDC states that fluorosis is simply “a change in the appearance of the tooth enamel” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). If the oral health of an individual is truly a window to their overall health, as is often said in the dental community, then perhaps the presence of fluorosis is indicative of a greater problem than simply the discoloration of enamel. It is contradictory to think that the overconsumption of fluoride that is manifesting itself in the teeth is not having an affect on the remainder of the human biological system. In his journal article A Surfeit of Fluoride?, Dr. Geoffrey Smith posed the question: “Are we to regard dental fluorosis as nothing more than a cosmetic aberration- something akin to freckles? Or is it possible that dental fluorosis is not an isolated subclinical symptom, and that plasma fluoride levels which can damage developing tooth cells may also endanger other cells and their enzyme systems in the body?” (Smith, 1985). Smith also compared the presence of fluorosis to what is known as the Burton line, a bluish-black line visible on the gingiva when chronic lead poisoning is present. He suggests that just as the Burton line is a clear indicator of chronic lead poisoning, fluorosis is an indication that fluoride poisoning has occurred in the body (Smith, 1985). 

​Despite many claims, evidence and analyses fail to present a correlation between fluoride consumption and decreased caries rates. According to the World Health Organization, the mean number of DMFT (Decayed Missing Filled Teeth) per person in Sweden and Denmark, neither of which fluoridate their water or salt, was 0.8 (Malmo University Oral Health Database, n.d.). Alternatively, the United States and Australia, both of which have a high percentage of community water fluoridation, have a higher DMFT number of 1.19 and 1.0, respectively (Malmo University Oral Health Database, n.d.). To account for potential health and social differences between these countries, these trends were also found to be true within the United States from data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research. This analysis found that of 39,207 children surveyed in the United States, there was no statistically significant difference between the decay rates of permanent teeth in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities (Yiamouyiannis, 1990). Despite the implementation of community water fluoridation in the large majority of the United States, dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease in the United States in both children and adults, with 92% of American adults having had caries in their permanent teeth (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2014). 

​Of greater importance than the lack of correlation between fluoridated water and dental caries prevalence are the many harmful effects that fluoride may have on the human body. A 2005 study found that children in India who were exposed to 4.37 ppm fluoride levels exhibited low levels of free triiodothyronine (T3), a hormone that is essential for proper functioning of the thyroid. Researchers found that the fluoride competitively binds with iodine, thus interfering with the synthesis and obstruction of thyroid hormones T3 and T4 (Peckham & Awofeso, 2014). While fluoride levels of 4.37 ppm are well above what is recommended in U.S. community water, the concern is still valid as to the safety and non-consequential claims of those who advocate fluoride. Another study found that 54% of children who exhibited dental fluorosis also exhibited irregular thyroid hormone levels. Those who were exposed to fluoride but did not exhibit dental fluorosis still had “well defined hormonal derangements” when exposed to fluoridated water levels ranging from 0.14-0.73 ppm. (Susheela, Bhatnagar, Vig, & Mondal, 2005). 
Surprisingly, the American Dental Association was aware of some of the potential problems that fluoride could present. In 1944, just one year prior to the introduction of community water fluoridation, the ADA denounced water fluoridation stating: “We do know the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements among children” (Anthony, 1944). Anthony goes on to conclude that although fluoride may initially appear attractive to treat the mass prevalence of caries, the lack of knowledge of it’s effects creates a potential for harm which would far outweigh the potential for good (Anthony, 1944). 
Perhaps one of the more well known and groundbreaking studies regarding the toxicity of fluoride is an analysis done by researchers from Harvard School of Public Health and Chinese Medical University which presented strong evidence that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development of children. Researchers found that data gathered from 27 published studies performed over the course of 22 years suggested that there was a correlation between children who were exposed to high fluoride levels and lowered IQ. This research “suggests that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that cause toxicity in adults” (Choi, Sun, Zhang, & Grandjean, 2012). Additional research has demonstrated similar correlations. Over 200 animals and human studies have found evidence of fluoride negatively affecting intelligence, ability to learn and remember, neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spacial organization, and impaired fetal brain development (Fluoride Alert, 2017). 
A.K. Susheela is a researcher at the forefront of fluoride toxicity research and has published over 80 articles on the topic. Susheela found that when fluoride was reduced in 2,500 anemic children and adolescents, 81% of the children in the study exhibited “corrected” anemia and normal red blood cell counts within six months (Susheela, Gupta, & Mondal, 2016). Susheela suggests that this correlation between ingested fluoride and anemia plays a major role in preterm births and low birth weight babies due to fluoride’s ability to decrease production of red blood cells. In addition to a decreased production of erythrocytes, her research has shown that fluoride causes premature death of red blood cells. In one of Susheela’s studies, 90 out of 205 pregnant women with anemia were told to avoid fluoridated water and other fluoride- containing products. At the end of the study, the sample group had considerably better body mass indexes, indicative of better absorption of nutrients. The majority of them also exhibited increased hemoglobin counts. Lastly, of the women who were told to avoid fluoride, 32% of the group delivered before 37 weeks, whereas 50% of the women in the control group delivered prior to 37 weeks. These findings are of particular interest due to the long term mental and physical effects that preterm birth may cause, as well as the abnormally high number of preterm births in the United States (MacArthur, 2013). Various studies have also found fluoride to contribute to decreased total fertility rates (Freni, 2009), sperm toxicity, and impaired fetal neurodevelopment (MacArthur, 2013). 

​It is unreasonable to think that the addition of fluoride, which has no known metabolic function in the body, is not an essential nutrient, and is not found in significant quantities in human breast milk (Stegeman & Davis, 2015) can be added to water with no consequence to the natural mechanisms of the human body. The human body through evolution and/or divine design was made to function properly, and has done so for millions of years. The addition of fluoride is not necessary, nor is there adequate research to support the infiltration of fluoride into the bodies of millions of people. Evidence of this can be seen in results that were found by coincidence at Yale University’s Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Microbiology and bioinformatic researchers were studying types of noncoding RNA called riboswitches which help control gene expression. During their research, a new riboswitch was discovered for which the researchers could not pinpoint it’s function. By accident, the team received a contaminated fluoride-spiked chemical sample which allowed them to determine that this particular riboswitch was associated with fluoride. It was concluded that this fluoride-sensitive riboswitch is one of the few riboswitches that is present in both bacteria and archaea. According to researchers, what this widespread occurrence suggests is that cells have developed “an ancient biological system... to deal with fluoride’s toxicity” (MacArthur, 2013). 

Individuals are not only consuming fluoride through their water and toothpaste, but through sources such as processed foods, bottled beverages, and pharmaceuticals. The National Research Council (NRC) recognized that “it is no longer feasible to estimate with reasonable accuracy the level of fluoride exposure simply on the basis of concentration of drinking water” (Fagin, 2008). After reviewing fluoride research for over two years, the National Research Council released a report validating many of the studies and claims of the potentially harmful effects of fluoride. NRC committee chair member John Doull, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology, stated: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years — for too long, really — and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled...When the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the ten greatest achievements of the 20th century, thats a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant” (Fagin, 2008). 

