Explanation of your rights, how they are defined, and where they come from. A breakdown of how the government has slowly taken them away with examples from other states, and what you can do to get involved.
You can read the transcription below.
Miste: I just wanted to introduce my friend, Leslie Manookian. She’s on the board of Health Freedom Idaho and is also running Health Freedom Defense Fund. She’s a powerhouse for Liberty. I mean, she’s amazing. She inspires me all the time. I am really excited that she’s here because she’s going to speak truth with so much power and so much truth that it will empower you to be able to talk to your legislators, your family, friends, your churchgoers, and fellow people that go to the schools, everybody around you. So we have to be spreading the truth as fast and as truthful as possible. So Leslie’s going to empower you to do that. This is the beginning of the 2022 legislative session. Everything that health freedom Idaho has been doing since 2016 has been for such a time as this. Right now is the time to hold the line for health freedom.
So we’re going to do all we can to empower you to hold the line. If you’re not already a member, you can join us at healthfreedomidaho.org (updated to healthfreedomidaho.com). Sorry to say again, a tech thing. Our website has been down for about a month now, and we’re working on it and hoping, hopefully, in the next 24-48 hours, it’s going to be back up.
But literally, our email list is golden because we’re so silenced on social media, right? That’s where you will get your calls to action all through the legislative session. It’s going to be fast. You don’t get- people will say to me, oh, we need three days’ time, and then we can be there. That’s just not, and it’s not feasible that we don’t even get that time. We get less than 24 hours to see the bill, read the bill, decide what it’s trying to say or what it’s going to do, and how it’s going to impact your freedom. Send out an email letting you know what the call to action is and also a write-up about it, and that’s how fast it goes. So anyway, I am honored to introduce my good friend, Leslie. I hope you have something to take notes cause she’s going to bring a lot of truth today.
Sarah: Oh my gosh. She’s amazing. I don’t know her whole resume, but I can’t wait for you to hear it because her brain is amazing, and every time we have legal questions and just every kind of question, she is our resource, and she’s so great. So I’m excited she can be here.
Miste: And she’s an Idahoan.
Leslie: I was watching the last few minutes non-compliant, and I was welling up. And welling up because, friends, we stand on the precipice of disaster or a future of freedom. I’m not saying that to be- it’s not a cliche. It’s, it’s real. What happened yesterday in the Supreme Court is a travesty of justice. They denied fact, truth, science, and justice. So I’m so excited to be here today and talk to all of you because we are here at a seminal moment for our country. And if our country falls, the whole world will fall.
That’s the truth. Every single week I work with people from all over the world. And they are all looking to this country for the future because they know they’re already over the edge in Australia. They’re already locking them down in Austria and Germany. Despite the fact that science shows these shots don’t do anything. This is not, as I said since the very beginning, this is not about a virus, and it’s not about public health, and it never has been.
And that may make me unpopular. That may make a lot of people call me a conspiracy theorist. I can prove it. What is happening is a denial of the science. It’s a denial of the facts. It has nothing to do with your health. It has nothing to do with public health. It has to do with power and money and control. And unless we speak the truth, we can’t defeat that enemy. So it’s high time people understand that what we face is not about some misguided bureaucrat or uninformed politician. It’s about a battle for the future of our country.
I want to go way, way back to the Declaration of Independence. How many people in this room think that the Declaration of Independence has any kind of legal binding in America?
So a few of you do, the vast majority of you don’t, here’s the truth courts and judges across this country go to our founding documents and their writings and usings of our founding fathers in order to understand their intent. They do. It does have an impact. It is considered when matters of law are under review. And while it may seem boring to you, I just want to read this because I find it some of the most inspiring and, as my general counsel to Health Freedom Defense Fund says, radical notions ever written. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights that are among these not limited are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Why is that so radical folks? Because never before in the history of humanity has any group of people come together and said our rights come from our creator, not from a government. And if they don’t come from the government, if they come from our creator, they can’t be taken away, can they? There are only taken away because we allow them to be. And because we are uninformed about our true rights.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
Have we heard anything about locking us down, taking away your business, telling you when you can’t leave your house? Anywhere in there yet?
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”
I want you to understand, that’s not just some nice words on a piece of paper. That actually is critically important in the understanding of everything that is America, everything. And if you understand that and you share that with your friends and your family members, perhaps they too will be inspired to stand up and claim what is rightfully theirs, which is bodily autonomy, sovereignty, and true freedom.
