Soon pharmacists, and maybe also physicians, will be pressured to give the COVID vaccines or other mRNA injections. We have some thoughts on the time-honored stance of conscientious objection.
Original Link Here: Conscientious Objection for Pharmacists (substack.com)
ColleenHuberNMDJul 69851
By Ryan Heath, Esq. and Colleen Huber, NMD
Pfizer and Moderna are both planning future mRNA vaccines, as announced this past week. The roll-out of these may look like 2021, in which first pop-up events in tents jabbed the most eager, followed by pharmacists at chain drug stores.
But now, in the 2nd half of 2022 and beyond, pharmacists will be stuck with the ethical dilemma of administering a product from which they may have already learned of injuries and deaths among their regular customers. Retail pharmacists are currently in such dire shortage that pharmacies have closed. Will they now be put in the position of nightmare-inducing guilt for administering a product that the US Department of Health and Human Services’ VAERS database shows has killed over 29,000 Americans and has permanently disabled over 54,000 more? VAERS data is summarized in https://www.OpenVAERS.com
Even prestigious medical journals are beginning to acknowledge the hazards of the COVID vaccines.
From Nature:
“In conclusion, this study provides strong evidence of an increased risk of myocarditis and of pericarditis in the week following vaccination against Covid-19 with mRNA vaccines in both males and females, in particular after the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5
From British Medical Journal (BMJ):
“There have been recent reports of hemorrhage, blood clots and thrombocytopenia following administration of COVID -19 vaccines . . . symptoms of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, a potentially fatal clot in the brain.” https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-2
From Peter Doshi, PhD, BMJ Editor:
“The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpasses the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials . . . The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, . . . .“ https://canadahealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SSRN-id4125239.pdf
And finally, mainstream media also, The Wall Street Journal:
“. . . More troubling, vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo.” And “Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-rush-for-toddler-vaccines-covid-pandemic-children-fda-pfizer-moderna-medicine-evidence
What is an ethical pharmacist to do when squeezed between the rock of their employer and the hard place of doing the right thing?
What if pharmacists could use a religious exemption or personal beliefs exemption to avoid the giving of a vaccine, the same way many others do for the receiving of a vaccine? Aren’t both ends of this particular needle / syringe assembly objectionable, on the basis of established toxicity, both the giving and the receiving? And is it imperative for one to be a poisoner simply because of one’s employment contract? Can an employment contract – or even a non-contract employment arrangement – legally compel the known injury or endangerment of another person, even if there were informed consent to such injury?
Thanks for reading The Defeat Of COVID! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.✓
Two decades ago, when I (Colleen Huber, NMD) was a medical student, still in a conventional program before transferring to naturopathic, I was assigned to do high school sports physicals one day on rotation. No problem, of course. However, while there, I was told: Now you’re going to give vaccines. I refused. My wide-eyed classmates edged away. They weren’t used to hearing refusal; it was unthinkable in medical school, and they wanted no part of my rebellion. “First do no harm,” I explained, and the preceptor doctor could do nothing. The Hippocratic Oath is the legal antidote to a poisoning order. A year later, I chose to transfer to naturopathic medical school because I needed much more thorough nutrition education than what I had already received in order to practice medicine the way I thought best.
Back to the present, pharmacists, and possibly other professionals in healthcare, may be able to use some of the legal history, case precedents, and arguments in the sample letter below.
Attorney Ryan Heath, Esq. has prepared the following template for Conscientious Objection, one that may have an employer think twice before firing a pharmacist for refusing to give the notoriously toxic and ineffective COVID vaccines.
Conscientious Objection
_______:
It is my sincerely held religious belief that poisoning is wrong. Hundreds of studies and thousands of lost lives among the COVID vaccinated demonstrate that these shots are sufficiently dangerous to qualify as a mild to moderate poison. Although many have survived—many others have lost their lives from these shots—and even more have been permanently disabled.
In my reasoned professional judgment, the COVID vaccine is inappropriate for certain individuals—but especially for children. To the extent that politicians, government employees, and members of state licensing boards now pressure me to vaccinate children (or anyone) against my will, their attempted coercion tramples upon my right to free expression and religion secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Such threats also arguably violate my contractual rights with the state as a licensed pharmacist [physician], and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantees to due process.
Be advised, those acting under color of state law in violation of my constitutional rights could be held personally liable pursuant to Title 42 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. Attorney’s fees may be awarded, and punitive damages could be available.
As a pharmacist [physician], I took an oath “to do no harm.” This is one of my core tenets. As such, I cannot willfully sacrifice another’s life toward any other end. I remain devoted to goodness and virtue for their own sakes and committed to acting in the best interest of patients.
Irrespective of the faith I adhere to, my deepest precepts as a rational human being command that I consciously object to vaccinating certain individuals—especially when I know that doing so would amount to a needless act of poisoning.
Chief Justice Hughes of the United States Supreme Court once explained, “In the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the State has always been maintained.” United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 169–70 (1965) (quoting United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931)).
Be advised, my profound objection to poisoning another is superior to any possible alternative obligation arising from any conceivable human relationship. Accordingly, I hereby demand a religious exemption from being compelled to administer vaccinations—in violation of my conscience.
On this note, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone is attributed with stating that “both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man’s moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process.” Id., at 170 (quoting Stone, The Conscientious Objector, 21 Col. Univ. Q. 253, 269 (1919)).
My right—as a citizen—to disagree with compelled orthodoxy on matters of conscience is inarguably secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). The Supreme Court has explained that unity on a matter of conscience is “an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example[.]” Id., at 640. Conformity on such issues, however, cannot be compelled. The Court explained:
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever increasing severity. Id.
The Court concluded, “[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only unanimity of the graveyard.” Id., at 641 (emphasis added).
Given that my moral objection to needlessly poisoning my customers [patients] is as sincerely held as a traditional religious view, an employer is likewise barred from forcing me to vaccinate certain patients as such would amount to religious discrimination under Title VII. Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 485 (2014).
Finally, I cannot be compelled by anyone to assume criminal liability. Given the notable probability of irreparable and severe injury to certain recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine relative to their low probable benefit from the same, compelling that I vaccinate certain patients effectively commands that I needlessly accept potential criminal liability for poisoning, negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and even second-degree murder. I will not assume such liability.
Cease and desist.
__________
[name]
_________________________________________________________________________
The Gavel Project is a 501(c)(3) public charity. The organization runs entirely from crowdsourced donations. The organization is currently funding several lawsuits against school districts across California regarding discrimination against students for noncompliance with COVID-19 mandates. The Gavel Project is working tirelessly to set a national precedent that will bar states from coercing citizens to comply with irrational health policies. Support is needed to fund litigation efforts. Those interested in supporting The Gavel Project with a tax-deductible donation are encouraged to visit: thegavelproject.com. The Gavel Project has drafted several complaints that have yet to be released (media releases pending). Those interested in providing larger donations and wanting to examine work product may contact Ryan at: inquiries@thegavelproject.com.
Ryan Heath, Esq. is licensed to practice law in Arizona. The information provided herein is intended for educational purposes only. Those with legal issues should speak with an attorney licensed in their state. Any person interested in applying for representation with The Gavel Project is encouraged to do so here: thegavelproject.com/contact
Colleen Huber, NMD is a naturopathic physician of 15 years, licensed in Arizona.
Thanks for reading The Defeat Of COVID! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.✓