These presented findings seem to be just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the astounding research that has been founded relating to fluoride toxicity. Additional studies have found fluoride to be linked to cancer, liver and kidney damage, diabetes, skeletal fluorosis, and many other health problems of significant concern (Fluoride Alert, 2017). It is past time that the dental community and government health committees re-evaluate community water fluoridation. At present, there are far too many questions and not enough answers as to the safety and efficacy of fluoride on the human body. To mass medicate an entire population of individuals without clear evidence of the potentially harmful effects of a substance — which is unnecessary to the human body to begin with — is irresponsible, ignorant, and ethically awry, and is a complete breech of informed consent. It is the right and duty of dental and medical professions to challenge the status quo and not walk blindly into their field of study, believing that every procedure and practice that has been established is safe and resolute. 

Post-election the World Health Organization lowered the threshold of the PCR test. This adjustment should generate a retraction and reevaluation of the numbers reported worldwide since the beginning of the Covid 19 lockdowns and mandates.
The numbers reported by the CDC and health agencies abroad show that the illness has upwards of 99% survival in all age categories.
There is growing concern that the annual flu shot has both increased susceptibility and worsens effects of Covid post infection.
Multiple valid studies have been published that show just adequate levels of Vitamin D decreases chances of hospitalization and typically results in very mild infections of Covid 19 and its variants.
Therapeutics are now widely available. Use of therapeutics during natural infection aids in rapid recovery and naturally acquired immunity. Naturally acquired immunity contributes to overall herd immunity. Herd immunity can only truly be achieved by natural infection and recovery. Mass Immunization cannot produce herd immunity because of bio individuality and the limited scoped of immunity that is able to be generated by the experimental product.
The immunization products in use under the Emergency Use Authorization do not prevent transmission. They potentially lower incidents of severe effects from the illness. They likely create a growing number of asymptomatic carriers.
The medical products currently in circulation under the Emergency Use Authorization are liability free and have no long-term studies. In all previous attempts to develop a vaccine against a corona category virus resulted in immune priming. The animal test subjects developed antibodies but died when later exposed to the virus because those antibodies attacked the host subjects. No animal tests have been done on these products authorized under the EUA and the information sheets clearly state that the probability of immune priming has not been determined. The mRNA technology is new, it has been tested in very limited groups that lack diversity. The scope of the long-term effects will not be truly known for many generations.
There has been no guidance given on the possible increased rate of reactions when these experimental products are given to those who have naturally acquired immunity.
The instances of death and severe adverse reactions from these liability free experimental medical products are increasing at a rapid rate globally. The initial reactions being reported are often debilitating. The long-term adverse reactions and possibility of autoimmune disorders are unknown. The current epidemic of autoimmune disorders effecting people of all ages are listed as known side effects on all vaccine inserts. These can be found on the CDC website.
Manufacturers are publicly admitting that the initial expectation of immunity to be derived from these products is inaccurate.
Despite the growing concern over the safety of these products, survivability, therapeutics, and the need for naturally acquired immunity to generate herd immunity to protect the vulnerable the current administration is accelerating the application of their mass vaccination program.

​
Sources;
https://www.who.int/.../20-01-2021-who-information-notice...
https://www.cdc.gov/.../vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/.../can-flu-vaccine.../
https://www.webmd.com/.../more-vitamin-d-lower-risk-of...
https://www.raps.org/.../3/covid-19-therapeutics-tracker
https://www.cdc.gov/.../vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
https://www.cdc.gov/.../scie.../fully-vaccinated-people.html
https://www.sciencemag.org/.../astrazeneca-lowers...
https://www.cnbc.com/.../covid-vaccines-how-long-immunity...

5G and Virginia: The Technocratic Takeover No One Knows About

Guest Bloggers: Jenny DeMarco & Doris Knick
Virginians for Safe Technology Co-Founders


Right now, the state of Virginia is rolling out a ONE Virginia Plan to “advance visible diversity, equity, and inclusion across state government.”  This sounds great in theory, however the foundation of this plan is based on data mining and subjective “equity” scores for corporate and government institutions across the Commonwealth, and it’s using a dangerous technological infrastructure that will leave us all involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation via 4th Generation (4G LTE) and 5th Generation and beyond (5G+) wireless technology. 

It’s all set to kick off in George Washington’s boyhood home of Stafford County, where a newly formed state authority appointed a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) called the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) to implement a “Smart City Living Testbed” without prior public knowledge. If all goes as planned, this “living testbed” will begin at the courthouse and eventually encompass the entire county.  Are the members of Stafford County now considered living lab rats? The hope of Governor Northam and those who he’s appointed is that the Stafford County experiment creates a blueprint for counties across the state, however there are many issues with this, the first of which is the lack of consent from community members. 

Implementing 5G+ smart cities across the state is equivalent to mandating everyone in an entire county get injected with every CDC approved vaccine, without any prior knowledge, consent, or the ability to opt-out.

To understand the scope of the 5G+ wireless implementation issue, you must first understand what 5G+ is:

5G+ is the next generation of wireless technology. It uses millimeter waves (mmWave), which are shorter and more intense than all previous generations, and is similar to the mmWave highband frequency directed energy weapons the military uses for crowd control. 5G+ signals don’t travel as far so small wireless transmission facilities (WTFs) will be installed in close proximity to or on homes, schools, businesses, parks, firehouses, in neighborhoods, etc. every several hundred feet. 5G+ uses pulsed radiation and can combine with existing 3G and 4G LTE towers and frequencies using a phased array signal, which exposes us to even more radiation from all directions. It requires millions of new 5G+ microtowers  clustered closer to the ground, closer to homes and schools, and 40,000+ new transmitting satellites in low earth orbit that will use direct beam forming signals to connect to devices. The main promises of 5G+ are faster download speeds, a more secure network than previous wireless generations, no more wires, higher data capacity and supports the platform for the Internet of Things (IoT). These promises are a far stretch from the truth, which we will get into below.
​

However, if you’re interested in keeping your freedoms, there are three main concerns you may be alarmed to learn:

1. Our property values will go down, our taxes will go up, our constitutional rights will be infringed upon, and our privacy diminished.
   
2. 5G+ has never been required to be safety tested for mmWave phased array health effects at the state or federal level or by the industries implementing this technology, and thus constitutes a human experiment without consent. Being exposed to this level of radiation without consent violates bodily autonomy more so than ever before.
   
3. Children are the most vulnerable to these harms, and will be the most impacted as these “smart” technologies and cities are deployed and these issues are dismissed altogether.
   

Let’s break each one of these concerns down in further detail:

First, this smart city roll-out allows our data to be siphoned by our localities and handed over to private NGOs where it’s retained with essentially no oversight; it decreases private property values and takes away homeowners’ and public’s rights to deny placement of facilities/towers; it transfers all telecomm liability for the wireless telecomm facility (WTF) installation to the public or private owner of the property since telecoms are not insurable; and it sets the stage for tracking, tracing, and targeting the individual to create a behavior-based social equity score in multiple areas starting with the counties. 

Whew that’s a lot to digest, isn’t it?