So nowhere in the US Constitution does it say anything about privacy, but the Supreme court has, over a period of decades, created what they call the zone of privacy. Privacy, autonomy, self-determination. They use many words for it, but it’s all based on a bunch of different lawsuits beginning in 1965 with Griswald versus Connecticut.
Now, this was a situation where the state of Connecticut had prohibited contraception, and a Catholic couple sued the state and said, you can’t tell us whether or not we use a condom in our marriage, and the Supreme Court ruled and said, yes, that’s correct. You have a zone of privacy. Otherwise, the state would be coming into every single family’s bedrooms and just policing whether or not they were breaking the law clearly. That’s absurd.
So they said we all have a zone of privacy around us into which the state cannot intrude. Now they made some other rulings that a lot of us probably don’t like, like Roe V Wade, but there were other rulings like Cruzan v. Director, which said that you have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. Imagine that it’s your body and it’s your right.
So over a period of 60, or 70 years, they said you have the right to autonomy, to privacy, and to self-determination. And to me, the most sacred of rights is that of self-determination. If we don’t have the right to decide what we put into our bodies, we are not free. To me, it’s more sacred even than free speech, and I’m a huge proponent of free speech, of course. But if someone can actually plunge your needle into your arm, a government, because they say it’s for your own good or worse in service to someone else, we have really lost our way. The good news is we do have our founding documents, and the Supreme Court has reinforced all of these ideas. Unfortunately, they seem to have lost their way yesterday, and I’ll touch on that in a little bit. So what does the Idaho constitution say because that’s where we live.
Article I, Section 1:
“All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.”
Anything in there about submitting to unwanted medical treatment?
All of the legislators in here, you must know that you are the last line in the sand for us. You must defend these principles. That is your duty, your obligation to the state of Idaho. The Idaho constitution goes on:
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit.”
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit,”
Not for some in service to others or a theoretical idea
“and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary;”
What’s also really important is Section 21; just because it’s not enumerated doesn’t mean it’s not your right. You have to understand that our documents in the United States aren’t a restraint on you. They’re a restraint on government. They don’t delineate or enumerate every single one of your rights. Just a few to give you a sense, your rights are unlimited, they’re limitless, and they can’t be taken away, so even if they’re not enumerated in any of these documents, that doesn’t mean you don’t have a right. The only way that a government can tell me what to do is if it specifically has that power and the Constitution is very limited in that respect in the United States and also in Idaho.
I know my own legislator, Senator Michelle Stennett, sent out an email to our whole district and all her constituents a few weeks ago, and she said in there that Idaho has the Health Freedom Act, but that it’s probably not enforceable because of the supremacy clause in the US Constitution.
How many of you believe that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land? It is only if, however, whatever laws are being implemented in pursuance of the Constitution are constitutional. So how can it be constitutional if it overrides your rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination? It’s not.
So she wrote out our Health Freedom Act isn’t enforceable because of the supremacy clause. But she forgot this part, Article 6, this Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, if the laws aren’t made in pursuant of the US Constitution, they are not supreme law of the land.
So when the US Constitution and other edicts emanating from Washington conflict with Idaho law, unless they’re constitutional, they have no force of law. And the only thing that matters is that legislators united will stand up for your rights. So please get on their backs, insist they do your bidding, insist they uphold the law because this idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, even when it’s unconstitutional, so like when they passed things that are unconstitutional, is clearly null and void according to Article 6.
The bottom line is if it’s not constitutional. It’s not a law, and you are free.
So very often I hear from people, well, I can get an exemption, or I’ve heard some legislators for over the last decade of working here in the Capitol, you know, we provide an exemption. That is the most wrongheaded thinking I have ever heard. You can’t exempt me from a law that doesn’t bind me.
There is no such thing as an exemption, and here’s the other thing, if you subscribe to the idea, well, it’s not a problem because you know that you’ve granted us exemptions. You completely lost your way as an American. You have no appreciation or understanding that the government does not own you. You own the government.
They are implemented to do your bidding to protect your rights, not to trot on them, but that’s what they’re doing. And they justify it by saying, well, we provide an exemption. One of the biggest takeaways for you today is that exemptions aren’t just unethical, they’re not just immoral, they are wrong!
It is totally wrongheaded to think that the government should be telling you, you can claim an exemption from something that you have to inject into your body. That’s not where power derives from. It derived from you and your own sovereignty. So just think about the situations where someone else can tell another creature what to put in their bodies.
They can if they own them, right? So that’s the way it was in slavery. They can for livestock and cattle. Literally, this is what they’re consigning us to when they suggest that we’ll just grant you exemptions. It’s a life of indentured servitude. So really, contemplate, are we human beings? Are we sovereign? And if you’re a legislator, which side of history do you want to be on? Because they’re drawing a line in the sand right now. They’re dividing this country, and they’re literally putting it to us. And at some point, people are going to stand and say, no more. The question is, which side do you want to be on?
I’ve been involved in the health freedom arena for close to 20 years. Many of you will know that I made a documentary film on vaccines many years ago called The Greater Good. And so I’ve been watching the evolution of the thinking around exemptions for a very long time. And what I’ve watched is that what government giveth government can take away.
So this idea that we know you’re safe because we’ve given you an exemption couldn’t be more nonsensical. And it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when. Because we all know that government is power-hungry and those in government don’t ever yield that power voluntarily, they only yield when I have to, and it’s not just government, it’s the bureaucracies, right? It’s all the agencies, all these people at the Department of Health and Welfare that can tell you that they’re doing what’s good for you. We’re just concerned about what’s good for you, they say, when do they ever say, you know what, we don’t need this power or authority anymore, never.
Bobby Kennedy Jr said about a month or so ago. I can’t remember if he tweeted it or where to put it out, but he said no one ever complied their way out of the authoritarianism.
It’s incumbent on each and every one of us to stand up and reclaim what is rightfully ours. And that is the power and authority to live our lives the way that we choose and decide what we do and don’t allow into our bodies. So I want to talk to you a little bit, a little history lesson real quick, because I think this illustrates so clearly my points about exemptions and why it’s so important for legislators, in particular, to understand that they are a very, very bad path to pursue.
It took only eight years in California for them to go from a personal belief exemption where parents could exempt their children from vaccinations for any reason of their choosing to utter tyranny in California, you can’t go to private school or public school unless you submit to the vaccinations schedule, unless you can get a health czar at the state of California to sign off on your medical exemption.
And that happened less than eight years, nine years. So in 2011, firstly introduced AB 499, 499 said that children over 11 could consent to vaccinations for sexually transmitted diseases. 11. So by the time you reached 12, they assume that they are these children at all. Able to decide what the risks and benefits are of these medical procedures. Even though we know that vaccines injure and kill some recipients.
What was most important though, was that the legislature in California, the assembly reassured parents, don’t worry, we’re not going to intrude on family rights. It’s just for this situation. It’s just for sexually transmitted diseases. A year later, they came back, and they said, we want to make the entire public in California if they’re going to exempt their children from vaccinations, just get a healthcare practitioner to sign off on their personal beliefs. So they basically wanted you to submit to a form of indoctrination where you heard what the state’s perspective on the science is and then get that healthcare practitioner to sign that you actually listened to this, but you are resolved in your commitment against the jabs. Basically, self-incriminate yourselves. Of course, we fought it, and it passed anyway, and it passed very much bi-partisan in a partisan manner. At that point, they said, listen, this is just to make sure that you’re all educated.
We’re not going to take away your right to a personal belief exemption. Three years later, in the 2015-2016 session, they removed that personal belief exemption and they said, you know, listen, okay, we’re taking away the personal belief exemption, but for those of you who truly have medical issues, don’t worry we are not going to intrude on a relationship between you and your healthcare practitioner. We’re not going to interfere with this isn’t about taking away medical exemptions, that’s not what we’re doing.
A year later, actually, I think it might’ve been that same session. They tried to pass the children’s bill of rights. I just want you guys to understand this because it illustrates the thinking of these people. They try to pass the children’s bill of rights. And this bill said that your child has the right to proper medical treatment, the right to proper education, and the right to proper parenting. Who decides all of those things.
Thankfully it didn’t pass, but you have to understand that this is part of the plan, right? That government is the parent. So in 2019, very conveniently, before this whole latest chapter in our history, they passed SB 276, which removed the medical exemptions. Basically, it’s impossible to get a medical exemption for your child in California unless your child has already had a catastrophic reaction, and it has to be signed by someone in the governor’s administration. There’s like a health czar. They also restricted who can write medical exemptions that then have to get signed off on, and doctors who write more than five in one year get hauled in front of the state licensing board for review. If there are too many in a school, there’s an investigation.
In the fall of 2019, they passed AB262. Now, this is one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation perhaps ever passed in this country. It says the local health officer can enact any means necessary. Any. In any disease outbreak in pursuant to the public health, and they actually suspended the rules of the California assembly in order to ram that through in September or October of 2019.
