April 9, 2021
World Health Organization (WHO) spokeswoman Margaret Harris has said the world health agency does not back the use of “vaccine passports”— proof that one has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — because it is not yet known if those who have been vaccinated against the virus can still transmit it. (Reuters, April 6)
(Be sure to write your own letter to the Governor!)
Dear Governor Scott:
An honest assessment of your proposals, and the evidence buttressing it, deserves careful, open scrutiny. Thus far, this appears to be sorely lacking. We the people have the right to have a say in our own destiny. There are plenty of data and science which do not support your current policies.
Many persons are quite concerned about the vaccines-are-the-only solution you are pursuing. There are many pathways to wellness and there is nothing more personal than how one heals their body, and achieves wellness.
Please consider the following information:
COVID19 Counter Measures (Masks, Vaccines, Treatments) are Exempt from Legal Liability
Vaccine Safety: A Top Concern, Even Before Covid
Vaccine Safety Concerns, a Comprehensive Overview, 2021
Stats on Vaccine Refusal, February 2021
Concerns About Quarantine of Healthy Individuals
One area where we should find common ground is:
- That the voluntary consent of the individual in medicine is paramount.
But this in turn means:
- Preservation of our rights to hold conscientious, religious and personal beliefs (which may be opposed to immunization) is truly important in a free society.
- That persons should never be coerced into undertaking a medical procedure.
We strongly believe that legislation must be passed to ensure that medical discrimination and vaccine coercion is stopped dead in its tracks. We also believe that the Prep Act and the 1986 Act should both be repealed.
Please consider the attachments (linked above) and in addition, the following points:
- natural immunity to disease is the norm, and questioning medical procedures is also the norm.
- Even if not an absolute requirement, imposing extra costs such as tests and quarantines for those declining an unwanted medical treatment is a blatant form of coercion. Why not test the vaccinated?
- Health persons have a right to decline unwanted treatments especially those which could permanently alter immune function (and have no liability)
- A “vaccines for travel” policy automatically creates a two-tier society, divided into the vaccinated, who could travel freely, & the un-vaccinated – whose freedoms are infringed upon because they did not medicate. Think about what that means for social and legal equality and the future and stability of an avowedly democratic society. What medical procedure will your government be requiring next?
- To say that only those who are vaccinated may travel and congregate implies that those who are not vaccinated are somehow infectious which is not true. It also implies that the vaccinated are somehow protected from infection, which is also not true. Social distancing and masking is simply to put pressure on people – to discriminate so that they comply. Even if your advisors consider this to be “legal,” the approach is egregiously, morally WRONG.
- Your coercive policy is unethical, not based in sound science, and violates the medical ethical doctrine of informed consent – in which a patient has the right to accept or decline – without being coerced. There is long history on this matter, beginning with the Nuremberg Trials.
- As recently revealed, your policies are premised on the erroneous assumption that “public health” requires total vaccination of a population. Public health is only as good as the health of each individual. Immunity is not even well understood with the virus, and not established yet for the vaccine. Under normal circumstances, so called “herd immunity thresholds” can normally be reached through a mix of pre-existing, naturally acquired, & vaccine-based immunity. There is absolutely no need for universal vaccination – especially if many have already recovered.
- Medicating all people, with experimental products, is reckless. From December 14, 2020 through March 1, 2021 the US Government received 1,381 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. While these deaths may be considered completely coincidental and unrelated by those in charge of safety, no person should be coerced into undertaking even a perceived medical risk. Informed consent is clear.
- Vaccine passports are not just about Covid-19: they are about introducing global health surveillance and coercive medical interventions, beginning with this vaccine – and ending with… “freedom”? Most people would disagree with your new definition of the word.
- Doctor/healer advice which must be based upon trust, becomes a doctor order and a command without trust or respect for each human’s sovereign rights when you order that all persons take the shot.
- There are many pathways to health, and Vermont used to #1 in terms of health – with a wide range of choices – many natural ones. Yet natural health choices and alternatives (such as dietary supplementation, homeopathy, and religious practices) are being simultaneously threatened by regulations when there is nothing more personal or private than how one cares for their body.
- Your office would do well to encourage diverse and wide healing modalities for all, with freedom of choice (if health were the goal)
- Privacy violations continue to pile up, with public announcements and tracking of one’s immune status, testing status, health, medical and religious beliefs. Your office would serve the people of Vermont better, if privacy were protected.
- If you have scientific grounds for placing your faith in these vaccines, you should be perfectly able to convince people – especially those most at risk – to take them through rational persuasion rather than by coercion and incentives.
- Coerced vaccinations will only raise more heightened consumer concerns.
- A world in which the government (no longer of the people, by the people, for the people) closely monitors citizens’ healthcare choices and effectively bans healthy citizens from full social participation because they weigh the risks of a vaccine differently or decline a proposed course of treatment is cruel, intolerant, unconstitutional and should be illegal.
- Emergency orders and all health measures must respect the voluntary consent of the human being. Powers should be of limited duration, for exceptional circumstances and use the least intrusive, least restrictive means.
- Warnings and risks – especially with experimental genetic technology – must be taken into account.
- Reported vaccine injuries must be taken seriously, and where there is medical risk, there must be voluntary consent without coercion.
The medical coercion being proposed by your office, is a clear and compelling reason why the Vermont Legislature must immediately pass H.283.
That anyone would so unabashedly promote vaccines that have been fast-tracked and released under emergency use only (not FDA approved) is cause for great concern.
Many persons agree.
Thank you for your attention and we urge you to reconsider. It is not too late to stand up as an American, and to speak out for freedom.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Stella, Waitsfield
Heather Rice, Hinesburg