The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11.16.25 Board Correspondence - FW_ Psychological Terrorism, Freedom Of Choice Doesn't Exist Anymore, The Imperative of Choice, International Human Ri….ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. From:Clerk of the Board To:Mutony, Heather Cc:Lee, Lewis Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Psychological Terrorism, Freedom Of Choice Doesn"t Exist Anymore, The Imperative of Choice, International Human Ri… Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:44:22 PM Please see Board Correspondence - From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 1:21 PM To: Shared Mailbox Clerk of the Board <pcbs@countyofplumas.com>; Soderstrom, Monica <msoderstrom@buttecounty.net>; Assemblymember.Gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; Senator.Dahle@senate.ca.gov; davidhollister@countyofplumas.com; sheriff@countyofplumas.com; District Attorney <District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Julie Threet <julie4butte5@gmail.com>; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Kitts, Melissa <mkitts@buttecounty.net>; Durfee, Peter <PDurfee@buttecounty.net>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.net>; Teri DuBose <Teri.DuBose@mail.house.gov>; Congressman Doug LaMalfa <CA01DL.Outreach@mail.house.gov>; Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net> Subject: Fwd: Psychological Terrorism, Freedom Of Choice Doesn't Exist Anymore, The Imperative of Choice, International Human Ri… Public Record “The evidence reveals a disturbing pattern that extends from Australia’s quarantine facilities to Canada’s employment mandates to Israel’s population-wide data collection agreements with pharmaceutical corporations. States leveraged public health emergencies to impose medical interventions without ensuring genuine informed consent as required by Article 7 of the ICCPR and the first principle of the Nuremberg Code. Children were subjected to vaccination requirements to access education. Workers faced termination for declining experimental products authorized only under emergency provisions. Unvaccinated individuals experienced systematic segregation from restaurants, employment, travel, and social participation— creating what can properly be characterized as medical apartheid. Media campaigns amplified fear rather than providing balanced risk-benefit information essential to informed decision- making, while platforms systematically suppressed dissenting scientific viewpoints. The cumulative effect constituted psychological coercion fundamentally incompatible with voluntary consent. Humanity must rise up. The documentation of these violations serves not merely as historical record but as imperative call to action to restore international human rights protections, hold institutions accountable, and ensure such comprehensive erosion of civil liberties never recurs under the guise of public health.“ diana dreiss Begin forwarded message: From: Interest of Justice <interestofjustice@substack.com> Date: November 16, 2025 at 6:29:44 AM PST To: lancedreiss@att.net Subject: Psychological Terrorism, Freedom Of Choice Doesn't Exist Anymore, The Imperative of Choice, International Human Ri… Reply-To: Interest of Justice <reply+2yloqk&kcryl&&156550a91fcb1c084fd61710df819900ed57799c7c 1e1a1c48fe6dcfc086a434@mg1.substack.com> “There is no such thing as freedom of choice, unless there is freedom to refuse.” — David Hume͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Psychological Terrorism, Freedom Of Choice Doesn't Exist Anymore, The Imperative of Choice, International Human Rights Law and the COVID-19 Response “There is no such thing as freedom of choice, unless there is freedom to refuse.” — David Hume INTEREST OF JUSTICE NOV 16 READ IN APP The global response to COVID-19 precipitated unprecedented restrictions on fundamental freedoms enshrined in international human rights law. Mandatory vaccination policies, coercive mandates conditioning employment and education on experimental medical interventions, quarantine facilities, and systematic exclusion of unvaccinated individuals from civil society constituted a profound departure from established principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and human dignity. This comprehensive analysis examines these measures through the lens of international law, demonstrating how governments worldwide violated binding legal obligations under instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and customary international law principles articulated in the Nuremberg Code. Share Donate To Nuremberg Hearing Project This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a monthly supporter or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid The evidence reveals a disturbing pattern that extends from Australia’s quarantine facilities to Canada’s employment mandates to Israel’s population-wide data collection agreements with pharmaceutical corporations. States leveraged public health emergencies to impose medical interventions without ensuring genuine informed consent as required by Article 7 of the ICCPR and the first principle of the Nuremberg Code. Children were subjected to vaccination requirements to access education. Workers faced termination for declining experimental products authorized only under emergency provisions. Unvaccinated individuals experienced systematic segregation from restaurants, employment, travel, and social participation—creating what can properly be characterized as medical apartheid. Media campaigns amplified fear rather than providing balanced risk-benefit information essential to informed decision-making, while platforms systematically suppressed dissenting scientific viewpoints. The cumulative effect constituted psychological coercion fundamentally incompatible with voluntary consent. Humanity must rise up. The documentation of these violations serves not merely as historical record but as imperative call to action to restore international human rights protections, hold institutions accountable, and ensure such comprehensive erosion of civil liberties never recurs under the guise of public health. The International Legal Framework ISSupposed To Be Informed Consent asFundamental Right The Nuremberg Code (1947) established informed consent as the primary ethical and legal requirement for any medical intervention or experimentation. Its first principle states unequivocally: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” This principle requires that individuals possess legal capacity to give consent, be situated to exercise free power of choice “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion,” and have “sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved” to make an “understanding and enlightened decision.” The Code emerged from the Doctors’ Trial (1946-1947), where Nazi physicians were convicted of conducting medical experiments on non-consenting prisoners. Seven defendants, including Karl Brandt, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician, were sentenced to death. Far from being merely a response to Nazi atrocities, scholarly research demonstrates that informed consent principles existed in international customary law prior to 1945, reflecting the fundamental right to bodily autonomy that transcends any particular historical moment. While no nation has formally adopted the Nuremberg Code as statutory law, its influence on international human rights law has been profound and undeniable. The principles of informed consent permeate multiple binding international instruments and constitute customary international law—norms that bind states regardless of formal treaty ratification. As one comprehensive study noted, the Code “constitutes one of the most important milestones in the history of medicine, providing for the first time a proper framework for research on human subjects,” though this framework “was not a voluntary, precautionary measure, but only came into existence in the aftermath of Nazi atrocities.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), ratified by 173 nations, incorporates Nuremberg’s informed consent requirement in Article 7: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This provision establishes informed consent as a non-derogable right—meaning it cannot be suspended even during states of emergency—a protection of foundational importance that governments systematically ignored during the COVID-19 response. The ICCPR’s Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, including “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media.” This right is fundamental to informed consent—individuals cannot make truly informed medical decisions without access to complete, accurate information about risks, benefits, and alternatives. The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34 emphasizes that restrictions on freedom of expression must meet strict criteria: they must be provided by law, serve legitimate aims (protecting rights of others, national security, public order, public health, or morals), and be necessary and proportionate. Any limitation must be the least restrictive means available to achieve the stated objective—a standard that blanket censorship of scientific dissent manifestly fails to meet. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes foundational protections: Article 3 guarantees “the right to life, liberty and security of person,” Article 12 prohibits “arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence,” and Article 18 protects “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” These provisions collectively establish that individuals possess inherent rights to make autonomous decisions about their bodies and medical care without state interference, except where such interference meets stringent necessity and proportionality requirements that few, if any, COVID-19 mandates satisfied. Regional instruments reinforce these protections through the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the American Convention on Human Rights Article 5 (right to humane treatment and prohibition of medical experimentation without consent), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provisions recognizing human dignity and physical integrity. These multilayered protections existed throughout the pandemic, yet governments worldwide acted as though emergency declarations suspended these fundamental rights entirely. COVID-19 Policies Was A Globalist Assault onInformed Consent COVID-19 vaccination campaigns were initially presented as voluntary public health measures to protect vulnerable populations, with early messaging emphasizing personal choice and the goal of achieving herd immunity thresholds that would “end the pandemic” and allow society to “get back to normal.” However, as governments faced resistance to achieving stated vaccination targets and as vaccines proved less effective at preventing transmission than initially claimed, policies rapidly shifted toward coercion. By late 2021, numerous countries had implemented or were actively employment, educational mandates preventing unvaccinated students from accessing schools and universities, vaccine passports restricting access to restaurants, entertainment venues, gyms, and public spaces, travel restrictions barring unvaccinated individuals from domestic and international travel, differential lockdowns imposing restrictions exclusively on unvaccinated persons, and financial penalties including fines, denial of healthcare access, and increased insurance costs. Research published in BMJ Global Health documented the global scope of these policies, noting they spread “across the political spectrum, including in most liberal democracies” and involved “workplace mandates (a ‘no jab, no job’ US federal mandate); green passes/vaccine passports that limit access to social activities and travel (Israel, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and most European countries); school- based mandates (most North American universities); differential lockdowns for the unvaccinated (Austria and Australia); the use of vaccine metrics in lifting lockdowns and other restrictions (Australia, Canada and New Zealand); differential access to medical insurance and healthcare (Singapore); and mandatory population-wide vaccination with taxes, fines, and imprisonment for the unvaccinated (the Philippines, Austria, Greece).” These measures fundamentally undermined the voluntariness required by the Nuremberg Code and Article 7 of the ICCPR. When an individual faces loss of livelihood, education, social participation, and freedom of movement, consent obtained under such circumstances cannot be considered “free” from “duress” or “coercion”—the very elements the Nuremberg Code explicitly prohibits. As the BMJ study observed, “Vaccine passports risk enshrining discrimination based on perceived health status into law, undermining many rights of healthy individuals: indeed, unvaccinated but previously infected people may generally be at less risk of infection (and severe outcomes) than doubly vaccinated but infection-naïve individuals.” Australias Horrible Quarantine Facilities andExtreme Restrictions Australia implemented some of the world’s most stringent COVID-19 restrictions, including establishment of mandatory quarantine facilities