You may have noticed, counties and cities across the state are already using public land and right-of-ways to add WTFs on existing poles, lights, lamp posts,  schools, government buildings and other  infrastructure - many (most) times this is without informed consent of adjacent property owners.

The FCC actually just streamlined this deployment process by amending it’s Over-the-Air Reception Device (OTARD) rule to “enable quick deployment of wireless, including 5G+, in neighborhoods — especially in rural areas — by removing any requirements for permit or notice and by preemption of state laws and local zoning laws, including homeowners association and deed restrictions.” (Children’s Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-wireless-antennas-private-property/)

Imagine purchasing a home, only to have a WTF placed on a lamppost or neighbor’s yard outside of your window the very next week. Being injured, forced to relocate - or in severe cases - driven into poverty and homelessness are very real possibilities now. Property values decrease by approximately 20% when these facilities are in close proximity to the home or right-of-way, and the biggest insurance companies in the world refuse to insure 5G+ infrastructure because they’re fire hazards, and a dangerous liability.

And remember that “smart city living testbed” set to roll out in Stafford County? This is for the sole purpose of setting up a social equity score for us to be graded on, first at the county level, then eventually statewide. The “testbed” process is beginning by gathering public data from Stafford County Courthouse government complex via 5G+ technologies placed around the premise and transferring it to the Commonwealth Data Trust, which is made up of at least 13 member NGOs and government agencies. According to cit.org’s website, the county equity score will be based on nine categories: overall city/county score, child well-being, education quality, educational attainment, financial empowerment, neighborhoods, health and safety, policing, and court reform.

How do you feel about being graded on your data? 

Those flashy 5G+ commercials blasting over our airwaves conveniently fail to mention all of this, plus the fact that this technology is designed to surveil, track, and trace all of us via our cell phones, wireless routers, smart devices, and even biometric sensor data technology. Biometric sensor data technology already can use nanotechnology (PEG2000-DMG), RFID chipping,  ID2020, and quantum dot tattoos. In this technocratic tracking system, our personal data is the “new gold” and NGOs with access to it will get free reign to share it, sell it, or use it however they see fit.

A solution to all of this is installing more fiberoptic cables underground. Fiberoptics are safer, more secure, provide a faster connection, and are better for the environment. Over the past three decades the telecommunications industry was supposed to be bringing fiberoptic cables for the internet to every home in America (just like copper telephone lines) using money from surcharges we were paying on every bill. However, the Telecomms never saw this through - even after they got paid as though they did - and then illegally reallocated the copper wireline money to this harmful 5G+ wireless infrastructure to make it look profitable when it wasn’t. The Irregulators Lawsuit granted each state the right to claim monies owed to them because Telecomms had mischarged expenses in cross subsidies and overcharged customers. To our knowledge, Virginia hasn’t bothered to claim our state’s share which could be estimated as much as two billion dollars. Right now Virginia’s sole focus is pushing 5G+ wireless broadband into our communities without even attempting to see the long term economic value added to infrastructure by fiberoptics. Continuing with wireless only brings more profits to the telecomms and higher monthly bills to us as the consumers.

It’s difficult to get politicians on board for fiber optics because many are getting money from telecommunications lobbyists. Just like when politicians, physicians, and religious leaders take money from the pharmaceutical industry for encouraging vaccines, many of our politicians are getting rich off of funding and outside investments in big telecomm and giving away our protections in return.   

​

This graphic is from CIT.org shows the process of gathering our public data and sharing
it with the Commonwealth Data Trust (CDT)
which currently has 13 members consisting of both NGO’s and government agencies.



Second, there are absolutely no protections around where these 5G+ WTFs  are placed, how many of these facilities can be within a certain area, who is liable for injury or loss due to the imminent involuntary exposure to constant high levels of pulsed radiation, and most importantly no one is monitoring the power or radiation levels coming off of these small and large cell facilities. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Maximum Permissible Exposure Limit (MPEL) for power density strength for non-ionizing RF radiation emissions coming off of cell phone towers that is never publicly monitored anywhere. We’ll get into the health implications, but something that isn’t being addressed is the environmental impact of this technology and its contribution to greenhouse gasses. According to a Huawei white paper, 5G+ base stations use up to three-and-a-half times more energy than 4G LTE towers, and require millions of nodes versus the hundreds of thousands of towers of it’s predecessor. Considering greenhouse gasses are based on power consumption, 5G+ will release that much more carbon than previous generations and is projected to consume 20-percent of global electricity by 2025 when including all the devices worldwide.

​

If you were to call your local Board of Supervisors, County Planner, or Chief Technology Officer and ask who is monitoring the amount of radiation coming off of the cell phone towers and WTFs in your area, 100-percent of the time the answer would be “no one,” or possibly even, “Can you explain? I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

If you are someone who values body sovereignty, you know that bodily integrity requires informed consent - and the right to refuse consent. With the implementation of 5G+, harmful non-consensual exposure to radiation is going to be unavoidable for all of us, if there are no infrastructure limits or MPEL  monitoring placed on this 4G LTE and 5G+ equipment. 

On-going involuntary exposure to high levels of radiation (whether it’s ionizing or non-ionizing) causes biological damage at a cellular level. (There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world from the past 8 decades concerning the biological effects of RF radiation compiled here: BioInitiative report). In the average person this can create a slew of physical issues (see graphic below for symptoms), and feels like “assault and battery” to people who are sensitive to radiation frequencies. Electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is not recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This means:

• Those who have metal implants, pacemakers, stents, and medical concerns may be put further in harm's way by being subjected to microwave radiation as metal acts as a conductor to radiation.

   

• Radiation Frequency (RF) exposure for people who are electrohypersensitivie (EHS) is inhumane oppression, can be debilitating, torturing, and cause irreparable harm.

 

• A California Appellate Court in Los Angeles  recognized “microwave illness” as an ADA accommodation in February, 2021 - however this has yet to be officially recognized anywhere else in the country. The case is Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 2021 S.O.S. 729. (http://www.metnews.com/articles/2021/WiFi_Illness_02192021.htm) 

Not only is EHS not recognized under the ADA, but most in the medical field aren’t trained to recognize the side effects of microwave illness and the long list of physical, mental, and emotional issues wireless technology can create. There are thousands of people affected by Radiation Sickness or other ailments exacerbated by wireless technology that aren’t even aware of the cause. Most recently, the movie Generation Zapped exposed the ramifications of living with ever-increasing levels of radiation, while also acknowledging the benefits of wireless communications - but there is more to be done to have these harmful effects recognized by the medical establishment.
​

It’s no wonder the largest insurance authorities in the world such as Swiss Re and Lloyds of London have rated 5G+ and electromagnetic radiation as “high risk” and "high impact" and refuses to insure any of these cellular facilities. A report in 2019 by Swiss Re stated, “To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence”. The insurance company cited other potential impacts such as significantly increased cyber exposure, property implications, social unrest, the rise in A.I., information security and national sovereignty concerns, and more. This begs the question, “if insurance companies won’t cover these facilities, who is responsible for them when they’re put up?” Since insurance companies won’t cover these facilities, it means the property owner is responsible for liability - even if it’s placed on your property without consent. Telecommunications companies and contractors have started paying individuals, cities, counties, businesses, and schools to place this equipment on their property, but very rarely are the insurance liability implications fully explained.


Third, our children are the most vulnerable part of our population and at the most risk from wireless technology exposure, yet there are no safeguards protecting or teaching them how to mitigate the risks of this technology. 
 
This is about the health and safety of our kids; nothing is more important. COVID-19 has pushed our children onto wireless technology, and wireless technology into their schools, at an unprecedented rate. Yet, there are no regulations, efforts, or widespread campaigns ensuring they’re using wired devices when possible and wireless devices properly mitigate the cumulative damage that occurs with consistent exposure over time.
 
In a recent legal case against the FCC, Dafna Tachover, Lawyer for Children’s Health Defense remarked, “The FCC seems willing, even anxious, to sacrifice thousands or even tens of millions of individually vulnerable children in the name of removing ‘barriers’ to wireless ‘deployment’.” 
 
This statement rings true here in Virginia, where WTF’s are being placed by playgrounds, in close proximity to schools, and even next to childcare centers throughout the state - as wireless routers, hotspots, and computers are now in nearly every classroom and even installed throughout school ceilings.

​

School boards receive millions of dollars a year from big players in the telecommunications industry, but claim they’re not sure how they can fund necessary safety measures when approached about protecting our children. Technology in education and safety are not mutually exclusive - we can advance while also making it safer for human exposure by hardwiring our devices and using fiber optics.
  
Our children’s brains are still in the process of growing, their cognitive development and reproductive organs are in jeopardy. If we don’t do our due diligence and recognize wireless harms our kids will pay the price. There’s no telling the exact outcome of what this “generation zapped” will deal with after long term exposure to electromagnetic radiation, and parents should have the right to refuse constant exposure to bodily insult that threatens our lives and the lives of our children.

​

Finally, there are solutions and we’re working toward them right now.

At the moment we’re the only group in Virginia working to slow the deployment of 5G+ and educate citizens across the state on the dangers of 5G+ wireless technology and the impacts of it on our lives.
Right now we’re working on legislation around actions the state can take to protect us all, raising awareness through our petition both with politicians and the public, educating people online and in person, and collaborating with other freedom-minded groups.

There are a lot of issues we’re all worried about these days, but 5G+ wireless technology is what ties them all together. It’s the vehicle that allows everything about us to be known, bought, and sold - and it is the control mechanism the government would like to use to insert itself into every aspect of our lives. However, the more people who are aware of what is going on in our state, the issues with 5G+ wireless technology, and how they can implement safer habits with wireless technology - the more of a chance we have at disrupting this “smart” infrastructure statewide initiative.

All of this and more are why organizations like National Health Federation, Americans for Responsible Technology, United Issues Reform, and Virginia Freedom Keepers are collaborating with Virginians for Safe Technology on educating you and protecting our safety and rights to safe and responsible technology.

You can make a difference today by:

1. Getting involved with Virginians for Safe Technology (VA4ST) by joining our email list
   
2. Signing our petition and sharing it with friends
   
3. Donate to help us fight for our protection and the implementation of safer technology across Virginia.
   
4. Comment or ask questions regarding your data and social equity scores directly on CIT’s forum for their next board meeting here: https://citorg.app.box.com/s/1dntnxv941qb6a3ixrv36xt28a3azpej
   

 
Find out more at VirginiansforSafeTech.org
 
Copyright © Virginians for Safe Technology 2021

Additional Sources:

https://wearetheevidence.org/  Wireless Technology Injured Advocacy Group

https://www.5gcrisis.com/scientific-studies 5G+ Crisis

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/otard-judicial-stay-motion.pdf

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52d76fb5-7915-485b-a3bb-277637a32a5f&fbclid=IwAR0l7mHcAa9VfXPBL-EVeoc_w4VmRZsSFsSKPEO5-UQ-uQUx8QjTLpUNJeY

https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf (See Pg. 9)

https://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs/5g-IoT Cee Cee Doucett

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies Americans for Responsible Tech
https://mdsafetech.org/ Physicians for Safe Technology

https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/fcc-maximum-permissible-exposure.htm
FCC Maximum Permissible RF Exposure Limits

​

​The events of 2020 have shown us just how fragile our economy has become.  America’s supply of everyday consumer good extends from factories in China, across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through regional distribution centers, and finally to your local grocery store.  A disruption anywhere along the supply chain could leave you and your family without critical supplies.  The same is true of our food supply.  In the past 150 years, America has moved away from a mostly self-sufficient agrarian society, capable of feeding itself to a consumer society dependent on corporate processed foods trucked in from massive plants across the country.  Imagine the desperate scenario that would play out if those trucks stopped coming to resupply your local grocery store.  
 
In these uncertain times, it’s never been more important for patriots and freedom lovers to be prepared. Whether it’s a biological weapons attack, natural disaster, economic disruption, or terrorism, crises do happen. Do you trust the government will be able to take care of you and everyone else when the next event strikes?
 
Being free and independent people starts at home.  The first step is to take control and custody of your most essential supplies: food, water, and energy.  Having a 30-day supply of food is a prudent and affordable step that almost anyone can take.  Several emergency food manufacturers like MyPatriotSupply offer kits of freeze-dried emergency food that will last in your pantry for 25 years.  When it’s time to eat, all you need is boiling water.  You might also consider starting a backyard of flock of laying hens or other small livestock that can feed your family in an emergency.
 
Having a secure water supply is also essential.  For those of you on an independent well and septic system, make sure you have a backup power supply.  If your home is on city/county water service, consider adding rainwater collection barrels to your house as a backup water source.  Rainwater can be easily filtered and processed using a desktop water filter like Berkey Water Filter and then used for drinking or cooking.  If green algae builds up in the rainwater, just treat each 2 gallon filtered batch with ¼ teaspoon of regular chlorine bleach.  Another option would be to use a WaterBOB device in your bathtub.  This handy little product allows you to store up to 100 gallons of water in a clean plastic bladder to protect against a loss of or contamination of the public water supply.  They key is to have physical custody of the resource before you need it.
 
Finally, you need to have a secure power supply.  So much of our modern lifestyle depends on electrical energy.  Whether its refrigeration, air conditioning, electronic communication, or medical equipment, all of these things require electricity.   Gas and propane generators are a convenient solution for short-term grid outages.  For a long-term disruption, nothing provides greater security than an independent renewable energy solar + battery storage system, which you can learn more about here.
 
The key is to get started now.  Don’t worry about not being able to afford or acquire all of these items right away.  If you commit to taking consistent incremental steps towards a more self-sufficient lifestyle, you will be much better prepared to survive the next event.  
 
About the author:
 
Joe Ordia is the co-Founder of Solar Surge. Since beginning his career in the solar industry in 2012, Joe has helped more than 600 households achieve greater levels of energy independence by utilizing clean solar energy and battery storage technology. He is committed to getting as many households as possible to be self-sufficient and prepared to survive during a time of crisis.
 
