Despite Claims To The Contrary, You Own Your Body!

Action & Unity

Pressuring vaccination is all a game. We are being played for fools. Neither science nor fact support vaccination. Neither does the law. “Mandatory vaccination” is an unfounded claim with no legal grounds. What does have legal grounds is the undeniable, fundamental principle of the ownership of one’s own body. YOU OWN YOUR BODY. Period. Were it not for the most fundamental principle of owning your own body, then slavery would be an acceptable practice. So would rape. If an injection can be forced into your body, then you don’t own your body. It’s your body. It’s your choice. This very argument has been used to justify even abortion, where there actually is another body involved. The termination of innocent life can be justified by this argument, but not protecting one’s very own life? Let’s take pause and reflect on this for a moment.

Refusing vaccination is indeed a matter of protecting one’s own life. This is a matter of fact, justified by the government’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which shows over 13,000 deaths resulting from the COVID vaccine. And even this number is only a small fraction of the 45,000 plus deaths that a whistleblower, with access to government data, has exposed. The purpose here, however, is neither to enumerate vaccine deaths and damaging effects, nor the number of grossly exaggerated cases of COVID. The purpose here is to solidify the fundamental fact that YOU OWN YOUR BODY and have the right to refuse vaccination. However, if you’re not convinced that vaccination is indeed putting your health, no less your very life in jeopardy, then exploring VAERS and hearing from victims are good places to start.

There are many solid justifications for refusing vaccination that stem from the fundamental principle of the ownership of one’s body. The Nuremberg Code is arguably the most significant document pertaining to clinical research ethics. It constituted the formal justification for the conviction of Nazi doctors who performed experimentation on unwilling subjects. This is unequivocally the same for the COVID vaccine, which is entirely experimental and approved for emergency use only (albeit even this approval falls short of legal requirements). Not even the Food & Drug Administration’s recent approval of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine changed this. The FDA specifically differentiates between the emergency use authorized “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the formally approved vaccine to be marketed as “Comirnaty”. A prominent law firm confirms the legal distinction. The absurdity of approving a product that isn’t even available only serves to further illustrate the FDA’s total loss of credibility.

Further legal grounds for the refusal of vaccination can be found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations.” “Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be ‘religious’ under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.”

The very foundational document of the United States of America, The Declaration of Independence, asserts that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Without any doubt, the fundamental belief in the sacredness of God-given life is innate to one’s conscious decision to refuse vaccination. Judeo-Christianity, in no uncertain terms, asserts that our lives are God’s gift to us. We are created in His image and likeness to live in accordance with the laws of nature. God Himself is the author of nature and of science. Science is based in truth, not in opinion and agenda, which is why vaccination cannot be called science.

We should consider what Hippocrates, considered to be the very “father of medicine”, had to say:
“Primum non nocerum. (First do no harm.)”
“As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least, to do no harm.”
“There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.”
“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”
“The natural healing force within each of us is the greatest force in getting well.”
And last but not least, “It is far more important to know what person the disease has than what disease the person has.”

Perhaps we should ask if those pushing vaccination are themselves diseased with ignorance, or worse?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *