O:H header
In this episode of Objective:Health we highlight some of the resistance we've seen to the medical tyranny that has descended on us under the guise of a deadly pandemic. Whether in the form of lawsuits, class action suits, standing up to employers mandating vaccination for their employees, or just everyday citizens resisting mask mandates or quarantine measures, it's heartening to see individuals fighting back, standing their ground and generally resisting the infringement of their rights by an out-of-control authoritarian state.

While governments, corporations or employers in general may believe they have the right to dictate our right to free movement, forced medical procedures, right to employment or rights to free association, there are citizens who have had enough and are fighting back against the monolithic machine attempting to lock us in our homes to die a slow death.

As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And while there are those attempting to force that choice on us, the ability to resist has yet to be completely extinguished. Join us on this episode as we look at some of the inspiring stories of ordinary people fighting back.

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:


Running Time: 00:35:57

Download: MP3 — 32.9 MB

Here is the transcript:

Erica: Hello, and welcome to Objective Health. I am Erica, your host, and joining me in our virtual studio are Elliot, Doug, and behind the scenes is Damian.


Erica: Welcome all. We are celebrating our year of "two weeks to flatten the curve". Does everybody feel safer? [Laughter]

Doug: The longest two weeks ever.

Erica: It's been a year now! Today, on our show we are going to talk about resistance against medical tyranny. Now, we have had over 365 days of complete Covid-1984 Corona-craziness and we are here to see what's happening in the world. How are people reacting? Is everyone going down without a fight, or are there people standing up?

There are so many lawsuits happening all over the world that we could not cover them all on the show, but we are going to choose a few that seem pretty relevant and interesting. Hopefully we will be able to keep up with how these go.

One of the first ones I would like to mention is here in the old US of A. This is out of New Mexico and the article was covered by Activist Post on March 8th. The title of the article is It's Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination — Attorney Interview. It is an interview with an attorney named Ana Garner and she is representing a client named Isaac Legaretta. He is "an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center, and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination".

Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set new standards for legal precedents regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

For those of you that might want to watch this interview, you can find it in the article. It is with a man named Spiro and it is very informative and it brings home the argument of 'can states - particularly here in the USA - mandate vaccines for what they call first responders or emergency workers.' I do think that it is going to set an interesting precedent. Because of the Emergency Use Authorization here in the United States, this is not something that employers can legally enforce. Once that emergency use authorization changes, who knows? We are living in unprecedented times.

There is a really excellent article for those in the US who maybe facing this kind of challenge from the Children's Health Defence called Under Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine?. It's actually really helpful because I know I don't have any other US hosts on with me today but even in my place of employment there is pressure to become vaccinated. The thought that you may lose your job if you don't take an experimental vaccine is pretty concerning. This defender article really helps because this is not something that your employer can enforce on you at this time. One thing that I am noticing personally is that there is a lot of use of peer pressure and even shaming to get people to comply. We will see how this unfolds. It is pretty concerning.

Doug: I think that the case that Ana Garner is working on right now really emphasizes the fact that these are experimental medical products. None of these injectables have received FDA approval and they are only being used under that Emergency Use Authorization act. Like you were saying, Erica, once it does receive FDA approval it might be a whole new game where you are going to have to fight on different grounds. As it stands right now, the defender article says the "Emergency Use Authorization means that any product with this designation MUST be voluntary." That is under federal law.

The law is very clear about it. It states that "States may not mandate the vaccines, and private entities do so at the peril of violating federal law." They can try and coerce you and even threaten you although it is illegal for them to do so.

In that defender article it actually says that this was "confirmed in August 2020 at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where its Executive Secretary Dr, Amanda Cohn, stated (@1:14:40):
"I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won't be able to be mandated."
It's even in those meeting minutes that these things cannot be mandatory. It seems like a pretty clear case that the corrections officer in New Mexico is fighting there.

Erica: He currently still has his job so they have not fired him yet and I think they probably know with all this public scrutiny, even if it is on the interwebs, that if they were to fire him that it could lead to some pretty negative results for them.

I would like to share with you guys in the US what, according to the FDA, is an Emergency Use Authorization. This is just a quick paragraph that they have which we can discuss. It says,
"The EUA is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures including vaccines during public health emergencies such as the current Covid-19 pandemic. Under a EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat or prevent serious or life threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met. Including that there are no adequate, approved and available alternatives.

Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit a EUA request. Once submitted, the FDA will evaluate the EUA request and determine whether the relevant statutory criteria are met taking into account the totality of the scientific evidence about the vaccine that is available to the FDA."
I wanted to read that because one thing that I found very interesting is that they said "Including that there are no adequate, approved and available alternatives" which we know there are.

Doug: Yes, particularly HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), and Ivermectin. We were saying on our last show that Gwyneth Paltrow has a whole list of alternatives, kombucha.

Erica: Vitamin C, vitamin D, sunlight, fresh air.

Doug: Right! Swim in the ocean. In reality, that is a big deal and that could be why we are seeing such a push. We are going to do a show on Ivermectin at some point. I think this is a pretty clear indication of why you are seeing such resistance to Ivermectin. If Ivermectin is approved then suddenly there is an alternative and then their whole EUA rules are null and void. You can't have Emergency Use Authorization for a vaccine if there are alternatives and Ivermectin is an alternative. That's why it is getting shot down everywhere.

Elliot: That's what we have seen from the start with any and all medication which has been shown to be fairly effective against Covid when we consider that Covid is generally not all that problematic for the large majority of people. If you get someone who is elderly and who is susceptible then Covid, like any other viral or bacterial infection, can kill off quite a few people if they are not in a very good state to begin with.

There is a variety of these drugs - hydroxychloroquine, and now Ivermectin - which have been getting the most coverage - but there are lots of other kinds of medications which have also been shown to be quite beneficial. Looking back, it is fairly obvious now why they have suppressed and manipulated and why they have been trying to convince everyone that these drugs do not work. I think it partly comes down at least partly, to the fact that they will no longer be able to justify the vaccines as an experimental procedure. Then, the floor will crumble beneath them. They're really banking on the idea that there is no drug that can effectively treat Covid at the moment.

Erica: The madness just seems to get amplified continuously. Again, a year into this in the United States we start to see states pushing back and lifting mask mandates. Florida is an epic example, the Governor DeSantis was saying that "if you want to wear a mask you can. Kids are in school, they need to continue living." He received a lot of flak. He is a republican, of course. Right now, as it stands California is one of the most locked down states and they have the same numbers as Florida, so what does that tell you?

Doug: The interventions aren't doing anything. Maybe we should cross the ocean to Britain, the UK? There was an article in the Daily Mail: Britons could launch class-action lawsuit for BILLIONS in compensation for Government 'falsely imprisoning' nation during lockdown, law lecturer predicts. Mind you, this is just the opinion of a law lecturer so there is not necessarily anything behind this, but what he's saying is that there are grounds for British citizens to collectively have a class-action lawsuit against the government for falsely imprisoning the nation with a stay-at-home order.

His name is Dr Jonathan Morgan, and he is the Director of Law at Corpus Christi College in Cambridge. In the article he is saying that this might sound crazy but it is a response to absolute craziness. It's unprecedented what people are going through at the moment with the whole lockdown thing. It's all a possibility, but nonetheless I would love to see that happen, if the people who were enforcing this whole lockdown nonsense were held accountable in some way. It's not going to affect the people personally, it's just going to cost the government and the taxpayers. Nonetheless, it would be great to see.

Elliot: It's important to note that this article was published in early November before the second lockdown occurred. Here is justification from a legal standpoint. I don't know much about law but what I do know is that there isn't all that much that is set in stone and there are precedents that can be made based on different cases so they use lots of different case studies.

He is citing a case where the UK government or authorities placed a foreigner named Ibrahima Jollah who was "a Liberian citizen who was ordered to stay at home every night between 11pm and 7am between 2014 and 2017." He eventually sued the authorities, and it says "The Supreme Court found the Secretary of State had no legal power to impose the restrictions and Mr. Jollah was awarded £4,000 for the two-and-a-half years he was 'falsely imprisoned'." If this particular case is applied to the UK population then this means that the UK government could be forced to pay £800 for six months to each British citizen, totalling £4,000.

That was based on the first lockdown back in November and we have had multiple lockdowns since that point. We have been locked down ever since then. It would be nice if we would see that, whether it will happen or not. It is probably unlikely; however, from a legal standpoint I think it would be great if people were held accountable.

Erica: Another interesting development is out of Germany. This organisation called German Corona Investigative Committee is taking testimony from a large number of international scientists and experts and are hoping to address what they are calling "crimes against humanity". The conclusions of the committee are that the corona-crisis must be renamed the corona-scandal, that it would be the biggest tort case ever, the biggest crime against humanity ever committed and they are saying that those responsible must be criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity and sued for civil damages.

They talk about health, the PCR tests, illegality of the lockdown and injury and damage, and bankruptcies. The lawyer is called Fuellmich and he has been practicing law for 26 years in California. Foreign Affairs Intelligence Council carried this along with Global Research. There is a video and it talks about all their different approaches for how to move forward with this case.

This is not something that you are going to find on mainstream media, but it does seem to be getting some attention. We are seeing so many people being censored that it goes to show that they are concerned about these organisations coming together with criminal charges.

Doug: Mercola covered this a while ago. I think he might even have interviewed Fuellmich. The lawyer is essentially saying that they are pursuing this in Germany but they are doing it in such a way that this can be used in other countries as well. It's almost like they are making a template for how these lawsuits can proceed. It's like open source law with the idea being that attorneys in other countries will take up the mantle and start doing that in their own countries to press these charges and get these lockdowns over and done with.

One thing that is mentioned in the summary that you were going through is conspiracy. It says,
"Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic.

Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible "for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules."

The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose.

There can be no talk of a second wave."
I thought that was very interesting. They are really going for the jugular on this. They are covering everything. The unnecessary deaths that happened as a result of lockdowns, they are going after the PCR tests and how they are not meant to diagnose whether or not somebody is sick, and all the different ways that these things are illegal. To a layman like me it sounds pretty airtight, but of course we will see if anything actually comes of it.

Erica: What I think is interesting is that they are really trying to prevent something like this from happening again. Now that we are all used to the lockdown, can't go anywhere at night and having to wear a mask, I think that this document is trying to set a precedent so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again, where it's just willy-nilly and people act out of fear more than anything. That's what we are really seeing, it's the fear.

Like you said, Doug. We know now that children are not the super-spreaders that we were told that they would be even though now they are going to start testing the vaccine on children which is completely insane. So, they are trying to set the precedents so we don't go through this craziness again. There has to be some sort of accountability. Here in the United States Fauci is the guy that everyone looks to and we are not told that he is the highest paid man in the government, more than the President of the United States. To me that's a blaring conflict of interest. I am hoping that these set a precedent. I am always optimistic but I have not been so optimistic recently.

Doug: Incidentally, Elliot found out that there is a database. Do you want to talk about that, Elliot?

Elliot: I was going to talk about Texas first because in the past couple of weeks they have dropped all of their restrictions. They have dropped their mask mandate, they have opened up all the physical restrictions, the businesses are opening up, and no one is required to wear a mask. Basically, they are opening up most of the state; however, in the city of Austin and the local district around that area the mayor came out and said "We are not going to lift any of the mask mandates and we are not going to lift any of the restrictions. Everything is going to stay the same." The Attorney General, Ken Paxton is suing Austin because it is not complying with the state rules.

A couple of weeks back, the Governor of Texas said "There is no jurisdiction in Texas which can implement local rules for the restrictions." In simple terms, the authorities in Texas have opened up the entire state and they have said that this applies across the state. The rule that was put into place was that if Coronavirus hospitalisations go above 15% then that is when people have to start wearing masks and that is when restrictions will come into place. If any area of Texas does not meet the 15% of Coronavirus hospitalisations then the restrictions do not apply.

So the Mayor of Austin came out and said "Actually no, we are going to keep these restrictions. We want you to wear masks, we are not going to open everything up. You still have to follow the rules." The Attorney General said "Look, you have got until 6pm. You must categorically follow Texas's laws. You must follow Texas's rules and if you do not then I am going to sue you because you are essentially breaking the law."

This is based on a new legislation, GA-34, which came out. I can't remember exactly which date it was, perhaps 10th March. That is the documentation that says that they have put in the percentages and if the state as a whole does not fulfil the criteria of above 15% Coronavirus hospitalisations then there are not going to be any restrictions.

There are some pretty high profile politicians and lawyers who are standing up for people's freedom. There are also politicians on the other side who want to maintain as many restrictions as possible. It's really interesting. You go onto SOTT.net you can have a look at the articles that pop up here, there and everywhere and there are a lot of lawsuits which have been filed both for and against Coronavirus restrictions over the past year. There is a website called Ballotpedia and the page is called Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021.