 
Joe is the author of Built to Survive, which is a guide for homeowners on how to setup their homes to be able to survive a loss of the electric grid.  He is a licensed electrician and holds a Class A license for the construction of solar and wind energy facilities. Before founding his first technology company in 2000, Joe studied electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA.  He, his wife Rachel, and their five children reside in Central Virginia.  Joe is a follower and believer on the Lord Jesus Christ.

United States Armed Forces Use ‘Restrictions” to Compel COVID-19 Vaccination

| Restrictions based on Information Bias & “Efficacy” Data | | the Law & Ethics |

In a disturbing pattern across numerous United States Military Bases and other Department of Defense (DOD) Installations - military and civilian personnel are being ‘incentivized’ into taking the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID-19 vaccines.

The implied message is that ‘immunity’ is near 95% once ‘vaccinated’. These same agencies have failed to explain what the statistical results from the Moderna and Pfizer ‘vaccine’ trials actually mean.

“Immunity” is not conferred once ‘fully’ ‘vaccinated’.
The trial results demonstrated a 95% efficacy rate of symptom reduction.
Moderna did not choose ‘death’, ‘hospitalization’, ‘cessation of transmission’ or ‘prevention of infection’ as their primary efficacy endpoint.
Despite the information bias (seeking to report only positive percentages without context) in the reporting of the clinical trial outcomes, a range of misleading statements, deceptive marketing practices, manipulation, restrictions and peer pressure type measures are being applied to service members who do not take the COVID-19 vaccines.
Some of these measures include restrictions on an otherwise healthy population such as restrictions on travel outside a state, limitations on leave approvals and other forms of civil liberties restrictions. Emotive messaging such as “Duty”, “Protect your Family” “#killthevirus” “#stopthespread” are just some examples of this pressure.
Neither the Moderna or Pfizer products were approved based on any trial protocols or results that demonstrated that the ‘vaccine’ would prevent infection or prevent transmission. In other words, you can receive the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ and can still become infected, still transmit and the only results, based on the clinical trials' own protocols, demonstrate that you may have a statistical chance at having “a” symptom reduction.

The Bottom-Line Up Front
Based on the actual clinical trial protocol and data submitted to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) --- ‘immunity’ --- was not a primary efficacy endpoint.
Moderna did not choose ‘death’, ‘hospitalization’, ‘cessation of transmission’ or ‘prevention of infection’ as their primary efficacy endpoint.
“Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction results.
Reporting absolute risk reduction measures and results is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.” Brown RB. Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials. Medicina. 2021; 57(3):199. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57030199 https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm
“Immunity” will not be achieved via the statistical chance that one might have “a” symptom reduced should they develop the COVID-19 disease.
The implications of directives, public messaging campaigns and other forms of information bias that have ensued are significant and without legal precedent.

The Law
There are numerous legal violations that may apply as they relate to the leaders, medical professionals and agencies engaged in deceptive advertising practices. These violations included (but are not limited to) the following:
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., [re: deceptive medical advice]
It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. As a result, every party promoting the use of this mRNA technology with the implied statement that ‘immunity’ or #killthevirus is conferred or that getting this mRNA technology will prevent COVID-19 is violating the FTC Act.

There is no waiver of liability for deceptive practices (#killthevirus marketing, #preventthespread, ‘duty’) even in a state of emergency per FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq..
21 CFR 50.23 et seq, the FDA informed consent for experimentation requires a review board constituted with members who have no financial interest in the outcome of the trialed technology. Further the EUA doesn’t waive consentrequirements. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.c fm?CFRPart=50&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:1.0.1.1.20.1

 
Of Note:
(1) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA): Illegal to Mandate Products Under EUA PCR testing and COVID vaccines are not fully licensed products. They are EUA products, (Decl. Varma ecf 19 P.43.) which by their very nature are legally considered investigational. As these are experimental medical products, it is unlawful and unethical to mandate either the RT-PCR test or any currently available COVID vaccine. Federal law confirms explicitly that an EUA product must be voluntary because the federal statute requires “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”
US Bases in California: Mandating the RT-PCR and experimental COVID vaccines also violates California State law (CA Health & Safety Code § 24172). 10 Federal and State law on this matter rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.”
Specific laws such as the US Federal Regulations, notably the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE- 88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg342.pdf#page=5 Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719& n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50]https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=5 0&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:1.0.1.1.20.1 , [21 CFR 56]https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart =56 , [45 CFR 46 Subpart D] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and- policy/guidance/special-protections-for-children/index.html [10 CFR 745]https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title10-vol4/CFR-2011-title10-vol4- part745 , [45 CFR 46 Subpart B] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML#sp45.1.46.b , [45 CFR 46 Subpart D] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/special-protections-for- children/index.html specifically and permanently guarantee that all persons in the United States are entitled to exercise the right of informed consent to accept or to refuse to enroll in any medical experiment.
Mandating products approved for emergency use violates federal and state law since Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) means the products are investigational and experimental. Federal and state law is very clear that mandates are illegal for EUA products. Both the RT-PCR test and all COVID vaccines are not FDA- approved; they are available under an EUA. 21 USCS § 360bbb-3 Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies.

For those Air Forces Bases located in California: Mandating the RT-PCR and experimental COVID vaccines also violates California State law (CA Health & Safety Code § 24172).https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=241 72.&lawCode=HSC

Federal and State law on these matters rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.
Note, that while vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability by 42 USC 300aa-11 and 42 USC 300aa-22, other institutions are not protected. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42- section300aa-22&num=0&edition=prelim
​
Examples of the USAF Vaccine Directives and Memorandums:
1.https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/Portals/18/documents/COVID- 19/PublicHealth_Directive_8.pdf?ver=DaGphMp7OKj6eyrOrmUsvg%3D%3D
Colonel Anthony Mastalir, USAF recently signed, in part, the Directive that included the following: “Any person who refuses to comply or otherwise violates its provisions may be detained and turned over to military or civilian authorities. For military members, violations are punishable under the UCMJ. For all personnel, violations are punishable under the United States Code (USC), to include 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1382, and 42 USC 271. Additionally, any personnel who fail to adhere to this memorandum or subsequent orders may be subject to debarment (denied access to the installation)”.

2.https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact- Sheets/Display/Article/2510975/public-health-directive-8/
Vandenberg, AFB included the following in their Directive: “This Directive is effective immediately, and applies to all military members of Vandenberg AFB regardless of location, as well as civilian employees, dependents, retirees, contractors, and any persons on the installations for any
reason. Public Health Directives 1-7 are hereby rescinded and replaced by this Directive. The following measures are mandatory.”
Travel. Please use discretion when making travel arrangements. Travel- related infections remain the most prevalent threat vector for the virus among the non-vaccinated population.
i. Unofficial Travel (leave and pass). The local area for Vandenberg AFB is defined as San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County. However, effective immediately, fully vaccinated individuals are exempt from this local area definition and, therefore, may resume leave and pass processes consistent with unit policies and AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program. The Secretary of Defense STOP MOVEMENT guidance directs all military members must have Sq/CC or Director approval to travel outside the local area, whether on leave or on pass. Sq/CCs and Directors have the authority to determine when their approval is required for unofficial travel for fully vaccinated personnel. While civilian travel cannot be restricted, civilian employees should report to their supervisor and the MCC if they believe they were exposed toCOVID-19 during their travel.
3.https://www.altus.af.mil/Portals/46/2021-02- 23%2097%20AMW%20Policies%20%26%20Directives%20v16.pdf
Matthew A. Leard, Colonel, USAF, Commander recently signed a memorandum for all Air Force personnel on Altus Air Force Base (AFB) Oklahoma that identified, in part, restrictions for those not vaccinated. The title of the memorandum “97 AMW Policies and Directives Regarding Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” included restrictions for those vaccinated and not vaccinated.
“Vaccinated Personnel: Paragraph 2 of this policy applies only to those personnel who have received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, and at least 5 days have passed since the receipt of the second dose. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of this policy do not apply to COVID19-vaccineated personnel, subject to the conditions in paragraph 2.d. All Personnel who have not received both doses of the vaccine are subject to paragraphs 3-10 below.”