that raised serious human rights concerns. The Howard Springs International Quarantine Facility (Centre for National Resilience) in Australia’s Northern Territory became operational in October 2020, processing 5,987 international travelers from October 23, 2020, to March 31, 2021, with mandatory 14-day quarantine periods and multiple COVID-19 tests required during detention. As one account from the Washington Post described, the facility consisted of “portable prefab huts known as ‘dongas’” where “the rooms are basic and the food is, well, institutional,” though “the fresh air, eucalyptus trees, blue skies and wind on your skin are sources of joy” for those confined there. Additional Centres for National Resilience were constructed in Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia, with the Australian government’s Department of Finance explaining that “the facility at Howard Springs in the Northern Territory has the safest and most functional design for quarantine in Australia. It has not had any cases spread into the community, which is why we are using it as a model.” These facilities featured prefabricated accommodation units in isolated rural locations, security fencing and controlled access, prohibition on leaving designated areas, mandatory testing regimes, and remote locations far from major population centers. While fact-checking organizations insisted these facilities were exclusively for international travelers and not for domestic unvaccinated residents, the existence of such infrastructure in a democratic nation created precedent for government- mandated isolation of individuals based on health status. The facilities’ design— described by critics as resembling “mining camps” or facilities that would be hard “to imagine being used for anything other than quarantine - or perhaps a correctional facility”—and their capacity to house thousands raised legitimate concerns about proportionality and necessity. The government maintained these facilities could be repurposed for “future public health emergencies, humanitarian efforts, or as crisis accommodation for bushfire-affected communities or other vulnerable Australians,” acknowledging their intended long-term existence beyond the immediate pandemic. Australian states implemented differential treatment of unvaccinated individuals that extended far beyond quarantine facilities. Victoria established vaccine mandates for healthcare workers, education staff, and “authorized workers” across multiple sectors. New South Wales required vaccination to access most employment and public venues. Queensland implemented vaccine passport systems restricting unvaccinated persons from hospitality, entertainment, and social venues, while several states individuals greater freedoms. These policies created two-tier societies where unvaccinated citizens—regardless of natural immunity from prior infection or personal health circumstances—faced systematic exclusion from civil participation, with Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk stating there would be “a continuing need for quarantine facilities” well into the future for travelers who were unvaccinated. Canada’s Employment Mandates and theEmergencies Act Canada implemented comprehensive federal vaccination mandates affecting millions of workers and travelers. On October 6, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for all federal public servants in the Core Public Administration (267,000 workers including RCMP), all federally regulated transportation sector employees (air, rail, marine), and all domestic and international travelers using federally regulated transportation. The policy required full vaccination by October 29, 2021, with no testing alternative—a significant departure from workplace safety approaches that might have accommodated those with natural immunity or legitimate health concerns. Federal employees who declined vaccination faced administrative leave without pay—effectively termination of income while maintaining nominal employment status that prevented access to unemployment benefits. By May 30, 2022, approximately 2,108 federal employees (less than 2%) remained on unpaid leave due to declining vaccination or refusing to disclose vaccination status. In December 2021, the federal government announced plans to extend vaccination mandates to all federally regulated workplaces, including banking, telecommunications, interprovincial transportation, and other federally regulated industries—regulations that would have affected additional hundreds of thousands of workers before being suspended in June 2022 as public health circumstances evolved. All ten Canadian provinces implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates restricting access to non-essential businesses and services to those providing proof of vaccination. These “vaccine passport” systems varied by province but generally included restaurants and bars, gyms and recreational facilities, entertainment venues (theaters, concerts, sporting events), and some retail businesses. The mandates created significant economic pressure to accept vaccination—individuals who declined faced effective exclusion from normal social and economic life. As employment lawyers explained, while someone who refused vaccination based on medical conditions or religious belief could not legally be fired due to human rights protections, “the reality is that your employer can let you go because you haven’t been vaccinated. An employer can actually let you go for no particular reason at all. That’s what we call a ‘without cause’ termination, as long as the proper amount of severance is paid.” When the federal government ended exemptions for unvaccinated truckers crossing the US-Canadian border, it precipitated the “Freedom Convoy” protests in January- February 2022, with thousands of truckers and supporters occupying downtown Ottawa to protest vaccine mandates and broader COVID-19 restrictions. In response, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022—the first time this extraordinary power had been used since the Act’s creation in 1988— permitting freezing of bank accounts of protest participants without court orders, compelled towing services, prohibition of public assembly, and enhanced police powers. A subsequent public inquiry found that the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act—requiring threats to Canada’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity—had not been met, yet the government had proceeded regardless. The episode illustrated governments’ willingness to employ extraordinary measures against citizens exercising their right to protest coercive health policies, while Prime Minister Trudeau had earlier used support for mandatory vaccination to divide political opposition during the 2021 federal election. Israel Experimentation On Population-WideData Collection and Experimentation Concerns Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign raised unique ethical concerns regarding informed consent and population-wide experimentation that deserve careful examination. In early January 2021, Israel signed an agreement with Pfizer to receive accelerated vaccine deliveries in exchange for comprehensive population health data. Under the agreement, Israel would vaccinate its population “at a speed they’ve never heard of,” the Ministry of Health would provide Pfizer with weekly aggregated epidemiological data across various demographic groups, and the stated objective was to “analyze epidemiological data arising from the product rollout, to determine whether herd immunity is achieved after reaching a certain percentage of vaccination coverage.” As Israel’s health minister told NPR, “We said to Pfizer that the moment they give us the vaccine, we’ll be able to vaccinate at a speed they’ve never heard of.” Israel paid premium prices (reportedly at least 50% more than other countries) and positioned itself as a “model country” for demonstrating vaccine effectiveness across an entire population. The arrangement enabled Israel to become a world leader in vaccination, administering first doses to over one-quarter of its 9.3 million population within weeks and fully vaccinating about half the population by March 15, 2021, while the US had fully vaccinated only 12% of its population at the same point. The arrangement raised multiple concerns that illuminate broader problems with how COVID-19 response subordinated individual rights to collective data gathering. Israeli citizens were not specifically asked for consent to have their medical data— even in anonymized form—shared with a private pharmaceutical corporation for analysis. Privacy advocates noted that in a small country like Israel, supposedly anonymous data could potentially be re-identified, creating risks that “if, God forbid, the data set is going to be hacked, then the risk is going to be yours,” referring to Israeli citizens, with concerns that “your insurance company will know all your medical history.” Israel’s Supreme Helsinki Committee for Clinical Trials in Humans determined that the data-sharing arrangement constituted research requiring their approval under Israeli regulations governing clinical trials. The Ministry of Health disagreed, asserting that the collaboration was neither “research” nor a “clinical trial” and therefore did not require ethics committee approval—a determination that bypassed traditional safeguards designed to protect research subjects. The head of Israel’s medical ethics review board stated, “There needs to be total transparency, and no one party can override the real data. We need to know the truth,” but his board’s request for review was not officially answered by the government. The agreement allowed either party to delay or edit findings before publication, raising concerns about transparency and potential suppression of adverse results. The arrangement also enabled wealthy Israel to secure vaccines ahead of poorer nations, exacerbating global vaccine inequity. As Georgetown University professor Lawrence Gostin observed, “This is a shady, under-the-table deal that preferences certain countries over others without any transparency... In the end, it’s going to be low- and middle-income countries that are going to be left behind.” Privacy expert Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler captured the broader concern, “We need to understand that this is going to be one of, I would say, widest medical experiments on humans of the 21st century.” Her observation proved prescient—Israel’s rapid rollout prioritized speed over traditional safeguards, transforming an entire population into research subjects without explicit individual authorization, establishing a precedent for how public health emergencies could enable governments to bypass normal ethical review processes and informed consent protections. Coercion Masquerading as Choice!!!Employment and Education Mandates Proponents of vaccine mandates maintained that vaccination remained “voluntary” because individuals retained the theoretical choice to decline. However, international human rights law recognizes that consent obtained through coercion or under duress is not voluntary. The Nuremberg Code explicitly requires consent “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” When governments and employers conditioned the ability to earn a livelihood, access education, participate in society, travel freely, and maintain professional licenses on acceptance of experimental medical products, they created conditions fundamentally incompatible with voluntary, informed consent. An individual facing homelessness, starvation, or inability to care for their family cannot be said to “freely choose” a medical intervention to avoid these consequences—a principle well-established in medical ethics and international law. By late 2021, employment-based vaccine mandates became widespread across multiple sectors. Healthcare facilities in numerous jurisdictions implemented strict “vaccinate or terminate” policies. Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas became one of the first major health systems to terminate employees for declining vaccination, provincial mandates in Canada, while many European countries implemented similar requirements, with some nations like Italy and Greece extending fines for non- compliance. The mandates applied even to workers with natural immunity from prior COVID-19 infection—despite substantial evidence that natural immunity provided robust, durable protection comparable to or exceeding vaccine-induced immunity. Teachers, university staff, and school administrators faced similar requirements, with hundreds of universities across North America requiring students and staff to be vaccinated to access campuses, school districts mandating vaccination for teachers and staff, and some jurisdictions preventing unvaccinated teachers from working even remotely. The Biden Administration’s attempted mandate (later struck down by the Supreme Court) would have required all federal employees (approximately 4 million workers), all federal contractors (estimated 5 million additional workers), and all employees of companies with 100+ workers (approximately 84 million workers total). This represented an unprecedented federal intervention into private employment relationships, asserting authority to mandate medical interventions as condition of economic participation on a scale never before attempted in American history. Perhaps no policy raised more profound ethical concerns than conditioning children’s and young adults’ access to education on acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Over 1,000 colleges and universities in the United States alone implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students, with those who declined facing denial of enrollment, removal from campus housing, inability to participate in extracurricular activities, withdrawal from courses mid-semester, and loss of tuition and fees without refund. These mandates disproportionately affected young, healthy individuals with minimal COVID-19 risk but facing relatively higher (though still rare) risks of vaccine-related myocarditis, particularly among males aged 16-29. Several jurisdictions moved toward mandating COVID-19 vaccination for children to access K-12 schools. California initially planned to add COVID-19 vaccines to required childhood immunizations for school attendance before abandoning the plan, while the District of Columbia implemented and later withdrew school mandates, and New York City briefly required vaccination for participation in sports and extracurricular activities. These policies placed children in impossible positions: accept a medical product—still under emergency use authorization for most of the relevant period—or sacrifice education, social development, and normal childhood experiences. Parents faced equally impossible choices: consent to vaccination despite reservations, or homeschool and withdraw children from social participation. The ethical principles governing pediatric medical interventions require heightened protections precisely because children cannot provide legally valid consent and parents must act in the child’s best interest based on accurate risk-benefit information. When governments threaten educational access unless parents consent to vaccinating their children with products that clinical trials showed provided minimal benefit to pediatric populations while carrying some risk, the voluntariness of parental consent is fundamentally compromised. The fact that natural immunity provided substantial protection to children who had recovered from COVID-19—yet was systematically ignored in mandate policies—further undermines any claim that these policies served children’s best interests rather than coercive vaccination targets. Share Upgrade to paid Donate To Nuremberg Hearing Project Medical Apartheid - The SystematicSegregation of the Unvaccinated By late 2021, numerous jurisdictions implemented “vaccine passport” or “health pass” systems creating two-tier societies with profound implications for equality and non-discrimination principles. In France, the “Pass sanitaire” became required for restaurants, bars, shopping centers, long-distance trains, and cultural venues. Italy’s “Green Pass” became mandatory for workers, public venues, and transportation. Austria implemented lockdowns exclusively for unvaccinated individuals, later moving toward mandatory vaccination with fines up to €3,600. Germany saw many states restrict unvaccinated persons from non-essential retail, restaurants, and cultural events. In North America, multiple US cities including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, and others required proof of vaccination for indoor dining, entertainment, and gyms. Canada saw all provinces implement vaccine passport systems with varying requirements. In the Asia-Pacific region, Israel’s “Green Pass” system was among the first and most comprehensive, restricting unvaccinated access to nearly all public venues, while Australian states implemented proof-of-vaccination requirements for hospitality, entertainment, and non-essential retail. Governments imposed unprecedented restrictions on domestic and international travel based solely on vaccination status. Many countries denied entry to unvaccinated foreign nationals. Canada prohibited unvaccinated citizens from boarding domestic flights and trains—a restriction that raised serious questions about the fundamental right to freedom of movement within one’s own country. Some Australian states prevented unvaccinated residents from crossing state borders even to return home. These policies raised serious questions under the ICCPR’s Article 12, which guarantees that “everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence,” and that “everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own” and “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” While Article 12(3) permits restrictions for public health, such limitations must be “provided by law” and “necessary to protect public health” while remaining consistent with other ICCPR rights. With vaccines demonstrating limited efficacy in preventing transmission of dominant variants by late 2021—a fact increasingly acknowledged by public health officials including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky —the public health justification for travel bans on unvaccinated individuals became increasingly tenuous, suggesting these policies served punitive purposes rather than genuine disease control objectives. The systematic exclusion of unvaccinated individuals from normal social participation created profound psychological distress and social fracturing. Families divided as unvaccinated individuals were excluded from family gatherings and unable to visit relatives in care facilities. Social isolation resulted from inability to participate in restaurants, entertainment, sports, cultural events, and in some cases religious services. Economic devastation followed job loss, inability to secure new employment, and loss of professional licenses. Educational disruption occurred as jurisdictions even implemented healthcare discrimination, deprioritizing unvaccinated patients for medical procedures including organ transplants. Public officials and media outlets contributed substantially to stigmatization. Unvaccinated individuals were described as participants in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” (President Biden), as threats to public health requiring exclusion from society, as morally culpable for ongoing disease transmission, and as deserving of restricted healthcare access. This rhetoric created hostile social environments where unvaccinated individuals faced discrimination in employment, housing, and interpersonal relationships—a form of medical apartheid segregating citizens based on health status that violated fundamental principles of human dignity and equality before the law. The