200,000 Unvaccinated Military Members Denied Temporary Restraining Order as Commanders Threaten Those Who Refuse COVID-19 Vaccines

Egregious abuse of power of those in “authoritative” positions.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Written by Brian Shilhavy / Health Impact News (September 7, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Several military members told Health Impact News today that their commanders are coercing members of their unit to get the COVID-19 shot TODAY (September 7, 2021) or face the consequences of disobeying a direct order.

One member stated that when they went by the local pharmacy in a drug store, there were many military members lined up to get the shots today, fearful of the consequences if they don’t.

And this is in spite of the fact that military officials are saying publicly that service members still have 2 to 3 months to comply, according to Military.com.

Sailors and Marines Have 90 Days to Get Vaccinated or Face Punishment

2 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin

Sailors and Marines now have 90 days to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk disobeying a lawful order, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maritime branches’ top leaders said in a series ofmessagesreleased Tuesday and Wednesday.

Airmen Have Less than Two Months to Get Fully Vaccinated

7 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Stephen Losey

The Department of the Air Force has set a tight two-month deadline for active-duty troops to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who don’t get the shot in time could be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Airmen and Space Force Guardians must be fully vaccinated – including a two-week period after a final shot – by Nov. 2, the Air Force said in a press release Friday. Air National Guardsmen and reservists have until Dec. 2.

Apparently the military commanders are following their own schedule, regardless of what is being stated publicly by the various branches.

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have now proposed legislation that would prevent the military from issuing dishonorable discharges for service members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.

Lawmakers Try to Ban Dishonorable Discharges for Troops Who Refuse Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines

2 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Travis Tritten

House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, as the Navy gave its sailors 90 days to get the shot this week and the Army and Air Force were poised Thursday to enforce their own timetables.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., an Army veteran, requires only honorable discharges for anyone who is separated from the military over refusing to be vaccinated. It was added to the fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill, passed by the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

“No American who raises their hand to serve our Nation should be punished for making a highly personal medical decision,” Green said in a statement after the committee vote.

However, service members are telling Health Impact News that this is what some of them are being threatened with, dishonorable discharge, while others have said they have been threatened with demotions and being barred from reenlisting.

Judicial System Again Fails to Protect Constitutional Rights of Citizens by Denying 200,000 Unvaccinated Military a Temporary Restraining Order

On August 17, 2021, two military members filed a lawsuit in federal court in the State of Colorado, claiming that they represented 200,000 service members who were not vaccinated for COVID-19, but that they had previously contracted COVID-19 and recovered, and that therefore there was no need to be vaccinated against COVID-19, as they had “natural immunity.”

On August 24, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a Memorandum for “SENIOR PENTAGON LEADERSHIP COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS DEFENSE AGENCY AND DOD FIELD ACTIVITY DIRECTORS” which stated:

I therefore direct the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately begin full vaccination of all members of the armed Forces under DoD authority on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard, who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (Source.)

So on August 31, 2021, Todd Callender, counsel for the military Plaintiffs, filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop this directive from being enforced, which was heard by Judge Raymond P. Moore, who then denied the TRO on September 1, 2021.

The Plaintiffs had expert testimony from an affidavit by Dr. Peter McCullough, stating that “people who have the naturally created antibodies resulting from contracting and recovering from the Virus” should not be vaccinated because “it will do more harm than good.”

Judge Moore rejected his testimony and the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, because it was contrary to what the CDC states.

But Plaintiffs ignore all contrary opinion evidence, including obviously relevant guidance from the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommending vaccination regardless of whether a person has already had COVID-19 because research has not yet shown people are protected once they recover from the virus.

See Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination, CDC Website, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html (last visited Sept. 1, 2021).

The Court is not compelled to view Plaintiffs’ evidence in a vacuum or an echo chamber. As a result, the evidence cited by Plaintiffs coupled with their unsubstantiated insistence on their own natural immunity is insufficient to establish a clear and unequivocal right to a TRO under the circumstances of this case. (Read full opinion here.)

Again, to expect relief from COVID-19 vaccine mandates from the judiciary is just not reasonable. The system is rigged. They will quote the CDC, Anthony Fauci, and a whole host of other corrupt government agencies and leaders to deny facts and keep the COVID-19 narrative going that benefits the Pharmaceutical industry and their Wall Street Billionaires and Bankers.

The judiciary works for these Wall Street Billionaires and Bankers, not for the public.

Mass non-compliance is what is needed now, and while there are signs that those in law enforcement and other government agencies are now forming groups to resist (See: Police, Firefighters In LA Form Group To Resist Vaccine Mandates, for example), where are the military commanders who take seriously the oath they took to protect this country and their citizens??

One of the military members that Health Impact News corresponded with today wrote:

As much as I value my uniform, my time in service and fighting back against such obvious abuses of power I’m coming more and more to the realization that this is the new world order, so to speak.

These vaccines aren’t going away no matter how long or how bitterly we fight this in the courts.

It’s time to tell the system to go **** itself and start figuring out how to best take care of ourselves and our families outside of the system.