Leslie: Very interesting timing. So we went from in 2011, don’t worry. We’re not going to intrude on family rights, to we’re going to do exactly that. In fact, we’re going to destroy your rights as families, and we’re not going to intrude in medical decisions, and we’re not going to take your right to exceptions away, to exactly that. Now children in California have to be homeschooled if they want to avoid these liability-free medical products called vaccines. That’s the only way around it. And that happened literally between 2011 and 2019, 8 years. So when someone tells you that you can get an exemption, please remember California. And it didn’t just happen to California; similar things happened in New York.
They suspended the rules of the New York assembly as well in order to ram through their removal of rights in 2019, interestingly. They’ve done it in other states as well. And they will come here because they can’t have people who are free and healthy because it proves the fallacy of safe and effective. There are hundreds of jabs that are in research and development. We have said for more than ten years this is not just about children that if you didn’t do something and stand up, they were coming for you too. That day is here.
Audience: They are firing people at the INEL right now. What do you mean this was happening in California? It’s happening right here in Idaho.
Leslie: It sure is. Idaho St. Luke’s, INEL, lots of places. It’s outrageous. People need to stand up and fight because if they do, there is power in numbers. These businesses do back down. They do.
Canada is one of the worst places on the planet right now. And they just backed down about truckers because the truckers said, we’re not doing this.
I’m not saying it’s easy folks, don’t misunderstand me one second. We face literally an existential threat. But one thing is sure, and that is if you don’t stand up and if you don’t stand together, we will fall. The only solution or for people to rise and to stand together.
So another thing I want to unpack for you is a lawsuit, a Supreme Court case called Jacobson versus Massachusetts. This has been used to say that, as a justification for the government to literally plunge a needle into your arm. Alan Dershowitz, who’s a Harvard law constitutional law scholar, supposedly, actually said in a debate that if the government wants, Jacobson versus Massachusetts says that they can take you to the doctor and literally plunge a needle into your arm if it’s for public health. That is not what Jacobson says at all. And there are many legislators I know who think that Jacobson says lots of things that it doesn’t say. So I want you all to know what exactly it says and what it is not because it is not blanket power to the government to do anything it wants. It’s the seminal case on mandatory vaccination.
But it happened in 1905. It was heard in 1905. The key issues in front of the board were how much power does the state have versus the authority of the federal government. And most importantly, the rights of the individual versus the community. Now Scott has ruled that this Massachusetts statute, which was not statewide, it was in one little area in one town, Cambridge.
Then if it wasn’t contrary to federal law and that pastor Jacobson’s rights must yield to the community based on the facts of the case. So let’s talk about what the facts of the case were. First of all, it revolved around smallpox. Does that sound like Covid, 30 to 40% death rate? I know it’s been exaggerated, but it’s nowhere near that. Even for the elderly, it’s about 3%, as long as they’re not in a care home. For children, it’s basically zero. So in smallpox, the local board of health can issue a narrow local rule for public health. That’s what they said in 1905, but they said only under the pressure of great dangers. Does that sound like what we’re facing today? The court was very clear that this was not blanket authority for government to do anything it wanted.
And the court also said that it was very clear that individuals have the right to challenge it. So what happened in Jacobson is that they concluded very clearly that no, the government doesn’t have a right to plunge a needle into your arm. In fact, Jacobson and his son were fined $5 each, which is about 140- $45 today. They weren’t forced to be jabbed. They could pay a fine, and they did that.
It’s also clear from Jacobson that any mandate if there ever exists one, it must require that there is a grave danger and, and that if you are a reasonable regulation. Plunging a needle into your arm is not a reasonable regulation. So basically, what happened with Jacobson balanced the interest of public health versus the Liberty interests of the individual. In the case of smallpox. It doesn’t apply to the flu or colds, or common respiratory diseases. It doesn’t apply to most diseases. It only applies in a really grave situation. And I’m going to explain to you in a second why it doesn’t even apply in those situations today because we know so much more than that court did in 1905.
Very importantly, Jacobson does not, and never did, suspend the Constitution in a pandemic. Nowhere does it suggest that the authority of the government is so great that you lose all of your rights just because there’s a disease outbreak, nowhere. It certainly doesn’t justify a federal mandate.