The memorandum goes on to put in place restrictions on those personnel who have not been vaccinated and also adds that “...vaccinated individuals may be required to provide proof they are vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to avail themselves of these policies for vaccinated personnel. Individuals who decline to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination will not be granted the privileges of paragraphs 2.a and are required to abide by paragraphs 3-10 ...”.
4.https://www.10af.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2501256/covid-19- vaccine-education/
Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg, Surgeon General of the United States Air Force, made a number of misleading statements during her statements with the 59th Medical Wing. In the transcript, posted on its website a transcript of the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General’s there is a mandatory video briefing for airmen at the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. In the video, Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg narrates several unsubstantiated statements about the safety of the COVID vaccine — and then conveys to airmen that it is their “duty” rather than their choice to take
an experimental mRNA injection. Pressure. (Additional Details on her statements in Post Script.)

Clinical Trial End-Points and the Data
It is worth restating. Neither the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNtech clinical trial protocols were designed to test for the prevention of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and neither trial was designed to establish whether the ‘vaccines’ would prevent one from becoming infected.

Stated differently, the majority of news outlets, and public health officials have touted a poorly understood 95% efficacy data point for both the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNtech ‘vaccines’. There have been numerous ‘interpretations’ of the dataand numerous flawed assessments of what a ‘vaccine’ does and does not do specifically with regard to ‘immunity’.
The mRNA technology used in the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNtech roll-out does not confer ‘immunity’ – rather the clinical trials were designed to determine symptom reduction.

As an aside – but related - numerous traditional vaccinations do not prevent transmission of infection post vaccination. The Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTaP), Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR), the live Polio Vaccine https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/safety-vaccines.htm are three such examples of ‘shedding’ post vaccination where numerous outbreaks of the disease, that the vaccination alleges to prevent, have been caused by the vaccine strain themselves. To reiterate this, more polio cases are now caused by the vaccine than by the wild virus as 4 African countries report them.
Is the DOD ready to now restrict all personnel based on vaccine strain
shedding? https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/poliomyelitis-vaccine-derived-polio

Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted in October, 2020 the goal of COVID vaccines is to provide personal protection only, not to prevent death, or person to person transmission. Fauci said he and his colleagues would “settle for ... the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease.” https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fauci-vaccines-will-only-prevent- symptoms-not-block-the-virus-195051568.html

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks stated “our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because ... you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable,” citing the need for a five-to-ten times longer trial length and even higher costs. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037 
[Read this statement again]
Tal Zak tells BMJ that “...the trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good
here”. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

The Protocols
Moderna Clinical Trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download#page=37
For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was defined as: At least two of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥38oC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), or At least one of the following respiratory signs/ symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; and NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.”
Pfizer/BioNtech Clinical Trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728 https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download?fbclid=IwAR3FNVjqWO1lmPCcskScF n4u-KWIyrD0NUQp6XRyq76dwhSVXYHgo-VVxqQ
“For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period: Fever; New or increased cough; New or increased shortness of breath; Chills; New or increased muscle pain; New loss of taste or smell; Sore throat; Diarrhea; Vomiting.”
Digging deeper into the data:
Source: Vaccines and Related Biological Advisory Committee, December 17, 2020 | FDA Briefing Document | Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
Table 21, page 34 (the frequency of solicited local adverse events) is used to critically review the data.

1. Table 21, page 34: There is an over representation of pain, erythema, swelling, lymphadenopathy.
In the COVID Symptoms Table: see https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download Additionally --- See Table 23, page 37 (frequency of solicited adverse events for
specific COVID Symptoms):
a. Fever:
Dose One
105 in the vax group, 39 in the placebo. Dose Two

b. Fever:
1,806 in the vax group, 38 in the placebo.
c. Headache Dose One
4031 in the vax group, 3303 in the placebo
d. Myalgia (a clinical protocol identified as the single most important symptom outside of respiratory)
Dose One
2698 in the vax group, 1626 in the placebo

***Dose Two***
6353 in the vax group, 1312 in the placebo.

***A NEAR FIVE-FOLD DIFFERENCE (GREATER) in the vaccine group than the placebo. ****
Stated differently, you are nearly five times more likely to have a COVID-like Symptom from the Vaccine that from a placebo.

The Denominator
In both the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNtech clinical trials, the number of symptoms culminates as a ‘case’. If one or more symptoms were solicited the data was used to inform the final results. However, the numbers (denominator) matter. The number of 170 ‘cases’ (Pfizer/BioNtech) and 196 ‘cases’ (Moderna) were used to generate the
‘efficacy’ result. The calculation or the denominator is important here. efficacy’ must be understood.
As an example:
Pfizer/BioNtech:
8 ‘cases’ in vaccine group
162 ‘cases’ in placebo group
8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%
Thus, the claim of 95% efficacious.
‘Relative
Why the denominator matters. If one is to assess the absolute risk reduction (ARR) versus the relative risk reduction (all statistical assessments) the overall clinical trial denominator should be included. This must be understood.
For those not familiar with the risk assessment protocols in clinical trials a review of the process is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The Other Questions of Ethics
The issue of ethics and the question of the mechanisms of how the mRNA technology works must be included in this letter. Let’s be clear...it is not a Vaccine
Throughout this letter the word ‘vaccine’ has been put in quotes. Why? Because in the words of the manufacturers themselves it is a gene therapy technology. Their words.

The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Emphasis on the word ‘synthetic’.
Therefore, the basis for any claims that there will be ‘immunity’ protections is moot in this case.

There is no “general comfort, health, and prosperity,” derived from the ‘encouraged’ application of gene therapy on a population in which it has already induced pain, suffering, failure to perform activities of daily living...and death.
Details of the mRNA Technology Platform
From Moderna’s website https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/mrna- platform-enabling-drug-discovery-development “Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the ‘program’ or ‘app’ is our mRNA drug – unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein”.

