Introduction
Many appalling discoveries are made in man’s rush to understand the efficiencies of new tools, technologies, and techniques developed in peacetime that are, also, found to be useful for defeating the enemy in times of war. Whilst WWI ushered man into new frontiers of understanding modern warfare waged with weapons of mass destruction — delivered by aircraft and poisonous gases — it was WWII that perplexed even the cool, hyper-rational physicists working on the nuclear bomb. According to James Hijiya, Robert Oppenheimer raised eyebrows in military circles when he revealed his ambivalence toward that monstrous atomic weapon whose development he had led as he “wrestled with misgivings about bestowing upon humanity the possible means for its own annihilation”.[1] Oppenheimer dreaded both the failure and the practical success of the weapon during war.[2]
This article considers similar paths now being taken by those who have developed the weapons to fight what was initially framed in late 2019 as a mysterious deadly pathogen invading human bodies and analyzes the mental struggles men have met in their efforts to deploy the injectable products in the political rush (Warp Speed)[3] to contain this global threat known today as SARS-CoV-2. Thousands of peer-reviewed articles at React19[4] have reported on the destructive efficiencies of these technologies since their deployment in the fight against SARS-CoV-2, but, as of this writing, governing agencies overseeing their deployment have neither fully acknowledged nor acted responsibly on reports of their deleterious effects on human beings. Because of the consistent pattern of denials of the mounting empirical evidence offered freely in the scholarly scientific literature, we offer here, instead, the logic behind a potential legal case for the prosecution of fraud.
The central issue presented here is not merely the biological harm, but the material non-disclosure that precipitated it. While manufacturers are shielded from liability for injuries by legislation such as the PREP Act in the US, this immunity is contingent upon the absence of willful misconduct. Procedural fraud, specifically the concealment of material risks like functional DNA contamination, constitutes willful misconduct, thereby piercing the corporate veil of immunity. Consequently, the legal analysis presented herein rests on fundamental principles of common law applicable across jurisdictions, rather than being confined to a single national statute.
Background
Warfare often serves as a catalyst for the suspension of normative ethical standards. The world was alerted early on that COVID-19 was at the center of a fast-unfolding war needed to confront an unseen invader. In early 2020, for example, as The Washington Post called its readers to attention in order to instill public fear and panic, it also helped to sweep away from collective memory the right of the people to informed consent since the entire world was now “on a war footing.”[5] After all, most people seem to believe that individual human rights magically disappear from some unannounced inexplicable collective sacrifice in times of war. With the agenda-setting media erecting the only acceptable cognitive frame[6] for public talk of this new enemy, the mainstream news outlets across the globe were busy serving on the frontlines to feed the mass public the images and the data that would support the psychological front of the COVID operation organized, in part, to agitate citizens into forgetting their own basic rights and, thus, to line up in total compliance with the emerging “vaccination” mandates.
With a surprising survival rate of 99.86%[7] (slightly better than seasonal flu), the COVID-19 operation required controlled and carefully mediated theatrics[8], gaslighting campaigns[9], and major marketers of the narrative in mainstream culture to inflate case numbers[10],[11],[12] as a means of agitating emotions and maintaining optimum levels of public hysteria. The operation demonstrated the power in the practice of perception management at its finest.[13] Maybe the most salient case of synthetic hysteria was COVID’s body-count inflation in the United Kingdom, in the cultural context that saw retired human resources (pensioners) as a major economic drain no longer sustainable for profit extraction and no longer capable of production but fit, instead, for permanent retirement. It is hardly surprising in the larger political climate, so long feigning concern about manufactured fears over “population”[14] that the cool economic forces tasked to manage state budgets would not recognize an expedient remedy to the huge fiscal liability in a strategic retreat from care for those in need.
Colin Todhunter[15] reminds us, furthermore, of the curious rise in recent years of state-approved assisted suicide “across the world”,[16] which may also explain the bizarre orders given during the COVID operation to administer morphine and midazolam and to withdraw resuscitation[17],[18], often without family consultation, to the unconscious or incapacitated in care homes. The data, he points out, reveal that “the UK government purchased vast quantities of midazolam (two years’ worth of stock in just two months) in early 2020.” How might the unconscious and incapacitated in care homes have been informed of the predictable negative consequences of morphine-midazolam cocktails for respiratory ailments during this period of intense psychological pressure induced through coordinated risk communication? Were caregivers playing God instead of “doing no harm”?[19] Or were we witnessing the implementation of palliative pathways that effectively hastened mortality on a systemic scale?[20],[21] Questions such as these lead us to consider more carefully the claims and the limitations of “informed consent” and what role this international principle played during the height of the COVID operation.
How Informed is Consent?
The modern codification of this principle began taking shape over years from common conceptualizations regarding the legal and ethical requirements that a patient — or a participant in a medical procedure — must fully understand and freely agree to an intervention or research protocol. The contemporary legal mandate evolved from ancient ideals surrounding generally accepted ethical behavior. The historical development of “informed consent” began to appear in classical Greece with the Hippocratic Oath[22] (circa 4th Century BCE), which recognized the duty of the physician to act for the patient’s benefit, suggesting a relationship of tacit trust, though it did not explicitly mandate disclosure or patient autonomy in the modern sense.
The major movements toward a formal legal and international consensus were precipitated by wartime atrocities throughout the 20th century. The critical intersection in history was the Nuremberg Trials which gave birth to the Nuremberg Code[23] (1947). Following revelations during the Trials with testimony covering Nazi “medical” experimentations on prisoners, the Code established ethical principles with the first and most critical framed as voluntary consent: “Voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” This was the first explicit, legally-grounded international declaration that consent must be freely given, informed, and understood, thus making patient autonomy central.
Concepts of “informed consent” were later refined by the international medical community in the Declaration of Helsinki[24] (1964/2024), developed by the World Medical Association (WMA). Helsinki broadened the Nuremberg Code’s scope from trials of war criminals to a set of ethical principles for all medical research that called for the participation of human subjects, strengthening the requirements for written consent, risk assessment, and the right to withdraw without penalty.
The concept was further codified in the United States in the Belmont Report[25] (1979), following revelations of studies such as the CDC’s unethical Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. The Belmont Report established three key ethical principles — (a) respect for persons (autonomy); (b) beneficence; and (c) justice — with “respect for persons” underpinning the need for informed consent as a keystone of medical ethics grounded currently in United States federal regulation.
Given the historical development of the post-war pesticides-pharmaceutical industry, its roots in the work of IG Farben, the development of Zyklon B (BASF)[26], and the industry’s profitability, it may be unsurprising to readers that just over 30 years was needed before a fully coherent and widely acceptable agreement on “informed consent” could be internationally ratified.
While the term “informed consent” was formally coined in the mid-20th century, the legal framework was erected in the wake of WWII and the international commitment to the Nuremberg Code — a principle emerging from the collective recognition that even during war (or national emergencies), an individual’s rights are inalienable, that human beings are autonomous creatures and possess voluntary will, and that any exercise of state or medical power must proceed from these rights.
Since the global rollout of the mRNA injectable gene therapies (“vaccines”) in 2020, questions on everyone’s mind — still occupied by traumatic memories of COVID-era coercion and abuse — are what happened to the tradition of international commitment to the principles of “informed consent”? Have human beings been suddenly dispossessed of their fundamental rights?
The Material Breach: Procedural Divergence and Nondisclosure
The exuberant rush taken by major centers of global power to breach bodily autonomy and basic rights was on full display. Modified RNA (modRNA) vaccines, authorized for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic, have been administered to billions of people worldwide. Since their rollout, however, a wide range of adverse events has been reported across multiple countries. Recent reports coming from Korea (2025)[27] and Italy (2025)[28] offer perspectives on the concerning scope of the unfolding problem. Following on most recently have been Kuperwasser and El-Deiry (2026) who repeat the alarm in their paper “COVID Vaccination and Post-infection Cancer Signals: Evaluating Patterns and Potential Biological Mechanisms.”[29] This most recent systematic review raises a fundamental question: at the time mass vaccination began, were individuals — and the medical professionals advising them — provided with information sufficient to constitute truly informed consent?
The question is no longer whether the modRNA vaccines were justified, but whether the legal framework that enabled them can withstand judicial scrutiny.
