Breaking News

Letter to the Editor: Six mistakes of the “medical freedom movement”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A reader, whom we have given the name A.L.R., writes to give us his view on the errors the “medical freedom movement” is making and points out six mistakes he believes are being made.

Please note: The points and views expressed are entirely those of A.L.R. and do not reflect the views of The Exposé.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


To The Exposé,

The ‘Medical-Freedom Movement’ Could Get Us Killed!

To you leaders of the so-called ‘medical-freedom movement’—

Whose side are you on, really? Your lazy thinking and wilful ignorance have cost untold numbers of lives. You repeat the same old strategies and tired old phrases that merely trim the weeds of medical tyranny while allowing its poisonous root to spread. Your errors could get us all killed.

Your most dangerous mistake is to base opposition to forced medicine not on the solid ground that it is eternally unlawful, but on the shifting sands of data and statistics.

You say things, like “This disease, or that variant, is too mild to warrant this or that measure.” Or “The measure is not safe enough or not effective enough to be mandated.”

Utter, utter fools. What you are saying is that you’d be absolutely fine with forced medicine if only the outbreak were serious enough, or if the enforced measure were safe enough, or effective enough, or no longer experimental.

If rights are expendable depending on conditions on the ground, or depending on statistics that so-called experts tell you, then they’re not rights at all; they’re flimsy conveniences.

Forced medicine is eternally unlawful yesterday, today, and forever. And no emergency, whether a real emergency or a perceived emergency or an invented emergency, removes one single medical right or any other type of right.

Even if there were a plague on the scale of the Black Death that wiped out half the population, and even if there were some medical intervention proven to be 100% safe and 100% effective, no-one ever, under any circumstances, would have authority to impose it.

And here’s your second biggest mistake, that you never defend medical confidentiality. The Hippocratic Oath doesn’t just say, “First do no harm” and “I will administer no deadly medicine.” It also says, “I will not divulge.” And that principle of confidentiality is enshrined in international law and supported by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Yet you’re absolutely fine with the government, or an employer, or a travel company knowing your medical status or your vaccination status. It’s none of their goddamn business. No-one has to divulge their medical status, and if you’re not divulging your medical status, how can anyone discriminate against you on the basis of it?

Also, if they don’t know your medical status, there’s no need to apply for a religious exemption or a medical exemption. The word, “No,” is exemption enough. The word, “No,” always has been, and always will be, exemption enough.

I’m telling you to be a constitutional extremist, a constitutional absolutist. Anything less, and you’re dead!

Here’s your third mistake, you are forgetting to tell people that, under international law and medical codes, you have the right to refuse not just masks, not just injections, you also have the right to refuse the tests. If you had told people that before they went into the charnel houses that hospitals have become, how many more could have been saved?

Armed with this information, patients would refuse the supposed COVID tests that have been channeling them into corridors of death and the hospital protocols designed to kill. But you didn’t tell them that, did you? And you’re still not telling them. How many lives have been lost through your ignorance?

Fourth mistake. Lawyers staying inside your little legislative boxes, whinging that you can’t go after Big Pharma or doctors or politicians or bureaucrats because they have ‘legal immunity’. Do you not realize that all the Acts and statutes that confer this supposed ‘legal immunity’ are nothing more than contracts that only one party has agreed to and only one party has signed?!

You and I, we the People, were never consulted about these contracts, did not write these contracts, did not read these contracts, and certainly did not sign these contracts. Yet you lawyers are taking them as gospel. As Martin Luther King wrote, “An unjust law is no law at all.” And why, lawyers, instead of drawing on international law, are you shrinking into the bubble of evil U.S. legislation that provides cover for tyranny and injustice?

Fifth mistake. Expecting any salvation from a political party or a political candidate, such as Ron DeSantis because he’s thrown you a few bones, while you overlook two state statues he has signed that glaringly promote medical tyranny.

Remember the duty conferred on us by the Declaration of Independence. It tells us to abolish any form of government that is destructive of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And that includes a form of government that offers a political duopoly where both sides are united in trying to destroy us.

Sixth mistake. You keep citing the Nuremberg Code, which applies to experimental medicine, while overlooking all the other international laws and medical codes that apply to all medicine, whether experimental or not. Where are you going to go when the authorities, the powers that shouldn’t be, say, “It’s no longer experimental because we’ve fully approved it. So Nuremberg doesn’t apply any more.” Where are you going to go?

Finally, you’re using the enemy’s definitions of words, such as what ‘pandemic’ means or what ‘vaccine’ means.

