Of Course Bill Gates Tested Positive for COVID. COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants
/
Psychopath Bill Gates tests positive for COVID-19, claims he's experiencing mild symptoms. Frequent Announcements by Influencers about their MEANINGLESS positive COVID tests Remind the Public of the Plandemic. the goal here is to create covid SHOT dependency IN ORDER TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AND TO GAIN GREATER CONTROL OF PEOPLE IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON.
The following is the Executive Summary for Litigation of PLANDEMIC Crimes from Prosecute Now, an organization founded by Dr. David Martin to fund law suits for crimes against humanity.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
It is the consensus of the medical community that the currently available Covid-19 vaccine injections (“Covid-19 injections") do not prevent the spread of Covid-19. Relevant federal agencies have repeatedly acknowledged this consensus.
Therefore, there is no scientific or legal justification for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration COSHA") to segregate injected and un-injected people.
Indeed, since the Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity upon the recipients, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, they do not fall within the long-established definition of a vaccine at all. They are instead treatments and must be analyzed as such under the law.
Even if OSHA possessed the statutory and constitutional authority to issue the Emergency Temporary Standard ("ETS")2 now challenged before the Court, which it does not, the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would require the federal government to
establish that the OSHA ETS is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. This is a standard it cannot meet.
ARGUMENT
A. Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. They are treatments, not vaccines.
The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.''3 Examples abound:
a. NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci to NPR: "We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with Covid-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.''a
b. Dr. Anthony Fauci on November 12, 2021, referring to the experience of health officials regarding the injections:
They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly.
It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital. 5
c. WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan: "At the moment I don't believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it's going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.''6
d. Chief Medical Officer of Moderna Dr. Tal Zaks: "There's no hard evidence that it stops [the Covid-19 vaccinated] from carrying the virus transiently and potentially infecting others who haven't been vaccinated.''7 e. The Surgeon General of the State of Florida, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD: "... the infections can still happen whether people are vaccinated or not. That's very obvious.''s
f. Professor Sir Andrew Pollard who led the Oxford vaccine team: "We don't have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals."9
g. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, Professor of Health Policy, Stanford University: "Based on my analysis of the existing medical and scientific literature, any exemption policy that does not recognize natural immunity is irrational, arbitrary, and counterproductive to community health.'’1o
h. 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Dr. Luc Montagnier (also winner of the French National Order of Merit and 20 other major international awards):
The vaccines don't stop the virus, they do the opposite - they 'feed the virus,' and facilitate its development into stronger and more transmissible variants...You see it in each country, it's the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths ... the vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca do not prevent the transmission of the virus person-to-person and the vaccinated are just as transmissive as the unvaccinated.ll
i. A study of a Covid-19 outbreak in July 2021 published in Eurosurveillance observed that 100 percent of severe, critical, and fatal cases of Covid-19 occurred in injected individuals. The authors stated that the study "challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.’'12
j. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School:
"The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission.'’13
k. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist and Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford:
[I]t is really not logical to use [these] vaccines to protect other people ... I don't think they should be forced [] on the understanding simply because this vaccine does not prevent transmission. So if you just think of the logic of it, what is the point of requiring a vaccine to protect others if that vaccine does not durably prevent onward transmission of a virus?14
The Court may already be aware of the countless news reports of outbreaks on fully "vaccinated" sports teams15 and cruise ships,16 not to mention in the fully "vaccinated" White House.17 There is simply no question that the Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. This was summed up quite nicely by Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, who "warned that the trial results show that the vaccine can prevent someone from getting sick or 'severely sick,' from COVID-19, however, the results don't show that the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus.''is Recognition of this fact may explain why, in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'19
However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.
Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.2o Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'21
The FDA's "therapeutics" classification of the injections is consistent with representations made by Pfizer partner BioNTech to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in its 2020 Annual Report, where it stated with regard to the mRNA technology forming the basis of its Covid-19 injection:
Although we expect to submit BLAs [biologics license applications] for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, and other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.22
Similarly, in its June 30, 2020 Quarterly Report to the SEC, Moderna stated with regard to the mRNA technology underpinning its injection: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.’'23
Thus, the medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the socalled vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''24 Accordingly, we herein refer to the Covid- 19 "vaccines" as Covid- 19 injections.
B. The Government's attempt to mandate treatments is subject to strict scrutiny.
The judiciary has too often assumed without analysis that requiring individuals to submit to Covid-19 injections is permissible under the determination made in Jacebsen.25 However, because these injections do not confer immunity, but are instead merely treatments that may reduce the severity of symptoms, the proper analysis stems from Cruzan v. Dir., Me. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).26
In Cruzan, the Court addressed whether the parents of a young woman severely brain damaged in a car wreck could compel the hospital to remove her from life support in the absence of any clear directive memorializing her intent. Missouri required clear and convincing evidence of intent to remove a patient from life support, and the parents argued this violated both their and their daughter’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Significantly for the issue at hand, the Court began by recognizing a fundamental human right of informed consent to medical treatment stemming from the right of self-determination, stating:
At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. 497 U.S. at 269-270 (citations omitted).
The Court went on to state that "[t]he principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions" citing three cases pertinent to our analysis here. First, the Cruzan Court cited Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222 (1990), where the Court recognized that prisoners possess "a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Significantly, theCourt in Harper stated that "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229. Second, the Cruzan Court cited Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980), where the Court recognized that the transfer to a mental hospital coupled with mandatory behavior modification treatment implicated liberty interests. Third, the Court cited Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) where the Court recognized that "a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment.”
Cruzan was followed in 1997 by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), where the issue before the Court was whether the substantive due process right to refuse medical treatment included the right to assisted suicide. The following language of the Court is particularly significant to the issue presently before the Court:
The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992)(Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against 'certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them"') (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests ....
We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 278-279.
521 U.S. at 719-720. (internal citations omitted)
The fact that the Glucksberg Court identified the right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment as one in a long list of traditional fundamental human rights and liberty interests is extremely important because once a right is so identified, any governmental action infringing upon it is subjected to the "strict scrutiny" test. As stated by the Court in Glucksberg, "the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to infringe fundamental liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original).
The Court's analysis in both Cruzan and Glucksberg was based upon a sick person asserting a right to deny treatment. The ETS mandate, on the other hand, forces treatment on perfectly healthy people. All of the arguments in favor of selfdetermination reviewed by the Court in Cruzan and Glucksberg are even stronger when applied to a perfectly healthy person's right to refuse a treatment on the basis that it may make symptoms of a disease that healthy person may never contract less severe. And we remember here the uncontroverted medical consensus that Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. The bar should be even higher to force a healthy person to accept "treatment" than to force a sick person to accept critical care. As stated by the Court in Harper, where a physically healthy prisoner objected to the administration of antipsychotic drugs, "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229
Footnotes
2 86 FED. REG. 61402 (November 4, 2021).
3 CNN. The Situation Room, interview with CDC Director Walensky. (August 5, 2021).
https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1423422301882748929
4 Stieg, C. “Dr. Fauci on CDC mask guidelines: ‘We are dealing with a different virus now.’” (July 28, 2021). https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/dr-fauci-on-why-cdc-changed- guidelines-delta-is-a-different-virus.html
5 Coleman, K (November 12, 2021). Dr. Fauci Just Issued This Urgent Warning to Vaccinated People. Yahoo News. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html
6. Colson, T. “Top WHO scientist says vaccinated travelers should still quarantine, citing lack of evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission.” Business Insider. (December 29, 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12?op=1
7 Manskar, N. “Moderna boss says COVID-19 vaccine not proven to stop spread of virus.” New York Post. (November 24, 2020). https://nypost.com/2020/11/24/moderna-boss-says-covid-shot-not-proven-to-stop-virus-spread/.
