I recently spoke with Michael Nevradakis, a senior reporter for The Defender, about my book The War on Informed Consent and how public vaccine policies systematically violate the fundamental human right of every individual to decide whether to undergo risk-carrying medical procedures.
It was a brief but impactful conversation that got right to the point. Don’t miss it!
Watch the interview and read the transcript on The Defender’s Substack.
The video was not playing well for me, so I’m making it available to watch here, also:
Here are a few excerpts:
The Right to Informed Consent Explained
Well, informed consent, this right, really arises from the right to liberty and the right to ownership over our own bodies.
And so we each have a right to — and this is protected under international law, there are international treaties that recognize and protect the right to informed consent and, of course, it’s also protected under U.S. law.
But, somehow, when it comes to this particular class of products known as vaccines, this right is systematically violated because informed consent cannot occur under conditions of coercion.
It’s just a basic premise of the right that if there’s any element of coercion, that is contrary to the protection of the right to informed consent.
The Wrong Policy Goal
And it also happens through the, this right can be violated as well through deception.
People, you know, the focus of the policy goal of a high vaccination rate is contrary to the goal of providing people the information that they need to be able to make an informed choice.
So the policy goal itself is the wrong goal.
I mean, the goal ought to be to provide people with information to be able to make an informed choice, but that’s not the goal.
And so, therefore, the benefits of vaccines are exaggerated, the risks are downplayed.
The risks of the diseases that they’re intended to prevent are exaggerated, and the benefits of infection are downplayed.
For example, you know, natural immunity being an opportunity cost, superior natural immunity being an opportunity cost of vaccination, these things are never considered in policymaking.
The Weaponization of Medical Licensing
There has to be an individualized risk-benefit analysis, and so that’s the approach that Dr. Thomas had.
And, but that’s, but again, that was contrary to the state’s goal, the state’s policy goal of achieving a high vaccination rate.
And so there was a conflict between his approach, and so the medical board targeted him and released, and challenged him to produce a study and produce evidence to support his different approach, which I think they thought that he wouldn’t be able to accomplish, a hoop he wouldn’t be able to jump through. But he did.
He published a study using his patient data and comparing health outcomes between the variably vaccinated patients in his clinic and the completely unvaccinated patients in his clinic.
And it showed very clearly that the unvaccinated children were far healthier and far lower rates of various chronic illnesses.
And 11 days after that study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the medical board had a meeting to emergently suspend his license on the false pretext that he was a threat to public health — the truth being that he was a threat to the public health establishment.
Censorship
So, for example, the CDC in August 2021 claimed that the COVID-19 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines conferred immunity that was stronger and better than natural immunity, which was contradicted at the time by virtually all of the non-CDC originating medical literature. And also was falsified a few months later by a CDC study using the CDC’s own data and published by CDC researchers in its own journal, where they showed that no, actually natural immunity was superior, of course.
And so I tried, so I wrote an article about that CDC study that showed that no, the people who had natural immunity had better protection than the people who got the vaccines.
And again, the CDC’s own data, and, but I wrote an article about that, and it was posted on LinkedIn…. But LinkedIn removed that post and then permanently suspended my account on the grounds that I was spreading misinformation.
Because their policy is that if you say anything contrary to quote-unquote public health authorities, that is by definition misinformation.
So if the public health authorities are lying to people, you can’t challenge it.
The War on Informed Consent
My book is a case study in how medical licensing is weaponized to enforce a Pharma-centric medical cartel that masquerades as a “health care” system in the US.
It reveals why more and more parents are legitimately questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and making their own informed choices instead of blindly following the CDC’s schedule as a matter of faith.
It exposes how the greatest purveyers of vaccine misinformation are the government and mainstream media.
“extraordinary and riveting” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“you’ll learn an awful lot on this general topic and in the course of that learn about an injustice done to somebody we might consider to be a hero” — Tom Woods
“A must-read for parents who face expanding government mandates that steadily erode our personal freedom of medical choice.” — Dr. Stephanie Seneff
“Jeremy Hammond is one of the few courageous journalists who swims against this current of unparalleled corruption” — Rob Schneider
“a must-read for any parent who wants to know what they are up against when making educated decisions in the best interest of their child’s health” — Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych
“systematically deconstructs numerous lies and ploys promoted by the allopathic establishment, showing how regulatory agencies and legislators have been captured, science has been corrupted, and children are being harmed” — Neil Z. Miller
“Thomas was excommunicated. And the health freedom community— massive and growing—provided with a true hero.” — Dr. Andrew Wakefield