So here’s an example that includes most, if not all, of the above mistakes. In January 2023, Children’s Health Defense rejoiced that the New York State Supreme Court ruled against the state’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. So far, so good. But…

The judge didn’t overturn the mandate because it was inherently unlawful, which it is, he did it because it came from an executive order and was not voted on by the legislature. Meaning what? That if the governor can’t be a sole tyrant, the legislature can? Does a mandate become valid if only it follows the prescribed procedure?

The court also decided that the mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” on the basis that the “vaccines” do not stop transmission of the “virus”! Meaning what? That if another medical product is conjured that they say does stop transmission, you’d be fine with forcing it on people?

The lawyer for Children’s Health Defense said if the mandate “can’t stop the spread of COVID, then it’s just arbitrary and irrational.” Meaning you agree that if a product could stop the spread of a disease, then forcing it suddenly would become rational? Is this what they taught you in law school?

Oh, and she talked about the mandate caused a staffing shortage in New York hospitals. Why are you making all these peripheral arguments that don’t address the core tyranny? You are leaving the door open for future tyranny!

Afterwards, Mary Holland, President of Children’s Health Defense said, “We are thrilled by this critical win against a COVID vaccine mandate, correctly finding that any such mandate at this stage, given current knowledge, is arbitrary.”

What is she thinking? “At this stage”? “Given current knowledge”? No! The mandate is arbitrary, period, end of story, eternally, in every circumstance, at every stage and whatever the current levels of knowledge or ignorance.

Holland’s statement echoes another hollow slogan we’ve heard in ‘medical-freedom’ circles. “Where there is risk, there must be choice.” Again, you’re conceding a false authority to remove choice by claiming there is no risk.

The Children’s Health Defense lawyer also complained that the mandate didn’t have a religious exemption. Meaning what? That you’d be fine with forcing it on people who don’t claim to follow a religion?

My friends. This is a hollow, hollow victory, because you didn’t address the core desecrations at work. Again, I say, be a constitutional extremist. You cannot mandate medicine of any kind, at any time, or in any circumstances.

So before you get more people killed, understand and uphold…

  1. All medical coercion is outlawed eternally, whatever the circumstances.
  2. Medical confidentiality is eternally sacred.
  3. The word “No” is exemption enough.
  4. Refuse the tests!
  5. Bring justice, regardless of acts and statutes, and stop bending the knee to unlawful legislation.

Without all these, all you’re doing is nibbling around the edges of medical tyranny but never striking at the root. And that, as I’ve said, could get us all killed!

Regards,

A.L.R.


If you would like to publish a letter, please email it to contact@theexpose.uk addressed “Letter to the Editor.”  At the end of your email, please indicate the name or pseudonym you would like shown when we publish your letter.

Share this page to Telegram
4.9 16 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J. Parkinson
J. Parkinson
9 days ago

So so right. I totally understand and agree. Don’t ;meet the Devils half way. They want us dead. We want to live. And we have all the Rights to decide on our side. No one else has this right over you. Plain and simple, when you think about it.
Thanks for shining a Light.

Dave Owen
Dave Owen
Reply to  J. Parkinson
9 days ago

Leaked Top Secret Documents Suggest COVID Was Created By The CIA To Achieve A Total Surveillance State! – Vincent James – The Red ElephantsTuesday, January 24, 2023 13:47

Bart
Bart
Reply to  Dave Owen
9 days ago

The story was created, not a virus.
To do otherwise, they’d be risking their own health and that of their family.
If there really was a novel pathogen on the loose, Congress would not have exempted themselves. How many members of Congress, their staff and family have ‘Died Suddenly in the past 2 years? Or are now sick or crippled? None. How many died from ‘Covid’? None. They would have held a state funeral, erected statues if any had. The media would still be talking about it.

Marlow
Marlow
9 days ago

Excellent article! Based in principles rather than circumstances, the rule of Law. Thank you for speaking to the nature and Spirit of the Hippocratic Oath in a more fulsome manner. Hoorah!

Kay
Kay
9 days ago

Absolutely right. It’s like writing legislation to forbid Covid-19 masks, lockdowns, social distancing, vaccine mandates, etc. What happens when they trot out a new disease? All masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc. should be forbidden, period, or the legislature is wasting its time.

sheep girl
sheep girl
9 days ago

Thanks for setting us straight and has given me new perspective. Course correction!

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
9 days ago

“They” cannot exterminate humans from 8 billion to 40,000 to save the world from overheating and destroying all life on it (they think), without some casualties along the way – but not “them” of course – just you who have been vaccinated – the “new Jews” for their slaughter.
To the vaccinated from me – Thank you for your life, but I never wanted it, or that you should exterminate yourselves in the process.