Our military leadership has no concern for our wellbeing and they have made it clear that they will punish those who can’t see things from their perspective.

I signed up to defend the Constitution and freedom and now my military leadership is intent on violating both. I’m no longer interested in serving my country in this capacity. It’s time to leave while I can still walk to the door.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)

Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines, Cites Whistleblower Testimony Claiming CDC is Under-Counting Vaccine Deaths

America’s Frontline Doctors addressing the fraudulent use of the EUA for COVID vaccines.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines for anyone under 18, anyone with natural immunity or anyone who hasn’t received informed consent.

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion July 19, seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop administration of experimentalCOVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

  • There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
  • There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
  • Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
  • Known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
  • There are adequate, approved and available alternatives to vaccines.
  • Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.

The authors of the motion attached a declaration by a whistleblower who came forward alleging deaths occurring within 72 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine are significantly under-reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination.

The whistleblower — a computer programmer who developed more than 100 distinct healthcare fraud algorithms, and who has expertise in healthcare data analytics that allows her to access Medicare and Medicaid data obtained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) — filed a sworn statement under penalty of perjury alleging the actual number of COVID vaccine-related deaths is closer to 45,000.

 

The whistleblower alleged that VAERS, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least five.

In her statement, she said:

“On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths.”

AFLDS said the findings were shocking, and informed consent is impossible when safety data is not accurate.

In a press release, AFLDS said:

“It is unlawful and unconstitutional to administer experimental agents to individuals who cannot make an informed decision as to the true benefits and risks to the vaccine on an independent basis. They must be of an age or a capacity to make informed decisions and have been provided with all of the risk/benefit information necessary to make an informed decision.”

One of the named plaintiffs, Deborah Sobczak, the mother of a 15- and 17-year-old, said in the press release:

“My child will not be the subject of an experiment. What kind of monsters are we allowing to control us? Perfectly healthy children have developed heart inflammation, brain bleeding and even died! I have had enough. I am not sacrificing my child so a pharmaceutical company can experiment on her. This madness has to stop.”

There is no emergency warranting EUA of COVID vaccines, plaintiffs allege

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, declared on Feb. 4, 2020, pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C), that SARS-CoV-2 created a “public health emergency.”

This initial emergency declaration has been renewed repeatedly and remains in force today — a necessary legal prerequisite for the issuance of vaccine EUAs, the complaint states. EUA allowed the mass use of the vaccines by the American public before the completion of the standard regimen of clinical trials and FDA approval.

Plaintiffs allege the emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal because there is no underlying emergency. Using HHS COVID death data, SARS CoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70. This is consistent with the seasonal flu, the complaint states.

Plaintiffs argue HHS deliberately inflated COVID case data

Plaintiffs allege HHS’ data is deliberately inflated. On March 24, 2020, HHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations exclusively for COVID.

The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

According to the complaint, HHS statistics showed 95% of deaths classified as “COVID-19 deaths” involved an average of four additional comorbidities. Plaintiffs claim the CDC knew the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death would result in COVID being the underlying cause more often than not.

Plaintiffs said the actual number of COVID cases is also far lower than the reported number due to emergency use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which are used as a diagnostic tool for COVID. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. The package inserts state PCR tests should not be used to diagnose COVID.

The complaint alleges the way in which the PCR tests are being administered knowingly guarantees an unacceptably high number of false positive results.

COVID vaccine risks undisclosed and under-reported, lawsuit says 

AFLDS medico-legal researchers analyzed the accumulated COVID vaccine risk data and found migration of the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the body. Yet vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active and what effect they have, the complaint states.

AFLDS researchers analyzed VAERS and discovered an increased risk of death from COVID vaccines. The database indicated vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represented a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year.

From 2009 to 2019, there were 1529 reported deaths associated with all vaccines reported to VAERS, according to the motion. In the first quarter of 2021, there were more than 4,000 reported deaths with 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 attributed to the COVID vaccine. Only 1% were attributed to other vaccines in the system.

Plaintiffs also disclosed evidence of reproductive harm, vascular disease, autoimmune disease, neurological damage and they highlighted an increased risk of harm for children with COVID vaccines to support their position.

Why the secrecy around V-Safe data?

The complaint called attention to the secrecy of the CDC’s V-Safe system — a parallel system used to track reported adverse events via a smartphone app controlled exclusively by the CDC.

Plaintiffs raised concerns that information in V-Safe exceeds that in VAERS. They claim VAERS is inaccurate because it potentially includes fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events, and the federal government is failing to provide data from other monitoring sources such as V-Safe, CMS and the military.

Plaintiffs stated informed consent cannot be given without understanding the risks. They said they can’t help but wonder why HHS would fail to disclose to the public critical information related to risk from it’s reporting systems, “particularly in light of the fact that they have had the time and resources to study and extend the authorizations on the vaccines, build an enormous vaccine marketing machine and roll out vaccine clinics all over the nation.”

The lawsuit was filed by several law firms, including RENZ Law. The complaint and whistleblower declaration can be read here.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD