Hi folks, just a quick post that I know I have to go back an edit later because it has some typos and grammar errors. Busy day tomorrow, but I will try to come back and edit this to make it a little easier to read:

The Supreme Court case that allowed government to make vaccination mandatory, is Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  Please study this case carefully. According to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme ruled that the government can mandate forced vaccinations if the vaccine and situation meets three criteria, which are the following: The vaccine must be 1) “effective” and  2) the “best known way” to treat the disease, and 3) there must be an epidemic. 

We know for a fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates has philanthropically donated billions of dollars to world health vaccine programs. We also know that their foundation is heavily invested in vaccine manufacturing companies. We also have a new report out this month from the Columbia Journalism Review detailing exactly how many different mainstream media outlets Gates has donated to. You can find the full article here: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php  Now we have interesting situation in which Covid deaths do not outpace the number of deaths from the seasonal flu, thus we cannot necessarily claim that Covid-19 is an epidemic. Nonetheless the media blitz did a great job creating a epidemic belief accross the world. We can see that many of the mainstream organizations that led us to believe Covid-19 was a terrible black plaque are the same one the Gates Foundation has donated to. Now what incentive does Bill Gates have in creating so much fear? 

As mentioned he has financial investments in many vaccine companies. He is also a eugenist. Now to get mandatory vaccine laws passed in America, he has to pass the Supreme Court’s test as decided in Jacobson V. Massachusetts. First there needs to be an epidemic. Gates can now check this box since the media has done its job in falsely creating one. Second, the vaccine needs to be effective. We do not yet have an effective vaccine, thus the reason why the media continues the hysteria with the number of cases to buy time for vaccine development. They want to expand testing to prep people for this deadly vaccine. Third the vaccine has to be the “most effective method” to treat Covid. This is probably the reason why the FDA banned hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine in a protocol with zinc and azythromycin is probably the most effective way to treat Covid patients. Yet the FDA banned it. I believe it is because of the qualifications the the Supreme court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Gates wants mandatory vaccines.

Gates does not want any treatment to compete with vaccines because any successful treatment such as hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azythromycin would cause the vaccine to fail the “best known way” test therefore rendering any mandatory vaccination law illegal. Remember, Gates wanted a monopoly for Microsoft. He is still the same person. He wants a monopoly on Covid treatment, and that is his vaccine. Plus he can kill a bunch of people along the way to reduce the world population, as he is a eugenist. 

Do not get tested folks. Refuse the Covid test. It is a trap. 

Since no one is even bothering to ask this question, I looked into it a little as time allowed me to dig into this today.

I found one translated article on it, and appears they used Chloroquine as part of a protocol.

Here is the one translated article I could find today:

https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/coronavirus-treatment-plan-7/

Here is a paper by an American board-certified doctor discussing hydroxycholorquine. Google apparently deleted the paper from its search engine. You cannot find this paper in a Google search.

You can find his website here: https://www.medicineuncensored.com/

 

Columbia Journalism Review just published the only investigative report out there right now revealing how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation influences media.

You can read the entire article here: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php

LAST AUGUST, NPR PROFILED A HARVARD-LED EXPERIMENT to help low-income families find housing in wealthier neighborhoods, giving their children access to better schools and an opportunity to “break the cycle of poverty.” According to researchers cited in the article, these children could see $183,000 greater earnings over their lifetimes—a striking forecast for a housing program still in its experimental stage.

If you squint as you read the story, you’ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you’re really paying attention, you’ll also see the editor’s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.

NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.

And that speaks to a larger trend—and ethical issue—with billionaire philanthropists’ bankrolling the news. The Broad Foundation, whose philanthropic agenda includes promoting charter schools, at one point funded part of the LA Times’ reporting on education. Charles Koch has made charitable donations to journalistic institutions such as the Poynter Institute, as well as to news outlets such as the Daily Caller, that support his conservative politics. And the Rockefeller Foundation funds Vox’s Future Perfect, a reporting project that examines the world “through the lens of effective altruism”—often looking at philanthropy.

As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations—a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic—an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.

I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups. In some cases, recipients say they distributed part of the funding as subgrants to other journalistic organizations—which makes it difficult to see the full picture of Gates’s funding into the fourth estate. Sign up for CJR’s daily email

The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders. A top-level finding: “There is little evidence that funders insist on or have any editorial review.” Notably, the study’s underlying survey data showed that nearly a third of funders reported having seen at least some content they funded before publication.

RELATED: ‘When money is offered, we listen’

Gates’s generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the world’s most visible charity. Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works. 

During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covid—even though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively—both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from “false conspiracy theories” and “misinformation,” like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing covid vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVax.

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture—a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes’s list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decades—like helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malaria—but even these efforts have drawn expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm, or distracting us from more important, lifesaving public health projects.

From virtually any of Gates’s good deeds, reporters can also find problems with the foundation’s outsize power, if they choose to look. But readers don’t hear these critical voices in the news as often or as loudly as Bill and Melinda’s. News about Gates these days is often filtered through the perspectives of the many academics, nonprofits, and think tanks that Gates funds. Sometimes it is delivered to readers by newsrooms with financial ties to the foundation.

The Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests for this story and would not provide its own accounting of how much money it has put toward journalism. 

In response to questions sent via email, a spokesperson for the foundation said that a “guiding principle” of its journalism funding is “ensuring creative and editorial independence.” The spokesperson also noted that, because of financial pressures in journalism, many of the issues the foundation works on “do not get the in-depth, consistent media coverage they once did.… When well-respected media outlets have an opportunity to produce coverage of under-researched and under-reported issues, they have the power to educate the public and encourage the adoption and implementation of evidence-based policies in both the public and private sectors.”

As CJR was finalizing its fact check of this article, the Gates Foundation offered a more pointed response: “Recipients of foundation journalism grants have been and continue to be some of the most respected journalism outlets in the world.… The line of questioning for this story implies that these organizations have compromised their integrity and independence by reporting on global health, development, and education with foundation funding. We strongly dispute this notion.”

The foundation’s response also volunteered other ties it has to the news media, including “participating in dozens of conferences, such as the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Network, or the World Conference of Science Journalism,” as well as “help[ing] build capacity through the likes of the Innovation in Development Reporting fund.”

The full scope of Gates’s giving to the news media remains unknown because the foundation only publicly discloses money awarded through charitable grants, not through contracts. In response to questions, Gates only disclosed one contract—Vox’s—but did describe how some of this contract money is spent: producing sponsored content, and occasionally funding “non-media nonprofit entities to support efforts such as journalist trainings, media convenings, and attendance at events.”

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture.

Over the years, reporters have investigated the apparent blind spots in how the news media covers the Gates Foundation, though such reflective reporting has waned in recent years. In 2015, Vox ran an article examining the widespread uncritical journalistic coverage surrounding the foundation—coverage that comes even as many experts and scholars raise red flags. Vox didn’t cite Gates’s charitable giving to newsrooms as a contributing factor, nor did it address Bill Gates’s month-long stint as guest editor for The Verge, a Vox subsidiary, earlier that year. Still, the news outlet did raise critical questions about journalists’ tendency to cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power. 

Five years earlier, in 2010, CJR published a two-part series that examined, in part, the millions of dollars going toward PBS NewsHour, which it found to reliably avoid critical reporting on Gates. 

In 2011, the Seattle Times detailed concerns over the ways in which Gates Foundation funding might hamper independent reporting: 

To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces. Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.

Two years after the story appeared, the Seattle Times accepted substantial funding from the Gates Foundation for an education reporting project.

These stories offered compelling evidence of Gates’s editorial influence, but they didn’t attempt to investigate the full scope of the foundation’s financial reach into the fourth estate. (For perspective, $250 million is the same amount that Jeff Bezos paid for the Washington Post.)

When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used—often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works—which can help elevate its agenda in the news media. 

For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely cited authority on journalism ethics (and an occasional partner of CJR’s), earmarking the funds “to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.”

Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites, including Africa Check, and noted that she is “absolutely confident” that no bias or blind spots emerged from the work, though she acknowledged that she has not reviewed it herself. 

I found sixteen examples of Africa Check examining media claims related to Gates. This body of work overwhelmingly seems to support or defend Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation, which has spent billions of dollars on development efforts in Africa. The only example I found of Africa Check even remotely challenging its patron was when a foundation employee tweeted an incorrect statistic—that a child dies of malaria every 60 seconds, instead of every 108. 

Africa Check says it went on to receive an additional $1.5 million from Gates in 2017 and 2019. 

“Our funders or supporters have no influence over the claims we fact-check…and the conclusions we reach in our reports,” said Noko Makgato, executive director of Africa Check, in a statement to CJR. “With all fact-checks involving our funders, we include a disclosure note to inform the reader.” 

Earlier this year, McBride added NPR public editor to her list of duties, as part of a contract between NPR and Poynter. Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through ten charitable grants—all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works.

NPR covers the Gates Foundation extensively. By the end of 2019, a spokesperson said, NPR had mentioned the foundation more than 560 times in its reporting, including 95 times on Goats and Soda, the outlet’s “global health and development blog,” which Gates helps fund. “Funding from corporate sponsors and philanthropic donors is separate from the editorial decision-making process in NPR’s newsroom,” the spokesperson noted.

NPR does occasionally hold a critical lens to the Gates Foundation. Last September, it covered a decision by the foundation to give a humanitarian award to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, despite Modi’s dismal record on human rights and freedom of expression. (That story was widely covered by news outlets—a rare bad news cycle for Gates.)

On the same day, the foundation appeared in another NPR headline: “Gates Foundation Says World Not on Track to Meet Goal of Ending Poverty by 2030.” That story cites only two sources: the Gates Foundation and a representative from the Center for Global Development, a Gates-funded NGO. The lack of independent perspectives is hard to miss. Bill Gates is the second-richest man in the world and might reasonably be viewed as a totem of economic inequality, but NPR has transformed him into a moral authority on poverty. 

Given Gates’s large funding role at NPR, one could imagine editors insisting that reporters seek out financially independent voices or include sources who can offer critical perspectives. (Many NPR stories on Gates don’t: here, here, here, here, here, here.) Likewise, NPR could seek a measure of independence from Gates by rejecting donations that are earmarked for reporting on Gates’s favored topics.

Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined “Bill Gates Addresses ‘Tough Questions’ on Poverty and Power.” The “tough questions” NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter posted to his foundation’s website. With no irony at all, reporter Ari Shapiro asked, “How do you…encourage people to be frank with you, even at risk of perhaps alienating their funder?”

In the interview, Gates said that critics are voicing their concerns and the foundation is listening.

In 2007, the LA Times published one of the only critical investigative series on the Gates Foundation, part of which examined the foundation’s endowment holdings in companies that hurt those people the foundation claimed to help, like chocolate companies linked to child labor. Charles Piller, the lead reporter on the series, says he made strenuous efforts to get responses from the Gates Foundation during the investigation. 

“For the most part they were unwilling to engage with me. They were unwilling to answer questions and pretty much refused to respond in any sort of way, except in the most minimal way, for most of my stories,” Piller said.“That’s very, very typical of big companies, government agencies—to try to hope that whatever controversial issues have been raised in reporting will have limited shelf life, and they’ll be able to go back to business as usual.”

Asked about the dearth of hard reporting on Gates, Piller says the foundation’s funding may prompt newsrooms to find other targets.

“I think they would be kidding themselves to suggest that those donations to their organizations have no impact on editorial decisions,” he says. “It’s just the way of the world.”

Two journalists who have investigated Gates more recently cite what appear to be more explicit efforts by the foundation to exercise editorial influence. 

Writing in De Correspondent, freelance journalists Robert Fortner and Alex Park examined the limitations and inadvertent consequences of the Gates Foundation’s relentless efforts to eradicate polio. In HuffPost, the two journalists showed how Gates’s outsize funding of global health initiatives has steered the world’s aid agenda toward the foundation’s own goals (like polio eradication) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to disease outbreaks, like the Ebola crisis. (This narrative has been lost in the current covid-19 news cycle, as outlets from the LA Times to PBS to STAT have portrayed Gates as a visionary leader on pandemics.)

During the course of Fortner and Park’s reporting these two stories, the foundation went over their heads to seek an audience with their editors. Editors at both publications say this raised questions about Gates attempting to influence editorial direction on the stories.

“They’ve dodged our questions and sought to undermine our coverage,” says Park.

During Park and Fortner’s investigation for De Correspondent, the head of Gates’s polio communications team, Rachel Lonsdale, made an unusual offer to the duo’s editor, writing, “We typically like to have a phone conversation with the editor of a publication employing freelancers we are engaging with, both to fully understand how we can help you with the specific project and to form a longer term relationship that could transcend the freelance assignment.”

The news outlet said it rejected the proposition because of its potential to compromise the independence and integrity of its journalistic work.

In a statement, the foundation said Lonsdale “was conducting normal media relations work as part of her role as a senior program officer. As we wrote to Tim in December 2019, ‘As with many organizations, the foundation has an in-house media relations team that cultivates relationships with journalists and editors in order to serve as a resource for information gathering and to help facilitate thorough and accurate coverage of our issues.’ ”

Park says his editors stood behind his work on both stories, but he doesn’t discount the foundation’s efforts to put “a wedge between us and the publication…if not to assert influence outright, to give themselves a channel through which they could assert influence later.”

Fortner, meanwhile, says he mostly avoids pitching articles to Gates-funded news outlets because of the conflict of interest this presents. “Gates funding, for me, makes a good-faith pitching process impossible,” he says.

Fortner, who authored CJR’s 2010 story on Gates’s journalism funding, self-published a follow-up in 2016 that examined how Gates funding is not always disclosed in news articles, including fifty-nine news stories the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting funded in part with Gates’s money. The center also declined to tell Fortner which fifty-nine articles had Gates’s funding. 

If critical reporting about the Gates Foundation is rare, it is largely beside the point in “solutions journalism,” a new-ish brand of reporting that focuses on solutions to problems, not just the problems themselves. That more upbeat orientation has drawn the patronage of the Gates Foundation, which directed $6.3 million to the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN) to train journalists and fund reporting projects. Gates is the largest donor to SJN—supplying around one-fifth of the organization’s lifetime funding. SJN says more than half of this money has been distributed as subgrants, including to Education Lab, its partnership with the Seattle Times.

SJN acknowledges on its website “that there are potential conflicts of interest inherent” in taking philanthropic funding to produce solutions journalism, which SJN cofounder David Bornstein elaborated on in an interview. “If you are covering global health or education and you are writing about interesting models,” Bornstein said, “the chances that an organization [you are covering] is getting money from the Gates Foundation are very high because they basically blanket the whole world with their funding, and they’re the major funder in those two areas.” Asked if he could provide examples of any critical reporting about Gates emerging from SJN, Bornstein took issue with the question. “Most of the stories that we fund are stories that look at efforts to solve problems, so they tend to be not as critical as traditional journalism,” he said. 

That is also the case for the journalism Bornstein and fellow SJN cofounder Tina Rosenberg produce for the New York Times. As contract writers for the “Fixes” opinion column, the two have favorably profiled Gates-funded education, agriculture, and global health programs over the years—without disclosing that they work for an organization that receives millions of dollars from Gates. Twice in 2019, for example, Rosenberg’s columns exalted the World Mosquito Project, whose sponsor page lands on a picture of Bill Gates.

“We do disclose our relationship with SJN in every column, and SJN’s funders are listed on our website. But you are correct that when we write about projects that get Gates funding, we should specifically say that SJN receives Gates funding as well,” Rosenberg noted in an email. “Our policy going forward with the NY Times will be clearer and will ensure disclosures.”

My cursory review of the Fixes column turned up fifteen installments where the writers explicitly mention Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation, or Gates-funded organizations. Bornstein and Rosenberg said they asked their editors at the Times to belatedly add financial disclosures to several of these columns, but they also cited six they thought did not need disclosure. Rosenberg’s 2016 profile of Bridge International Academies, for example, notes that Bill Gates personally helps fund the project. The writers argue that SJN’s ties are to the Gates Foundation, not to Bill Gates himself, so no disclosure is needed.

“This is a significant distinction,” Rosenberg and Bornstein stated in an email.

Months after Bornstein and Rosenberg say they asked their editors to add financial disclosures to their columns, those pieces remain uncorrected. Marc Charney, a senior editor at the Times, said he wasn’t sure if or when the paper would add the disclosures, citing technical difficulties and other newsroom priorities. 

Likewise, NPR said it would add a financial disclosure to a 2012 story it published on the Gates Foundation, but did not follow through. (In the vast majority of articles about Gates, NPR makes disclosures.)

Even perfect disclosure of Gates funding doesn’t mean the money can’t still introduce bias. At the same time, Gates funding, alone, doesn’t fully explain why so much of the news about the foundation is positive. Even news outlets with no obvious financial ties to Gates—the foundation isn’t required to publicly report all of the money it gives to journalism, making the full extent of its giving unknown—tend to report favorably on the foundation. That may be because Gates’s expansive giving over the decades has helped influence a larger media narrative about its work. And it may also be because the news media is always, and especially right now, looking for heroes.

A larger worry is the precedent the prevailing coverage of Gates sets for how we report on the next generation of tech billionaires–turned-philanthropists, including Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates has shown how seamlessly the most controversial industry captain can transform his public image from tech villain to benevolent philanthropist. Insofar as journalists are supposed to scrutinize wealth and power, Gates should probably be one of the most investigated people on earth—not the most admired.

Reporting for this piece was supported by a fellowship from the Alicia Patterson Foundation.

 

The FDA is in on the vaccine cash cow train. I see this massive greedy grab for money, at the expense of the health and freedom of individuals, to push mandatory vaccines across the county. The reason the FDA banned it is because of the reasoning in Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the Supreme Court ruled mandatory vaccination permissible because the the small pox vaccine was “an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperilled an entire population.”

According to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the only way government can mandate forced vaccinations is by the 1) “effective” and  2) “best known way” test. If people continue to use hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) as part of a Covid-19 protocol and people see what success it has on curing patients, we can argue that the vaccine fails the “best known way” test. The new covid vaccine could also arguably fail the “effective” test as well, which I believe it will once we see how many adverse reactions people start having once they start taking it. 