Justice Gorsuch wrote in a case a few months ago, and I think it was in January of 2021, the Roman Catholic diocese of New York versus Cuomo. Why has some mistake in this court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during the pandemic? Because this is what’s happening in several instances, and it’s wrong. It’s just wrong. If people read it in black and white. So let’s just talk about how the world has changed since 1905 because I’m sure that once you put Jacobson in context, you’ll understand that it should not be the authority in 2022. Back in 1905, or a lot of women in here, we didn’t have the right to vote, did we? Do we think that law should apply today? There was racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, medicine used mercury for syphilis, and lots of other things they put in teething powder for babies. People drank radium water, literally radiated water. They used morphine for teething babies. They literally lysol’d laboring women to sterilize them.
They sedated them too. Clearly, these are all insane, right? Insane practices. And thank goodness for science that we’ve moved forward, that we recognize the error of those ways. Why are people clinging to Jacobson? When we know that so much, that the smallpox vaccination was incredibly dangerous now. We do know that.
It’s time to move on, is what I would suggest to you. So Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in a case called Buck V Bell; we’ve seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sapped the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence; it is better for all the world.
If, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility that society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind, this is the Supreme Court writing this folks. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes.
Three generations of imbeciles is enough, wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. 1927, how many of us think that this should still be operative today? The insanity of living in the world of 1905 and pretending that Jacobson should be in power today is hard to underestimate. It’s just staggering.
The Nuremberg Code how many people actually read the Nuremberg Code? It’s long, this is just one little piece of it, but I really want to read it to you folks. 1947, of course, after the atrocities of the Nazi crime machine were revealed, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent and should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion. Do you think losing your job is a little duress, stressful, or overreaching?
Or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion. And should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and life decision.
Medicine must be voluntary folks, in order to be ethical. And that was very, very clear in 1947. In 1964, the declaration of Helsinki, which was, put on by the World Medical Association, said that human subjects must be volunteers and informed participants in research, but the UNESCO declaration of bioethics and human rights in 2005 went much further and said any preventive diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention, that means any medical intervention, is only to be carried out with the prior free and informed consent of a person concerned based on adequate information.
Have you all seen the video that Miste Karlfeldt put out where she gets the package insert from one of these COVID injections? She opens it up, and it’s like this big two-sided, and it’s blank! How would someone give voluntary informed consent when the package insert is blank? Why is this information being hidden from the public? Why did FDA’s lawyers request that the court give them 75 years to release the trial data for the Pfizer jabs? Thankfully it was denied, but the fact that they even think this was okay suggests that in and of itself is a crime against humanity, is it not? Deliberately withholding the information from billions of people? So what else has happened? I really want to paint this picture for you that the world has changed in the late seventies and, early nineties, early eighties, many children were being catastrophically injured, brain-damaged, and killed by the whole-cell diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccination and they sued! They sued the pharmaceutical industry and then won large jury awards. Juries found that the shots were not safe, and the vaccine makers were liable, and they awarded them tens of millions of dollars in some cases. The pharmaceutical industry didn’t like that. So they went to Congress and said, we’re going to stop making these jabs if you won’t give us liability protection. And Congress consented, they agreed, they signed, they passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which provided the pharmaceutical industry with blanket immunity from liability, but also set up a no-fault program to compensate the victims of vaccine injury.
Most importantly, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 86 recognizes that vaccines injure and kill some recipients. This was a major. This was legislation of major importance, right? So we now know we’ve gone from 1905 to 1986, and now we’re admitting in Congress that vaccines injure and kill some people. Jacobson doesn’t account for that, doesn’t acknowledge that, doesn’t even know anything about that. How could it possibly be operative today? What happened as a result of that Act is what we’re experiencing right now. Because with unfettered access to funds, cause that the pharmaceutical industry has and no liability, they tripled that vaccine schedule for children.
I’m a little bit away from my 58th birthday. I was born in 1964. When I went to college and business school, I didn’t have to get any jabs, but these kids do now. And let me tell you, in 1982, when I graduated from high school, it was not like kids were dropping dead across the country, and we had public health issues. This has not been about that. This is about power and money for the pharmaceutical industry. But subscribing to Jacobson is deluding ourselves that this Act doesn’t exist. And when we look at the shots today, these COVID injections, it’s important that you all understand that they are not FDA approved. I know we’re being told they’re FDA-approved. I know that’s what the media is saying, but it’s not true, okay. The only shots available in the United States today are emergency use authorized and emergency use authorized products carried within the right by the federal law to accept or refuse.