Jo Scott
Jo Scott
9 days ago

Interesting points and I hope you are actively involved in the cause for freedom with the rest of us. Obviously, these comments apply to the USA not the rest of the world and to fight this globalist movement we need to unite and resist across all continents. I appreciate the efforts made by the various parties to date and hope we can work together to achieve the goals we seek.
It is interesting to note not all the judges and lawyers in the States appear to interpret the law as you do, many are politically motivated, bought or controlled by the deep state.

Williams Peter
Williams Peter
9 days ago

Boy A.L.R punches hard, but accurate and insightful. I just hope this letter gets widely shared. In doing so it may positively influence the freedom warriors that are on the front line media and judiciary fronts. Take note The Expose.

J. Gettingham
J. Gettingham
9 days ago

Beautifully stated! They are leaving room for the government to force this poison into our veins with their less-than-airtight arguments. I fear however that now that they are moving this poison into our livestock and food supplies, unless we are totally self-sufficient there is no way out of this. The WEF and the billionaires are truly the unelected world leaders who are paving the way to hell over our dead bodies.

Phineas
Phineas
9 days ago

Yes, activists continue to allow government focus on safety, not justice. This is always implied in discussions of removing rights for everyone’s safety. How unsafe should we be “allowed” to be?
Justice protects rights, “safety” removes them.

David Rinker
David Rinker
Reply to  Phineas
9 days ago

Freedom is inherently unsafe.

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

“Please note: The points and views expressed are entirely those of A.L.R. and do not reflect the views of The Exposé.”
Why not? Please explain.

Lords witnesses
Lords witnesses
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
8 days ago

Rhoda. I applaud you for being protective of group A. There has been a huge amount of comment activity from group B in the last year. You have rightly called out Psyops of various types.

But I see ALR as more of a Drill Sergeant Type than a detractor. He is not hitting group A hard because he is in group B. He is hitting us hard because he wants us to be MUCH BETTER SOLDIERS.

We have won this battle in the UK. Only 0.1% of under 50s took the booster since April 2022 and the government is now closing down vaccination for under 50s following in the footsteps of Denmark.

Dr Assem Malhotra and Dr Malone (who are doing a great job) are getting much of the credit for that. But you and I were at this from the start, when they were both taking the vaccines. I saw it from the scriptures. Where did you first see it?

But ALR is worried about the real war. Not just this one particular battle. The war is about basic humans rights as follows…

1 No medical rape or forced sex AT ALL EVER – that prevents the commoditisation of our bodies, our genetics and our immunity. It is cirtical to the survival of our speices.

2 No medical snopping – that stops vaccine passports, the Mark of the Beast upon the hand AND it stops Social credit scores which are based upon confidential medical info – the Mark of the Beast upon the forehead (If I snitch on my neighbour I can increase my antisocial credit score)

3. No forced medical testing: That prevents discrimination

As you know, the demonically driven globalists are building a digital prison and Group A (non compliant) will be the inmates and Group B (compliant) will be the prison guards in this worldwide concentration camp that defies and defiles every shred of humanity and morality that we have left.

It is PRINCIPLE that will protect people from becoming compliant Nazi collaborators, not expediency. And THAT is the point of ALRs words. OK he was a bit American (or military) in his delivery. But I love Americans because they tell it like it is as do Australians. Perhaps his delivery was NOT HARD ENOUGH? Surely you can see that God is permitting a much harder delivery than ALR to wake people up – the death of their relatives for example?.

I write for the Expose for free precisely because you publish these kinds of articles. You absolutely made the right decision to publish it. ALR is acting as a 4 star general here (with the presentation of a Drill Sergeant). In my estmation he has the strategy right. It is a matter of the hippocratic Oath and Divine law and human rights.

I think it is a massive tribute to the Expose that he submitted his article to you. He sees you as the leaders in this battle. He wants to make you the leaders in the entire war. The real worry now is what will they do next to enforce the vaccines that absolutely nobody wants to take? Where will they attack next?

Long may your true journalistic gut prevail over your present world view.

Forbury
Forbury
9 days ago

Excellent analysis. If human rights have any substance that is meaningful in today’s society they must be absolute and not relative.

Mark Deacon
Mark Deacon
9 days ago

Totally agree with this.

Provide the data and I will make my choice accordingly of course without all the information the medical establishment globally hid too prevent any informed choice.

Rock Tee
Rock Tee
9 days ago

EXACTLY!

Helene Belloni
Helene Belloni
9 days ago

Everyone is so brainwashed into graveling to the gov’t authorities. They assume the law won’t prevail and so they start giving in and watering down their argument. I am going to send this to my FL senators. I’m sure Ill get a form letter back or maybe they will tell me again how they know better than I. (I objected to sending 40 Billion to Ukraine and he couldn’t wait to write back and tell me how evil Russia is). Classic Senator Scott.