That is a database and there are a total of 997 entries, so there have been 997 lawsuits relating to Coronavirus restrictions. This is in all states across America. To put this into context, it is important to note that not all of these lawsuits are against the restrictions. There are some people who are trying to sue the government and businesses for not following the rules and being too lackadaisical. On the other hand, you have got lawyers and groups of individuals who are suing because they are claiming that these restrictions are unlawful. In some of these cases they are winning these lawsuits. If you live in the US and you want to know what is going on in your state then you can go to this website, Ballotpedia.org and you can do a search on the database.

You can look at the case name, the claim type and the state, and you can see exactly what is going on in your state. It's very interesting because not a lot of this is getting all that much press attention. It seems as though the mainstream media aren't covering this as extensively as they should be. I think that is probably because I would imagine that there are certain people in positions of power who do not want this kind of information getting out. They want to portray the image that the rules that they have got in place are failsafe and that they cannot be protested and that they cannot be challenged.

When it comes to looking at it from a legal basis it turns out that there are many, many professionals in the area of law who are successfully challenging this stuff. There are people who have learnt the laws of the land, so to speak, and are highlighting many faults and problems with the restrictions and rules that they are putting in place. If you want to learn about that then you can go to that website. It's really cool, and it shows that there are quite a lot of people who are challenging this from a legal standpoint.

Erica: It makes sense with all the downtime that we have had that people are becoming incredulous about what they hear, especially if they are watching the mainstream news. I think one thing that is very interesting is the amount of people that are deciding to go to alternative forms of information because they feel like they are being lied to. Which they are in a lot of ways!

The problem is the sticky wicket that is the interwebs and when you search for something, especially if you use Google, then those kinds of search results are very skewed. I have faith that there are a lot of intelligent, smart people who are over this manipulation that they have been experiencing for the last year and who want to try and inform themselves about it.

I do think that this vaccination push is all about using peer pressure and shaming and soundbites to get people to go along and not really ask the hard questions. Not ask about side effects or if this is even legal to do or if we are experimental guinea pigs. I think the powers-that-be aren't too happy with the fact that people are becoming informed and with all the censorship that is happening. People are realizing that there must be some reason that people are getting taken down from social media platforms left and right. Maybe they do have something of importance to share with all of us. Do we have anything else? I know we can't' cover all of the lawsuits that are happening.

Doug: It would be a long show.

Erica: They are out there. There are people that are out there resisting and I think that resistance is important at this point in time, very important. Especially with setting legal precedents. One thing about court cases in the US is that they can take months, if not years, once a precedent is set. Sometimes it gets buried and it takes interested and enthusiastic individuals to try and follow up on what happens.

Again, the mainstream media narrative is not going to be giving you updates on these kinds of things. They are going to continue to focus on how terrible anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers are and not show you that if you want to wear a mask and you want to get the vaccine then you have a choice to do that but that should not be something that is enforced upon you by a state or even a local mayor or governor.

Doug: Definitely.

Erica: What do you all think? Is there anything else? We will have to come back and maybe we will have to have a resistance against medical tyranny part 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. [Laughter]

Doug: A sequel. I think it is definitely something that we could revisit.

Elliot: There is more coming out by the day. One quick thing to add is that aside from lawsuits and professional challenges on that kind of level in court, there are several videos of people online who are challenging the restrictions head-on themselves. As an example, one is challenging the PCR test when having to fly to another country which supposedly requires a PCR test. The example I am thinking about is a guy in Canada who videoed himself getting onto the plane through an airport. I don't think the guy was wearing a mask and he also refused to take the PCR test. We are given the impression that if you refuse to wear a mask or take a PCR test then you wouldn't be able to fly on the plane. It turns out that that is not technically true, at least in this guy's case.

Doug: In that particular case he was a Canadian citizen and he was citing parts from the Canadian charter saying that they aren't allowed to force any kind of medical testing on Canadian citizens. One thing in particular that he was refusing was the quarantine. They have a rule now in Canada where you have to spend two weeks in a hotel on your own dime when you come into the country. What he was saying was that it was unlawful under Canadian law and that is what he was arguing. He refused and the cops just let him go. They wrote him a ticket and they let him go. Apparently, he was saying that even the ticket won't hold up in court.

I don't know if that could apply to somebody who was just going on vacation. You would have to look into the particular legal rules in the country that you are going to. If you are not a citizen then you might not have as many rights as a citizen would.

Erica: I think these are going to spread and videos like that will go viral. If we have nothing else then thank you all for joining us. Thank you to my co-hosts and Damian for showing us all those informative documents. We will be back next week with another interesting topic, so have a great day!