It says it right there and the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. And it also says if any emergency use authorization documentation and they were all given, they are pretending that Pfizer shot has been FDA approved, and they’re doing that so that people will be dupped into getting it. While Pfizer retains liability protection under the EUA because under than Prep Act, any emergency use authorized products are liability-free. That’s what the Prep Act says. You can’t sue the doctor, the hospital, the manufacturer, nobody. So it’s very clear that the world has changed a tremendous amount since 1905.
I now want to segue into what we know about these jabs and what we know about this disease because I hope that understanding it will allay people’s fear and empower them to stand up for their beliefs. I want to preface my coming comments. By saying that, I do not for a second undercount or minimize the tragedy that’s befallen anybody as a result of COVID-19, anybody who died, anybody who’s injured, anybody, my heart goes out to them. I have a family member who the hospital says died from it. I’m not minimizing that, but like in life, all things are more dangerous for some than for others. My father-in-law’s 84 years old. It’s ridiculous for you to assume that me getting the flu is the same risk as him getting the flu. But does that mean I want to destroy my son’s life for that? So let’s just talk about what the facts are, and the facts are clear. This is according to professor John Ioannidis of Stanford, who is reputed to be one of, if not the best, epidemiologist in the world. He’s analyzed the data. And this data is all from before the jabs were introduced, just so you know. COVID-19 is not dangerous for most people, he says. If you’re under 20, your chance to die from this is better than getting struck by lightning. You’re more likely to get struck by lightning as an under 20 but even the elderly. It’s not what we’ve been told folks. CDC just came out saying that more than 75% of the people who succumbed had four or more comorbidities; they were unwell. So if you are elderly 70 or older and you are not living in a care home, you have a 97.1% survival rate. If you’re in a care home, that’s the 4.9, which is for all, for over 70’s. It’s very interesting what’s happening in the last week or so folks. Maybe two weeks, there’s a shift in the narrative all over the media. In the last couple of days, I’ve been talking about how we’re just going to have to live with COVID, whether you’ve been jabbed or not. We’re all going to get COVID, they’re saying. Is that interesting? That’s what we were saying a year ago when we’re called conspiracy theorists. So CDC director, she came out a few days ago, and she said that this might’ve been last week; an overwhelming number of deaths who are 75% were people with four or more comorbidities.
And she said they were not, well. They were not well. Did they die with or from COVID because of? Not only is it not dangerous for most people, but early treatment works. Something that the Supreme Court completely disregarded in its consideration yesterday. We know from hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors that early treatment works. There are books. Dr.
Tyson and Fareed have treated thousands and thousands of patients. There are many other doctors who treated thousands of patients. Most of those doctors had treated thousands of patients with zero to very, very few fatalities at all. But what does kill, Remdesivir. It’s deadly; it’s such a deadly drug. It’s an Ebola drug, and it’s such a deadly drug that they stopped the Ebola study, putting the Ebola patients in trial because it killed over 50% of the patients. It’s too dangerous for Ebola patients; why don’t we get it for something most people are going to survive?
I’m not going to go into detail on these folks. I just want people to understand the major things, right. I know a lot of you probably do. Something that’s very important, Dr. Peter McCullough has said that 85% of the deaths could have been prevented, so more than what CDC has said. And if they say that, they absolutely could have been prevented. So let’s just take that number. What is that? We’re talking a normal seasonal flu. If you take out all but 85% of deaths, and of course, what else really injured these people and killed people? Ventilation, as I’m sure, you know, ventilating tens of thousands of patients. These are the problems.
So, my general counsel, George Wentz, wrote an amazing Amicus brief that he submitted to the Supreme Court talking about natural immunity and, importantly, that these aren’t actually vaccines. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Harvey Risch, and many others submitted other Amicus briefs. I think there were at least three, maybe four, Amicus briefs submitted, and you know what? They detailed all of these things I’m talking about. They detailed the hundreds of studies. There was like 145 or 50 studies showing that natural immunity not only exists but that it’s superior to any immunity derived from jabs. If there is any, and yet it’s disregarded. And this is what I find the most frustrating. And, but also perhaps illuminating, the Supreme Court disregarded all that information. They did not acknowledge it in any way. They even, in their opinion, that it was legal for the federal government to mandate the jabs for healthcare workers, for anybody who gets CMS funds, Medicare, Medicaid funds, they actually said that you know, that these things to prevent transmission and infection, they don’t, that’s admitted by federal health authorities, and yet these justices don’t know this, that suggests to me, it’s not about the truth. It’s not about science. It’s not about our well-being, but coming back to natural immunity, it is very clear with Delta. They said it was about a 0.008% chance of getting reinfected. If you’ve had it with Omnicron, I’ve read it as high as 4%. It’s still very, very low. Natural immunity is legitimate. And not only that, it doesn’t hurt you the way that the jabs can.