Vaccine Adverse event Reporting System (VAERS) Data and the Ethics of compelling a population to assume a risk, up to and including Death.
The Department of Defense, USAF Col. Leard other Senior Leaders, making statements not based in fact, are encouraged to look at the reporting and the VAERS data for the most current data on the adverse events. https://vaers.hhs.gov/
If you are not familiar with the steps needed to query the VAERS database the following:

1. 1)  Accept Disclaimer
2. 2)  Click on “VAERS Data Search”
3. 3)  Group results by “Event Category”
4. 4)  Select “COVID 19 VACCINE” and press “Open”
5. 5)  Choose “All Locations”
6. 6)  Press “Send”

   As of February 12, 2021, the data indicates that there were 929 deaths, 1869 hospitalizations, 3451 urgent care visits, 2191 office related visits, 190 anaphylaxis, and 198 cases of Bell’s Palsy following inoculation. There have been over 15K adverse events in VAERS to include pulmonary embolism, pulmonary infarction, and myocarditis, pericarditis, or heart attacks.
Per the CDC the claims of deaths (1170) received a COVID-19 vaccine. Countries around the world are reporting similar numbers. The European EudraVigilance Database, as of Feb 13th 2021 shows a total number of adverse reactions increased 45% while serious cases increased by 51%. http://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html?s=03
In the European database, there were over 10 thousand nervous systems disorders, 240 cardiac disorders and other grave adverse events.
Across the United States, in some verified cases, deaths were reported within minutes to hours after receiving the injection. It is important to add that VAERS has traditionally represented approximately 1% of all adverse
reactions. https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045- lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf There is (to date) and based on VAERS reporting alone a 4.10% rate of reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations, including deaths.
Pregnancy
Late-term Miscarriages and stillbirths, within hours of receiving the ‘vaccine’, are also reported in VAERS.
In the limited rat studies (female Sprague Dawley CD rats) conducted by Moderna, the vaccine led to more pregnancy loss in rat studies (the only study done). Vaccinated rats lost 16% of pregnancies, double those that got the ‘placebo’ (another vaccine). (pg. 50-51/169) https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment- report/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Regrettably, none of these findings led to a full toxicology study yet based on
incomplete and suppressed data, DOD is enabling its senior leaders to make unsubstantiated claims that the COVID-19 shot can be safely taken by pregnant women.
Revisiting the pregnancy and safety issues. European drug regulators stated that Moderna never ran an adequate toxicological study on its COVID ‘vaccine in animals.
In the limited and poorly designed ‘rat’ studies toxicity studies revealed “...hepatic alterations (increased liver weights, hepatocyte vacuolation, hypertrophy of Kupffer-cells, centrilobular degeneration, characterized by the presence of mixed inflammatory cell in sinusoids with single cell necrosis or degeneration of hepatocytes) and corresponding changes in clinical chemistry (statistically significant increases in AST, ALP, triglyceride, cholesterol, bilirubin, urea nitrogen) were frequently – but not consistently –
observed”. “The product specific study 2308-123 was not conducted in GLP- compliance, and exhibits major procedural/methodological limitations. In principle these aspects would render this study inadequate for evaluation the repeated dose toxicity of mRNA-1272 to the extent recommended in relevant guidance on non-clinical development of vaccine products” and the studies it did submit showed serious hematological impact – yet the application went ahead anyway. Procedure No. EMEA/H/C/005791/0000
Pressure?

The Department of Defense is now beyond the claims of information bias in reporting the trial results -- and has now moved into the realm of statements that would suggest significant pressure is being put on service members to take the‘vaccine. “Incentives” to regain permission to travel or other ‘liberties’ is in play!
What does this mean for the Department of Defense?
An mRNA synthetic strand (gene technology) does NOT fall within the definition of a biologic and falls well outside the federal regulation definition of “vaccine” in State statutes.

Further, in the case of the trial outcomes – these products do not confer “immunity”.

The pressure and messaging being used to induce personnel of the Armed Forces population to take a risk with the mRNA technology for the benefit of a liberty or a call to ‘duty’ for the ‘exchange’ of a reduction in restrictions is beyond the pale.
Nowhere in the Department of Defense guidance has it been stipulated that pressure or incentives of ‘less restrictions’ are allowed and the medical ‘apartheid’ of personnel endorsed.

Beyond the fact that mRNA is gene therapy technology – not vaccination – the encouragement of the leadership on the Altus AFB to gain a ‘pressured’ benefit post vaccination - must be challenged. The uptake of this medical device - an unproven medical countermeasure - is without any judicial precedent.
“...must become unwell for the purpose of this medical experiment...and assume a personal risk from an indemnified pharmaceutical industry”
No law has been passed that says that a healthy population must become unwell for the purpose of a medical experiment.
For those that still fail to understand what it means to ‘...become unwell for the purpose of a medical experiment’ – look to the technology of the mRNA and the data used to describe the process.
The mRNA will cause disease in the body – first – then the person’s immune system will generate a protein to attack the ‘disease’ that was generated in the body. Thus – you will become unwell as a part of the ‘incentivized’ statements being made by Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg and the Altus Commander, among just a few of the DOD Leadership.
To recap the actual language used in the mRNA submissions:
“...The BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. This allows cells to manufacture harmless fragments of viral proteins that the human body uses to build an immune response to prevent or fight subsequent, natural infection. When a person is given the vaccine, their cells will read the genetic instructions and produce fragments of the ‘spike protein', a protein on the outer surface of the virus which it uses to enter the body's cells, to replicate, and cause disease. The person's immune system will then treat this protein as foreign and produce natural defences — antibodies and T cells — against
it.” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_ 2466

Emerging Ethical Questions
There is one other key ethical precedent that is emerging, unstated, yet simmering within a new precedent to afford those that have been vaccinated with additional liberties and those not with additional restrictions in order ‘achieve’ a statistical result of a symptom suppression should one become infected.
Aside from the fact that there are legitimate personal religious, philosophical and medical concerns about the safety, efficacy and adverse events – there has been a new more insidious and emerging dilemma.
A new question “...are we now setting a precedent to mandate the suppression of symptoms’ and are we now setting a binding precedent to restrict liberties based on flawed data interpretation?
  Is the Department of Defense, and our defense medical establishment taking a precarious step toward mandating (incentivizing or pressuring) someone to take medications or therapeutics for a symptom(s) of an illness or condition that they do not have?
Is the DOD setting precedent with the trend for symptom reduction via a therapeutic, biologic, gene therapy technology and/or medications with known and unknown risks, to ensure a statistical chance at symptom suppression?
How much longer will the DOD Leadership allow for the information bias in the reporting of the trial results to drive pressured and incentivized rewards?
How far can this precedent extend? What other symptom ‘only’ prevention of illnesses will be treated via mandated medical prophylactic interventions? Any reasonable person should ask these questions.