systematic differential treatment of unvaccinated individuals raises serious concerns under international non-discrimination law. The ICCPR’s Article 26 states that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law,” while the UDHR’s Article 2 specifies that rights and freedoms apply “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” While “vaccination status” is not explicitly enumerated as a protected characteristic, the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of “other status” has been interpreted broadly to encompass various forms of differential treatment requiring justification. Differential treatment must serve a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim. As vaccine efficacy against transmission waned and natural immunity gained recognition in scientific literature, the justification for maintaining discriminatory policies became increasingly difficult to sustain on public health grounds. The Failure of Informed Consent - Suppressionof Information and Media Complicity True informed consent requires complete information about the nature, risks, benefits, and alternatives disclosed in comprehensible terms; patient understanding of the disclosed information; voluntariness free from coercion or undue influence; competence or legal and mental capacity to make decisions; and explicit authorization to proceed. The COVID-19 vaccination campaigns systematically failed to meet these requirements across multiple dimensions. During the emergency use authorization period and even after formal approval, significant uncertainties existed regarding long-term safety data, as compressed clinical trials provided limited long-term safety information that normally would require years to establish. Myocarditis risks, particularly affecting young males, were initially downplayed or not disclosed adequately to patients and parents making vaccination decisions. Efficacy duration proved much shorter than initially suggested, with waning immunity requiring multiple boosters—information not provided to individuals making initial vaccination decisions. Early claims that vaccination would prevent transmission proved incorrect, yet these claims were instrumental in justifying mandates based on protecting others. The robust protection provided by natural immunity from prior infection was systematically dismissed or ignored in policy discussions, despite substantial evidence of its effectiveness. Rather than presenting balanced risk-benefit analyses allowing individuals to make informed decisions based on their personal health circumstances, age, prior infection status, and risk tolerance, messaging emphasized benefits while minimizing or dismissing risks. This one-sided approach violated the foundational principle that informed consent requires complete disclosure enabling autonomous decision- making. Media outlets worldwide engaged in campaigns that amplified fear through constant emphasis on worst-case scenarios, death counts, overwhelmed hospitals, and catastrophic predictions, creating a climate of terror rather than reasoned risk assessment conducive to informed medical decision-making. Qualified scientists, physicians, and public health experts who questioned lockdown effectiveness, vaccine mandates, or one-size-fits-all approaches faced deplatforming from social media, professional censure and reputational destruction, loss of research funding, and removal from editorial boards and advisory positions. Complex public health questions were reduced to binary choices: “pro-science” versus “anti-vax,” “protecting others” versus “selfish individualism,” “following the science” versus “conspiracy theory”—framings that precluded nuanced discussion of legitimate scientific disagreements. Government public health campaigns often featured one-sided messaging emphasizing only benefits, emotional manipulation through appeals to patriotism, community solidarity, and protecting grandparents, social pressure suggesting “everyone is doing it,” minimization of adverse events, and dismissal of conscientious objectors as misinformed or malicious. These techniques, well- documented in psychological research on persuasion and coercion, created conditions incompatible with the voluntary, informed decision-making that international law requires. Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s historical program to influence domestic and foreign media from the 1950s-1970s, documented how intelligence agencies could shape public narratives through media coordination. While the extent of direct government-media coordination during COVID-19 remains subject to ongoing investigation and disclosure, documented evidence reveals direct communications between government agencies and technology platforms demanding content removal and account suspensions, coordinated messaging with identical talking points appearing across multiple media outlets simultaneously, substantial government advertising spending directing resources to media outlets, and access journalism creating media dependence on government sources for information and incentive to avoid critical coverage. Whether through formal coordination or emergent alignment of interests, the result was remarkably uniform global media messaging that presented vaccination as the sole solution, dismissed alternative approaches (early treatment protocols, natural immunity recognition, focused protection of vulnerable populations), stigmatized questioning as dangerous misinformation, and created an environment of fear incompatible with reasoned decision-making. As recent court cases have revealed, government officials exerted substantial pressure on social media platforms to suppress content questioning official COVID-19 narratives, with one federal appeals court noting the government “coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences.” The Nuremberg Code requires that consent be obtained “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” When government-media campaigns systematically limitations, dismissed natural immunity and alternative approaches while stigmatizing these topics as misinformation, created hostile environments for dissenting scientific viewpoints, and conditioned social participation on vaccination, they created conditions fundamentally incompatible with voluntary, informed consent. Individuals making medical decisions under pervasive fear, incomplete information, and threat of social and economic exclusion cannot be said to have consented “voluntarily” as international law requires. The Costa Rica Breakthrough - EstablishingInternational Precedent While governments worldwide systematically violated informed consent principles, one small organization achieved what many thought impossible: forcing a government to admit in official proceedings that COVID-19 products were experimental. Interest of Justice’s victories in Costa Rica demonstrate both the profound violations that occurred and the legal pathways available for accountability. On November 11, 2024, something extraordinary occurred in a private government chamber in San José, Costa Rica. The Vice President and Health Minister of Costa Rica sat across from Interest of Justice and a panel of the world’s most credible scientific experts, listening to documented evidence that the World Health Organization had orchestrated the largest un-consented medical experiment in human history. Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer’s respiratory division, testified that these products can only cause harm. Dr. Janci Lindsay, a toxicologist with decades of experience, presented evidence of contamination concerns. Sasha Latypova revealed contractual proof that these were Department of Defense countermeasures, not vaccines as commonly understood. The government officials called the testimony “very knowledgeable and helpful information.” Through persistent legal challenges, Interest of Justice established that Article 117 of Costa Rica’s health law allows emergency import of “unregistered medicines” during genuine crises, but government document requests proved these products were imported under Article 117 specifically because they could not be approved through normal channels. The government’s own records confirmed these were always experimental products masquerading as approved vaccines—an admission with profound implications for informed consent violations, as individuals were told they were receiving “approved vaccines” when regulatory documents classified them as investigational products. Interest of Justice established that targeting vulnerable populations without safety data constitutes a constitutional violation. Costa Rica’s Constitutional Chamber ruled that indigenous peoples, pregnant women, and intellectually disabled populations cannot be subjected to medical interventions without proper informed consent and scientific justification. This ruling establishes precedent under international human rights law that applies beyond Costa Rica’s borders. Of all the evidence compiled, nothing proved more morally clear-cut than WHO’s systematic targeting of indigenous populations with experimental products while using culturally manipulative propaganda to circumvent genuine informed consent. WHO’s own documents, which they fought to keep hidden and refused to produce under court order, admit to “targeting intellectually disabled and indigenous populations” with specialized campaigns. They developed “culturally appropriate” messaging in Bribri and Cabécar languages, recruited trusted community leaders as spokespersons, and incorporated traditional storytelling techniques to overcome what they dismissively called “vaccine hesitancy.” When Costa Rica’s Constitutional Chamber demanded the safety studies justifying this targeting, WHO went silent—an admission through silence that such studies do not exist. The Costa Rica case demonstrates that legal accountability remains possible when citizens possess courage to challenge governments regardless of personal cost. Similar efforts are underway globally, including a Dutch case against Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Bill Gates where court documents reveal plaintiffs “have only a heart function of approximately 30 percent as a result of the Covid-19 injections, impossible.” These individuals report their life expectancy has become highly uncertain as result of the injections. Behind every legal theory lies human suffering and injury that must be remedied—these are real people who went from healthy hearts to 30% cardiac function seeking their right to judicial recognition of what they characterize as systematic violations of international law and their rights to informed consent. A Call to Action For Restoring Human Rightsand Accountability The first step toward accountability requires comprehensive documentation and official recognition of human rights violations that occurred. This includes independent truth and reconciliation processes examining policy decisions and their basis, suppression of scientific dissent, implementation of coercive measures, harms inflicted on individuals who declined vaccination, and media-government coordination in shaping public narratives. It requires victim recognition, acknowledging those who lost employment due to vaccine refusal, suffered vaccine injuries without adequate compensation systems, experienced social ostracism and discrimination, were denied educational opportunities, and face ongoing professional consequences. It demands data transparency through full disclosure of vaccine adverse event data, government communications with media and technology companies, scientific advice provided to policymakers and decisions to disregard such advice, and contracts between governments and pharmaceutical companies. Multiple avenues exist for pursuing legal accountability. International courts and tribunals including the International Criminal Court can consider crimes against humanity claims regarding systematic violations of bodily autonomy, while regional human rights courts can address violations within their jurisdictions. Domestic courts can pursue constitutional challenges testing mandates against national constitutional protections, employment litigation for wrongful termination, medical malpractice and product liability claims regarding vaccine injuries and inadequate informed consent, and administrative law challenges examining whether government agencies exceeded statutory authority. Legislative reform can establish prohibition of future mandates through statutes explicitly protecting medical autonomy, strengthened informed consent requirements with enhanced disclosure obligations, adequate and accessible vaccine injury compensation systems, and employment protections through anti- discrimination laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on medical decisions. The erosion of public trust in health authorities, media institutions, and governments constitutes one of COVID-19’s most damaging legacies. Rebuilding trust requires acknowledging failures through honest assessment of policy mistakes rather than defensive posturing, protecting scientific discourse by ensuring scientific debate remains open with protection for dissenting viewpoints, limiting emergency powers through clear temporal and substantive limitations on government