CDC has admitted that the jabs don’t create immunity. That’s why I don’t call them vaccines. Cause they’re not vaccines! Fauci has admitted it. Walensky said what the vaccines can’t do anymore- back in August is prevent transmission. That was against Delta, not even Omnicron. Fauci says we know as a fact that vaccinated people are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else. They have more in their noses than the unvaxxed. If they don’t create immunity, there simply is no public health justification or a business justification either.
I want to take a little bit of a diversion here really quick on the whole business. I hear many people in the Liberty movement say businesses are private property and they can do whatever they want. They can make their employees. They can require whatever they want of their employees. Do you think a court would uphold them, allowing you to require you to cut your right arm off? Would have court uphold that you have to take Prozac in order to be employed somewhere? What about abort a baby? If a business really had that kind of power and authority over you, we don’t live in a free country. Private property does not give them the right to harm someone else. That is one of the most misguided notions I’ve ever heard. And yet a lot of people say it. I couldn’t disagree with it more. And in this situation, given that these are just medical treatments, there are therapeutics, there is no public health justification, and there’s certainly no business justification. But if we’re going to seed that kind of power authority to a business, we’ve got some major problems in front of us.
So CDC changed the definition of vaccination this year- last year, it’s now 2022. They specifically said, well, it used to be, if you got immunity from a jab, it’s actually prevented you from getting the disease in question. Imagine that they actually said that a vaccine stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease. Produce immunity. That’s the critical component. And that had been the situation for many, many years. A couple of months ago, they changed this, and they said that a vaccination is a preparation used to stimulate your immune response. Nothing in there about immunity, is there? Nothing in there about preventing infection, preventing transmission, or anything like that? How can the Supreme Court not know this? They’re playing with us folks.
So there was a study that came out very recently of 145 countries, and he showed that these injections don’t just not work; they actually make the situation worse. They exacerbate cases and deaths. Once the jabs were introduced, cases and death rates went up, not down. And we’ve seen this across the whole world in almost every single country that they’ve evaluated them in. This was, of course, a huge shock to the researchers, but they actually wrote the truth, and many, many studies are reinforcing these results. The more jabs, the worse things get.
This is one of the most important slides. So on the left, we see the Pfizer shot, and on the right, we see the Moderna shots. And what you see is the vertical bars are one to 30 days, 31 to 60, 61 to 90, and then 91 to 150 days for each of the respective shots. And what they’re showing you is the number of what they call breakthrough cases. I call that vaccine failure. Talk about euphemism. What’s really important is that you can see that the further out you go, once you get to 91 days, you are more likely to get the shot. That’s what the bar down below the dotted line shows. Then if you never got the shot, you’re up above the little blue dots. Okay, does that make sense?
And if you got the shot, your likelihood, you’re almost twice as likely to get it as if you didn’t get the shot negative efficacy. You never, ever, ever want a drug that gives negative efficacy, right? You don’t want to take something. That’s going to make you more likely to get sick, more susceptible, and that’s exactly what these jabs do.
This is data from Denmark. It’s not just there; it’s many other countries. They’re seeing the same thing, which is why now, Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough say that you are more likely, every single age group is more likely to suffer, to die from the shots than they are from actually getting COVID at every age group. It’s not just the young people.
My big message is these things are dangerous. It’s not a benign medical intervention. And we know this from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, which was set up by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It’s a passive system, meaning that it’s voluntary. Although physicians are required by law to submit reports to it, most of them don’t do it. The system is onerous. They don’t participate but despite all the problems. There have been through December 31st. So this is like 12 months. And what was it about two weeks there’ve been 700 or 700,000 reports, adverse reactions to just these jabs 63,000 of those- and this is just for the United States. So people from abroad can also report because it’s a voluntary system, and so you can double most of these numbers. It’s a little over a million. If you include foreign for total reports, series of reports, there’s a hundred thousand that are from abroad, but there are also some monkey games. And there are some researchers who believe that reports are flagged as possibly flagged as foreign in order to hide some of them. So, you know, treat them a little bit suspect. Forty-five thousand hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths in the United States, but here’s the most important thing, and that is that federal research has already found very clearly that, by and large, fewer than 1% of all vaccine reactions are ever connected to the jabs themselves and therefore reported fewer than 1%.
