Lawsuit: b/c COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission They are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection

/

From [HERE] “I take care of a lot of kids with birth defects, cleft lips, cleft palates, extra fingers, extra toes,” Dr. Devan Griner from Lehi is a pediatric craniofacial plastic surgeon. During his six years working in Utah and around the world, he estimates he’s helped hundreds of patients.  

“These are kind of like my own children.  I take care of kids from the time they are born, sometimes before they’re born, all the way until they’re 25 years old and go off. I watch them grow up, they are part of my family,” Griner said. 

The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services covid-19 vaccine Federal mandate has Griner scared he may not be able to continue that work because he has not received any doses of the shot. So, he’s filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn that mandate.  

“I’ve watched over the last year, year and a half as things have progressed, where they’re going, I really want to put a stop now so I’m never in the position where I have to tell my patients and their families they need to go somewhere else or find somebody else,” Griner said. 

The historic federal suit filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah is funded by Dr. David Martin, a renowned IP underwriter and analyst. It names as defendants, President Biden, US Govt, HHS, CMS and others. The lawsuit claims the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional and violates Dr. Griner’s fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

COVID SHOTS ARE NOT A VACCINE AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT

The complaint states: "the CMS Mandate must be struck down because:

  1. i. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them.

  2. The CDC Director has admitted that the Injections do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has been identified by various public health agencies as causing the disease known as COVID-19. “[W]hat [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”1

  3. The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.2

  4. The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law.

  5. In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”3

  6. The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”4

  7. Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.

  8. But on September 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5 It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”6

  9. Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.

  10. This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.

MANDATES VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The complaint explains,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.”

Mandates Violate the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine.
The complaint states;

The CMS Mandate also violates the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, under which the government may not condition employment “on a basis that infringes [an employee’s] constitutionally protected interests.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593,597 (1972); see also Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 606 (2013) (“[T]he unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them.”).

Unconstitutional conditions case law often references the existence of varying degrees of coercion. According to that body of law, Defendants cannot impair Plaintiff’s right to refuse medical care through forms of coercion and through this explicit mandate. See, e.g., Koontz, 570 U.S. 595 (2013). 100. (“[U]nconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them”); Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (“[An] overarching principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine ... vindicates the Constitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the government from coercing the people into giving them up.”)

The decision whether to take a medical treatment or not is a fundamental human right which Plaintiff enjoys. Plaintiff cannot be forced to choose between his right to refuse medical treatment by the government coercively withholding his right to pursue his career as a surgeon, and his passion to heal children with congenital defects such as cleft palates.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.

Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §§ 2201-02 and other applicable law, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the CMS Mandate is unlawful and any further relief which may be appropriate.

Violation of Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others. (Engquist v. Or. Dept. of Agric. (2008) 553 U.S. 591, 601.) Thetouchstone of this analysis is whether a state creates disparity between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable. (Ross v. Moffitt (1974) 417 U.S. 600, 609.)

The CMS Mandate creates two classes of healthcare workers; injected and uninjected. The members of one class, the uninjected, get terminated. The uninjected cannot advance their careers. They cannot provide for their families, pay their mortgages, or make a car payment. The other class, the vaccinated, get to keep their job in their chosen profession, advance their careers, provide for their families, pay their mortgages, and make their car payments.

Yet the situations of these employees are indistinguishable because injected healthcare workers can become infected with SARS-CoV-2, become re-infected with SARS-CoV- 2, and can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to fellow healthcare workers, patients, and visitors. The Injections make no difference in these respects. Their only function is to make symptoms less severe.

Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause – i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.

Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.” [MORE]

Dr. Griner told the media, “Morally I can’t go against what I’m feeling.  If that means the hospitals take away my privileges, then that’s what’s going to happen.  It breaks my heart which is why I want to get on the forefront of this and stop that from ultimately happening,” Griner said.