emergency authorities to prevent abuse, strengthening informed consent protections through explicit legal protections against coercive medical interventions regardless of public health rationale, media reform addressing conflicts of interest and government influence on media coverage, and pharmaceutical transparency through ending liability shields and requiring full disclosure of clinical trial data. The quote from David Hume that opened this article bears repeating, “There is no such thing as freedom of choice, unless there is freedom to refuse.” This fundamental truth—that genuine consent requires the meaningful option to decline—was systematically violated worldwide during the COVID-19 response. The violations documented here were not isolated incidents by rogue actors but systematic policies implemented by democratic governments worldwide. They occurred because citizens, media, and institutions abdicated their responsibility to question, resist, and hold power accountable. They continued because fear overwhelmed reason, collectivism subsumed individual rights, and expedience triumphed over principle. Rising up means individual courage in refusing to comply with unjust mandates despite personal cost, community solidarity in supporting those who face discrimination for exercising medical autonomy, legal action pursuing every available avenue for accountability and redress, political engagement in electing leaders committed to protecting human rights even during emergencies, media reformation supporting independent journalism and demanding accountability from mainstream outlets, educational transformation teaching future generations about the dangers of surrendering liberty for false promises of security, and international coordination building global movements to strengthen human rights protections and prevent similar violations. The COVID-19 response demonstrated how quickly civil liberties can erode when citizens fail to defend them, how easily “temporary” emergency measures become normalized, and how readily governments can divide populations, weaponize fear, and compel submission to medical interventions. But it also demonstrated human resilience, courage, and commitment to principle. Millions worldwide refused vaccination despite enormous pressure. Healthcare workers sacrificed careers rather than compromise medical ethics. Teachers left education rather than abandon bodily autonomy. Citizens protested despite vilification. Lawyers filed suits despite long odds. Scientists spoke truth despite professional destruction. These individuals exemplify the spirit required to restore and protect human rights: the willingness to stand for principle despite personal cost. The COVID-19 response constituted a profound failure to uphold international human rights obligations regarding informed consent, bodily autonomy, and human dignity. Governments worldwide implemented coercive mandates conditioning employment, education, social participation, and freedom of movement on acceptance of experimental medical products operating under emergency authorizations rather than full approval. Media campaigns amplified fear and suppressed dissent rather than facilitating informed decision-making. Unvaccinated individuals experienced systematic segregation—a medical apartheid—incompatible with fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in international law. These policies violated the Nuremberg Code’s requirement of voluntary, informed consent free from coercion; ICCPR Article 7’s prohibition on medical experimentation without free consent; ICCPR Article 19’s guarantee of freedom of expression and information essential to informed decision-making; UDHR Articles 3, 12, and 18’s protections of liberty, privacy, and conscience; and customary international law principles of bodily autonomy and human dignity that transcend any particular treaty or convention. The evidence demands accountability—not vengeance, but honest reckoning with how democratic societies abandoned core principles under the banner of public health. It requires recognition of harms inflicted, compensation for those injured, and reform of systems that enabled such comprehensive erosion of rights. Most importantly, it demands vigilance. The precedents established during COVID-19— that governments may mandate medical interventions, condition civil participation on compliance, and suppress dissent in the name of public health—remain available for future invocation unless systematically dismantled through legal, political, and social action. As David Hume recognized, freedom means nothing without the freedom to refuse. The restoration of this fundamental freedom—the right to bodily autonomy, informed consent, and medical self-determination—represents the essential work before us. Humanity must rise up to reclaim these rights, hold institutions accountable, and ensure that the violations documented here serve as warning rather than precedent. The future of human freedom depends on our willingness to defend it, even when— especially when—authorities invoke emergencies to justify its suspension. The choice is ours. We can allow the erosion of liberty to continue, normalized and forgotten. Or we can rise—with courage, conviction, and commitment to the universal human rights that distinguish free societies from totalitarian ones. The time for choosing is now. The stakes could not be higher. Share Donate To Nuremberg Hearing Project Interest of Justice is an international human rights monitoring organization and official stakeholder in WHO, FDA, and HHS proceedings. For four years, we’ve documented systematic constitutional violations and fought for accountability when no one else would. Our comprehensive legal research provides the roadmap for constitutional restoration. But we can’t do this alone. Support our fight at NurembergHearing.org/donate This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a monthly supporter or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Leave a comment Learn more about Interest of Justice’s groundbreaking legal work: The Costa Rica Nuremberg Hearing: One Year Anniversary Two Weeks Until Nuremberg Public Hearing - Court Ordered Stop to Experimental Shots WHO’s Targeting of Indigenous Populations Without Informed Consent Dutch Case Against Pfizer and Gates Don’t Let Pfizer Get Away With The Biggest Crime In History You're currently a free subscriber to Interest of Justice. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. Upgrade to paid LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2025 Interest of JusticeUniversally Domiciled; non-commercial, non profit legal research institute Unsubscribe