The real reason the FDA banned HCQ because if doctors widely used HCQ right now the planned vaccine mandate would fail the “best known way” test and the FDA, NIH, Fauci, Gates, and big pharma players would loose billions of dollars. HCQ is a cheap drug. 

To rectify himself for joining the Gates vaccine brothel, Trump needs to issue an emergency use for HCQ immediately. Give people a chance to fight this. If Trump issues an emergency use for HCQ today, I will vote for him in November. 

Mr. Trump, get people to use HCQ, then let people see how well it works. Then we can come off lockdown and everybody can go back to work and play. You have the power to save billions of lives. Make America great again and do the right thing. Once you do it, everyone else will follow. Set an example for the world. Do not let another day go by without letting people have access to HCQ. The world is watching. America needs your help. 

This is the case that Pro Vaccine Choice people need to contend with to avoid any mandatory vaccine law that I anticipate will occur throughout the country.

There is a little wiggle room to avoid being forced to have the Covid shot, which is 1) a medical exemption, and 2) that the Covid Vaccine is not the best way to cure or prevent Covid. The court does not go into detail as what qualifies as a medical exemption because Jacobsen did not declare any medical conditions that would prevent him from getting the shot. The court found him “a fit subject of vaccination”. What does this “a fit subject of vaccination” mean? You could arguably list a whole series of allergic reactions to vaccine contents. We do not yet know what the Covid vaccine will contain, but it appears it will contain aborted fetal cells. See here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells

The second arguable area is that the court ruled mandatory vaccination permissible because the the small pox vaccine was “an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperilled an entire population.” So we have to ask ourselves then, is the Covid vaccine “the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of” Covid-19? Arguably no! We already have a plethora of evidence that Hydroxychloroquine and zinc (“HCQ”) can “meet and suppress the evils of” covid. Why did the FDA ban hydroxychloroquine….I believe it is because of this particular sentence in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where you could arguably say that HCQ has a better cure rate than the Covid vaccine. See this video of board-certified doctors confirming HCQ works: https://www.brighteon.com/3571f9ae-ec43-4254-8a56-1a931c250888.

Plus you have evidence coming out of Wuhan that a covid vaccine is not necessary to beat Covid-19, thus a mandatory vaccine is unnecessary. See Wuhan Pool Party here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRuCv0yxpaA

It is so important for our future freedom as the clouds of tyranny continue to collect on the horizon that we open our eyes and take action to spread the word that Wuhan has beaten covid without a vaccine, and we need to get the word out about HCQ and ask questions as to how Wuhan beat covid without a vaccine. Did they Wuhanites use HCQ? Did they use intravenous vitamin C? Did they use green tea? Did they use quercetin? Did they use glutathione? Did they use vitamin D? Did they use Azithromycin? Did they use colloidal silver? What did they use that made them successful? You would think people would be falling over each other scrambling to find out how Wuhan succeeded. Curiously the world seems silent. Whether you hate China or not, knowing how Wuhan beat covid without a vaccine will prove critical to your medical freedom in the United States. We are all connected. 

Furthermore, If Wuhan and China have beaten Covid-19 already without a vaccine, Covid-19 is no longer an “epidemic” for purposes of mandating vaccines for the general public. 

Perhaps as a last thought, is we have to inquire as to whether private individuals can sue the FDA for blocking access to HCQ. It is very important to get HCQ back on the market first because it will save lives that are needlessly dying because the FDA has blocked it. Second because when we have more evidence that it works, there is less incentive for a vaccine, especially one that is hastily rushed to market for election purposes. And third, I know of no Supreme Court case that has ruled in favor of mandatory forced medication. 

You can find the full case here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16169198038706839183&q=jacobson+v+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

“These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. The legislature assumed that some children, by reason of their condition at the time, might not be fit subjects of vaccination; and it is suggested — and we will not say without reason — that such is the case with some adults. But the defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was in fact not a fit subject of vaccination 37*37 at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health. It is entirely consistent with his offer of proof that, after reaching full age he had become, so far as medical skill could discover, and when informed of the regulation of the Board of Health was, a fit subject of vaccination, and that the vaccine matter to be used in his case was such as any medical practitioner of good standing would regard as proper to be used. The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe. Was defendant exempted from the operation of the statute simply because of his dread of the same evil results experienced by him when a child and had observed in the cases of his son and other children? Could he reasonably claim such an exemption because “quite often” or “occasionally” injury had resulted from vaccination, or because it was impossible, in the opinion of some, by any practical test, to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person could be safely vaccinated?

It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers, that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.”