In Closing
The Department of Defense has relied on information reporting bias to report the ‘benefits’ of ‘vaccination’ and is now resorting to forms of pressure and ‘incentives’ to compel compliance on the uptake of an untested gene therapy technology that is still in clinical trial status. Significant adverse events have already been documented – up to and including death. These actions are without legal precedent.
In order to have a healthy debate, in the public square, with members and families of the Department of Defense, Veterans, caregivers and with our health care representatives, issues like the term effectiveness, efficacy, and ‘liberties’ gained post vaccination - plus mandates and medical ethics must be thoroughly communicated, debated and understood.
The Department of Defense leadership must address the concerns raised in this letter.
The statement by Col. Leard that “...five days post ‘vaccination’ after the second dose” being touted as a valid metric to be used to exempt personnel from certain restrictions is flawed and no ‘immunity’ is conferred.
| 5 March 2021 | P .S.
More Detail: Measures used by Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg – Surgeon General of the Air Force.
The video training starts with the following unsupported statement:
“Research has shown more than 75% of Americans need to be vaccinated from COVID-19 in order for the U.S. to get back to normal.”
In fact, there are zero published research studies that support Lt. Gen Hogg’s statement that 75% of Americans must be vaccinated for COVID.
Historically, natural acquired immunity has indicated a needed 60% immunity of the median age groups of the bell curve to protect infants and elderly on the tails of an age distribution bell curve. The fact that just this year the WHO changed the definition of herd immunity is suspect (being legally challenged) and has been widely challenged across national and international scientific communities.
Lt. Gen Hogg highlights that racial and ethnic minorities were included in the vaccine trials, and then she shares a shocking anecdotal testimonial that vaccinating in pregnancy is safe without any research on developmental and reproductive toxicity:
“I was hesitant to receive the vaccine, but after talking to my OBGYN, I realized vaccinating was the safest option for myself and my little boy. You might see claims that the COVID-19 vaccine can make someone infertile, harm a developing fetus in the womb, make the immune system attack the placenta or hurt a baby who is breastfeeding from a recently vaccinated mother. There is no scientific reason to think any of these are true.”
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine FDA Fact Sheet does not demonstrate the vaccine is safe or low-risk in pregnancy. In fact, pregnant women were excluded from Pfizer’s vaccine trials. As the fact sheet states: “All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes;” “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy;” and “Data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milkproduction/excretion.”
Under the medical ethics of “Do No Harm,” the UK advises against the COVID vaccine for pregnant women. In the U.S., the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains 17 reports of miscarriages after the COVID-19 vaccine, as of February 5, 2021.
But by far the most inexcusable part of Lt. Gen Hogg’s presentation, which neither upholds the ethics of “Do No Harm” with pregnant women nor follows informed consent guidelines, is that a General Officer is using her position with undue influence, patriotic “pressure’ and emotional manipulation to persuade airmen that it is their duty to participate in a Phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental medical intervention:
Military leaders are using messages, videos, personal photos, deployments, squad leader meetings and officer sensing sessions to persuade service members to take the new “vaccine”. As in earlier statements made by Col. Leard – they are also incentivizing the uptake with a promise of less restrictions based on zero clinical trial evidence.
This reporting of misinformation and flawed data, and bias in favor of the new COVID-19 vaccine is evident by Lt. Gen Hogg’s statements regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Regrettably – like Col Leard the Air Force is now being represented by these personnel who are resorting to - in part – peer pressure and positions or authority when it comes to the uptake of the experimental gene therapy technology.
Who takes responsibility for this?






ANNEX
What is the mRNA ‘vaccine’
This annex is provided to add additional detail to the topic of ‘gene therapy technology and the mRNA therapy. Numerous references will be provided in this letter to aid in your research.
This is an open letter to you and Senior Leaders of the Department of Defense (DOD) who are actively promoting and encouraging the uptake of the mRNA-based technology. Any efforts to encourage the uptake of the mRNA medical device and technology must address the requirement to call mRNA for what it is and is not – namely – mRNA is not and should not be called a “vaccine”.
A Closer Look at FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., and Deceptive Labeling Practices
When one is using terms with the intent to use deceptive medical advice the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., applies. Both Pfizer and Moderna (and DOD) have been promoting what is alleged to be a ‘vaccine’. There is an attempt to suggest that with this ‘vaccine’ you will be immune from the pathogen. This is not the case with the mRNA technology. Both Pfizer and Moderna are, in point of fact, promoting a ‘gene-therapy’ technology yet deceptively using the term ‘vaccine’.
Further, and to put this in the simplest terms, the mRNA medical device and technology is a synthetic fragment (being injected) and is used as a form of gene-therapy. Again, it is not a vaccine and promoting it as such does not serve the best interests of those seeking true and informed consent or for those seeking a means to seek compensation due to injuries from this experimental mRNA technology device.
Key Terms

1. (1)  The term ‘vaccine’ does not apply to mRNA technology. The word “vaccine” originates from the Latin Variolae vaccinae (cowpox), which Edward Jenner demonstrated in 1798 could prevent smallpox in humans.
2. (2)  The term ‘vaccine’ applies to all biological preparations, produced from living organisms, that enhance immunity against disease and either prevent (prophylactic vaccines) or, in some cases, treat disease (therapeutic vaccines).
   From: http://www.phrma-jp.org/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/old/library/vaccine- factbook_e/1_Basic_Concept_of_Vaccination.pdf
3. (3)  Per CDC Definition of Vaccine Definition of
   Vaccine https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

  
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
(4) Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
By the CDC definition and by Pfizer and Moderna’s own definition mRNA technology is not a vaccine. Or stated otherwise, immunity via mRNA technology is not conferred.
Let’s be clear...it is not a Vaccine
“This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine.
To recap on the terms above, vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.”
“...They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Within the same Moderna filing, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, Moderna states “...Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA- based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000119312518323562/d577473ds1.htm?s=03
It is also clear from this same SEC filing (pg.26) that Moderna is concerned with the use of the term ‘gene therapy’ and state, in part ‘...Some of our investigational medicines are classified as gene therapies by the FDA and the EMA, and the FDA has indicated that our investigational medicines will be reviewed within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER. Even though our mRNA investigational medicines are designed to have a different mechanism of action from gene therapies, the association of our investigational medicines with gene therapies could result in increased regulatory burdens, impair the reputation of our investigational medicines, or negatively impact our platform or our business.
It is a Technology per the CDHR Definition of a Device
Lawyers “... refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology - it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.”

 For additional references, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is the branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has the responsibility for approval of all medical devices https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/center-devices-and-radiological- health.
To add to this discussion, it is important to consider that the ‘medical device’ definition is met when you consider that this is a nucleic acid sequence – not a viral fragment.

(a) Identification. Synthetic cell and tissue culture media and components are substances that are composed entirely of defined components (e.g., amino acids, vitamins, inorganic salts) that are essential for the survival and development of cell lines of humans and other animals.
A Technology Platform
From Moderna’s website https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/mrna-platform-enabling- drug-discovery-development “Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the ‘program’ or ‘app’ is our mRNA drug – unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein”.

 In Layman’s terms - A Mechanical Device
For the layman tying to discern the core definition of mRNA technology the following:
“ This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small packet of technology – being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.”
What does this mean for the Department of Defense and Possible Mandates?
A layman’s summary:
An mRNA synthetic strand is NOT within the definition of a biologic and falls well outside the FR definition of “vaccine” or “immunity” in State statutes.
PostScript:
Facebook Fact Checkers have taken issue with the legal definition of “Vaccine". In the Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) case, the court was clear that a PUBLIC BENEFIT was required for a vaccine to be mandated. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have proved a disruption of transmission. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle:
The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.