8 WFLA News. “Desantis, Moody Speak Out Against Vaccine Mandates in Clearwater.” Twitter Repost. (October 24, 2021). https://twitter.com/4patrick7/status/1452309002021388296?s=21
9 Knapton, S. “Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists.” The Telegraph. (October 8, 2021). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/delta-variant- has-wrecked-hopes-of-herd-immunity-warn-scientists/ar-AAN9O4p
10 Bhattacharya, J., et al. “The beauty of vaccines and natural immunity.” Smerconish Newsletter. (June 4, 2021). https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/the-beauty-of-vaccines-and-natural-immunity
11 RAIR Foundation USA video with Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier. https://rairfoundation.com/bombshell-nobel-prize-winner-reveals-covid-vaccine-is-creating-variants/.
(May 18, 2021).
12 Pnina, S. et al. “Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021.” EuroSurveill. 26:39. (September 23, 2021). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822
13 Adams, P, et al. “Who Are These COVID-19 Vaccine Skeptics and What Do They Believe?” Epoch Times. (October 20, 2021). https://www.theepochtimes.com/who-are-these-covid-19-
vaccine-skeptics-and-what-do-they-believe_4043094.html
14 Allen, R. “Oxford Scientist ‘It’s Illogical & Unethical To Force Jab On NHS Staff.’”
The Richie Allen Radio Show. (September 9, 2021). https://richieallen.co.uk/oxford-scientist-
its-illogical-unethical-to-force-jab-on-nhs-staff/
15 Associated Press. “US sports leagues cope with COVID-19 outbreaks amid variants.”
(December 15, 2021). https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-sports-leagues-cope-with-covid-19-
16 Lemos, G. et al. “17 Covid-19 cases identified on New Orleans-bound cruise ship.”
CNN. (December 5, 2021). https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/05/us/cruise-ship-norwegian-
breakaway-covid-cases/index.html
17 Chasmar, J. “Psaki doesn’t deny White House COVID-19 outbreak.” Yahoo News.
(December 20, 2021). https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-doesn-apos-t-deny-210029232.html
18 Al-Arshani, S. “Moderna’s chief medical officer says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick – not necessarily that recipients won’t still be able to transmit the virus.” Business Insider. (November 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11
19 Attkisson, S. “CDC changes definition of “vaccines” to fit Covid-19 vaccine limitations.” (September 8, 2021). https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/read-cdc-changes-definition-of-vaccines-to-fit-covid-19-vaccine-limitations/
20 See, e.g., Moderna Program Patents. (December 2021). https://www.modernatx.com/patents
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Moderna Form 10Q. (August 6,
2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-
Nakagami, H. “Development of COVID-19 vaccines utilizing gene therapy
technology.” Int Immunol. 33(10):521-527. (September 25, 2021). https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33772572/.
FDA. “Comirnaty. Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics.” (December 2021). https://
www.fda.gov/ vaccines-blood-biologics/comirnaty
21 FDA. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) | CBER-Regulated Biologics.” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/industry-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologic
FDA. “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program(CTAP).” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs/coronavirus-treatment-acceleration-program-ctap.
22 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. BioNTech SE Form 20-F.
(2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000156459021016723/bntx-20f_
20201231.htm at page 26.
23 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Moderna SE Form 10-Q. (June 30, 2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017 /mrna- 20200630.htm
24 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq.
25 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
26 Although Cruzan was decided under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court has long held that the same substantive due process analysis applied to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also applies to the federal government under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954) (“In view of our decision that the
Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.”) See also, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (same); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (holding federal law discriminating on basis of sex unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment due process clause based on Fourteenth Amendment analysis); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) (striking down federal racial classification on basis of Fifth Amendment due process clause stating that strict scrutiny is the proper standard for analysis of all racial classifications, whether imposed by a federal, state, or local actor. Id. at 231, superseded by statute); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) (striking down provision of the Social Security Act based upon illegitimacy applying substantive due process analysis through the due process of clause of the Fifth Amendment).