Audience: And I’ve heard data on VAERS that only 3% of all the cases are actually reported. It’s very, very low.
Leslie: There’s some research that it’s 1% there’s research, and it’s 10%, there are all kinds, but there was a federal federally funded research with Harvard Pilgram HMO that found that fewer than 1% of all reactions were reported. 85% of the reports in VAERS were made by medical professionals. So a lot of people say, oh, VAERS isn’t legitimate, don’t pay attention to that, you know, anybody can report. But for COVID, 85% of the reports were made by healthcare practitioners. And here’s the most dynamic thing. The vast majority of injuries happened on the day of the injection or within three days of that. That’s really important because a temporal association can prove causation.
Now, I want to show you some slides that will really drive that point home. Eight thousand reports of eye problems. Anything strike you about that chart? It all happens, 65% within 24 hours. No one can say that it’s not because of the jab.
The first one was eye problems. These are ear problems. Seven hundred thousand cases of ear problems were reported, 67% in 24 hours. This stuff is from Jessica Rose, an amazing researcher who’s done a deep dive on VAERS. She’s incredible, and she has a sub-stack account. Female reproductive issues. I have a family member who didn’t get the jab but lived with two young women who had huge period problems for a few months until she moved out. And I have a family member who did get the jab and has, within short period of time, had menstrual issues, young people. Now we know from the distribution reports that were FOIA’d in Japan that the number one organ into which the lipid nanoparticles accumulate in the ovaries. Just to caution you, they only looked at those distribution reports. They only evaluated the recipients, the animals, for 48 hours. So that data is only based on what happens in 48 hours, not over the long-term, but the number one place that they go is the ovaries. And, of course, the ovaries are responsible for regulating menses.
So if somebody says to you that these things are not causing these problems, these charts suggest otherwise. And when we look at Idaho, it’s really important that people understand that the data is being reported at the state level, and the data that’s being reported in the media health authorities is deeply compromised. And why do I say that? This is why we submitted a public records request, and we asked them for the data for deaths and cases in vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and wholly unvaccinated. And you know what they said? We don’t keep that data. So what we just looked at, think about all those charts. All those charts, it’s all happening within the first 72 hours, right? Anybody in Idaho who is less than two weeks past their second jab is deemed unvaccinated. So all those cases in the hospital of unvaccinated people, how many of them are suffering a reaction from the jab? This is not honest folks. Other countries are not doing it, but we are. They should be releasing this information, so we understand who is partially and who is totally unjabbed, but they’re not.
I’m going to close with this slide. There’s a life insurance company called One America in Indiana, and this is such staggering information. I really want you all to test it. It’s a life insurance company, a hundred billion dollar life insurance company, not a small company, okay. They sell life insurance to companies that employ people. And that’s why the data set is 18-64 because that’s the working population for the most part, and what have they found? In 2021, there was a 14% increase in death in those who are aged 18 to 64. Inexplicable. It’s a huge spectrum of deaths. Now to put it in context, what the CEO of the company said, this is a 12 Sigma event meeting standard deviation was 12 standard deviations away from what would be considered normal. Now I read- Steve Kirsch wrote that a 12 Sigma effect size is twice as old as what scientists say the age of the earth is okay for this to happen; it’s impossible that this could happen. Unless something caused it and something that was affecting millions and millions of people so that it could affect all of those people, okay, so as it says, a 3 Sigma event would be a 10% increase from baseline, and this number barely changes over the years, they’re extremely consistent for decades, and we’re talking about a 40% increase. Think about that. Now we do know there’s the European Medicines Agency came out about three days ago- First of all, a couple of weeks ago, they said that you’re going to have to start getting a booster every three months, but a few days ago they came out, and they said, actually boosters might be dangerous.
The World Health Organization came out a few days ago, shortly after that, I think the following day, and said essentially the same thing. That booster programs may be unsustainable and problematic. So here’s the thing, folks. We now know that these jabs undermine our immune systems. So what is going to happen over time? Nobody knows the biggest experiments in human history, probably, right? But we’ve got enough data here that the cautionary principle should be employed. And if I were a legislator in Idaho, I wouldn’t want to just be protecting the citizens of Idaho by not creating exemptions. I’d be trying to find a way to get this off the market because that’s what needs to happen.