Deirdre McKervey
Deirdre McKervey
9 days ago

I agree these were ‘hollow’ victories!! We are accepting crumbs and thoroughly trapped by this evil cycle of tyranny!

Bart
Bart
9 days ago

Perfect.

Ken Hughes
Ken Hughes
9 days ago

An absolutely brilliant letter.

Pat
Pat
9 days ago

Bravo! This is a passer-on-er. And I did. Everywhere I could think of. Just what I have been thinking, but this is well expressed.

Greg
Greg
9 days ago

Anyone NOT recognising these points certainly doesn’t understand the meaning of “freedom” and certainly shouldn’t be using that word in any description of their intent or their movement.

Peter Sutton
Peter Sutton
9 days ago

Well hats off to ALR whoever he or she is, the level of deafness, blindness and monstrous arrogance required to write that piece must have been difficult to muster.

People across the world have been countering “anti vaxxer” smears from day one by saying that we are not anti vaccination but rather anti mandate so his (or her) case falls at the first fence.

We.have also said loud and clear that our medical information and history must remain private and that “vaccine passports” or anything of that ilk would constitute a total and unacceptable violation of that privacy. So point two is skewered.

ALR’s third complaint is also groundless. We are well aware that we have a right to refuse masks, tests and all of the other ridiculous nonsense and many of us have done just that. Of course we have been denied the right to travel or to enter restaurants and other areas but that is hardly our fault and there was little we could do about that. Perhaps ALR would be better spending time complaining to the various criminal bodies enforcing these illegal regulations instead of using his (or her) energies slamming those of us standing up against them.

Lawyers have said many times that the protection from litigation bestowed by governments on Pharma companies is unconstitutional and has no real base in law. Perhaps ALR would like to pay attention to some of what Tom Renz or Reiner Fuellmich have been busy saying and writing for the past two years.

Quite why ALR felt it necessary to take a swipe at governor De Santis I’m not quite sure but I’m confident all will be explained in their next pointless diatribe.

Using “their words”?
I think that once friend ALR actually wakes up and drag their head out of their a*se they will see that millions of us have been pointing out the arbitrary change of meaning of words like “vaccine” and “pandemic”.

Sorry to go on but people like this ALR character really grind my gears.
They are arrogant, they think they’re the only ones who know how things should be done but they do nothing except whine, complain and waste everyone’s time !

W. A. O'Gorman
W. A. O'Gorman
9 days ago

“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Everyone reading this was likely well aware of the various illegalities employed in this horrifying plan. We tried to alert everyone we knew and were either dismissed or vilified. Most people still, quite literally, Don’t Want To Know. That is understandable because to admit that they, and worse their children, are likely ****ed is not a happy prospect; perhaps better to don’t look and it will go away.

There is no prospect of this being properly brought before the courts, although there may be some sacrificial lambs – perhaps even as high as Hancock, Whittie, Valance and Tam for “conflict of interest” or something like that. The ruination of the economy and the slaughter of the care homes killing fields will never be mentioned.

The [likely same] architects and beneficiaries will remain as safe as they did after WWII. Even public figures who themselves, or whose parents, are clearly on public record as population control enthusiasts will walk away from this Orwellian plot in a haze of Net Zero ********.

julal
julal
9 days ago

Absolutely agree what is written by A.L.R

Glen
Glen
Reply to  julal
8 days ago

I second that. While we appreciate all the efforts on behalf of those fighting for medical freedom, we do wonder why they don’t just use the Constitution instead of their own made-up reasons for their arguments. We are just clipping their wings when we should be wringing their necks about this genocide occuring worldwide. We must have all mandates, invasive treatments, security, etc. expelled in writing for any future tyranny. I think A.L.R. is sincere but just a little rough around the edges in his/her style. He/she is angry as many of us are who have had to live in this twilight zone for years now. It doesn’t mean he/she is in a Group B. Even Jesus got angry.

pswpma
pswpma
6 days ago

Excellent. Interesting. I thought the same things at times, like… so we won’t tolerate this but we will tolerate that? But of course greater minds than I have the knowledge and skill in writing and conveying. Your article was very engaging as well. Thank you. Truly

T J
T J
3 days ago

Whose side are you on, really?

This is something I wonder about all of the time… because an awful lot of people who oppose medical mandates will support medical prohibitions (a.k.a. “the war on drugs”), and I regard both as equally repugnant:

If all men have equal rights, then no man has a right to dictate what kind of medicine another may consume in the privacy of his own home.

If you want to cite “international law”, I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” –And liberty includes the freedom of choice.