According to documents[30] recently disclosed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), plasmid DNA containing SV40-related sequences was present in Pfizer’s Comirnaty (INX100594280: PF-07302048 (Comirnaty) Residual DNA Characterization Report). At the time of emergency authorization, however, neither the Comirnaty package insert nor the publicly available regulatory review reports specified that the plasmid used in manufacturing contained SV40-related sequences, even though the use of a plasmid itself was acknowledged.
Crucially, the SV40 promoter sequence, which has long been recognized in the literature as a regulatory element with the functional capacity for nuclear entry [31], is not a passive manufacturing by-product. Rather, it constitutes a regulatory-relevant functional genetic element containing sequences documented in the literature to facilitate nuclear import. SV40 DNA sequences should not be regarded as mere residual fragments. They are, instead, more appropriately understood as sequences with inherent biological activity — akin to executable computer instructions — capable of operating within a biological system. Recognizing this conceptual framework is essential to understanding the argument we are laying out.
While the manufacturer may argue that this sequence serves solely to enhance plasmid yield during bacterial fermentation, biological mechanisms are agnostic to industrial intent. The SV40 enhancer acts independently of the manufacturer’s purpose; it functions as a “key” that fits a specific cellular “lock.” In a court of law, as in biology, the functional outcome of a mechanism supersedes the stated intent of its designer. As established in foundational research, the SV40 enhancer contains a specific DNA nuclear targeting sequence (DTS) that actively recruits transcription factors to facilitate the transport of genetic material into the nucleus, a process mechanistically distinct from passive intracellular diffusion.[32],[33]
Consequently, the independent detection of these non-disclosed, functional sequences in commercial vials[34],[35] qualitatively distinguishes this material from inert molecular debris. Legally, the presence of functional genetic codes (SV40 promoters) reclassifies this so-called ‘contaminant’ as an undeclared active component. These facts elevate the issue from a mere quantitative defect in purity to an unauthorized alteration of the product’s identity, rendering the original authorization inapplicable to the distributed product.
This particular aspect of the undisclosed change raises at least two important counterfactual questions. (1) Had such information been disclosed in advance, would billions of people worldwide have chosen to receive the modRNA vaccine? (2) Would healthcare providers, despite being encouraged, indeed incentivized, to administer injections[36], have followed the script?
Even more fundamentally, regulatory documents[37] indicate that the modRNA used in clinical trials (Process 1) was manufactured using a different process from the modRNA ultimately produced at commercial scale and administered to the public (Process 2).
This distinction is not a minor technicality. In regulatory science, safety and efficacy assessments are inherently product-dependent. Differences in manufacturing processes can alter impurity profiles, residual nucleic acids, and translational byproducts, all of which may directly affect biological behavior and toxicity.
For this reason, clinical evaluation is, in principle, required to be conducted on the same product that is ultimately placed on the market. At minimum, full comparability between the clinical trial material and the commercial product must be rigorously demonstrated.
The use of one manufacturing process for clinical trials (Process 1) and a different process for mass production (Process 2), without transparent demonstration of equivalence, represents a fundamental breach of this regulatory principle. As a result, many individuals appear to have made their vaccination decisions based upon safety and efficacy data derived from Process 1, while the formulation actually administered to them corresponded to Process 2.
This astonishing disconnect between the clinical trial material and the commercially deployed product raises serious questions about the informational basis upon which consent was obtained.
The disconnect between the clinical trial material (Process 1) and the commercially deployed product (Process 2) represents a classic, legally cognizable ‘bait-and-switch’ scenario. The public consented to the safety profile of Product A, but were injected with Product B. Legally, this is not a medical error; it is a breakdown of the contractual basis for authorization.
Defenders of the regulatory agencies may argue that omissions were made in “good faith” due to the urgency of the pandemic — that the failure to disclose SV40 sequences was an oversight, not a crime. However, the law recognizes a concept known as “constructive fraud.” Unlike actual fraud, which requires proof of malicious intent to deceive, constructive fraud arises from a breach of a legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of the moral guilt of the fraudster, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others or to violate public or private confidence. Specifically, the non-disclosure of functional SV40 sequences satisfies the core elements of fraud: material misrepresentation (omission of facts), reliance (public trust in safety), and resulting harm (deprivation of informed choice and violation of bodily autonomy).
In the context of mass medical intervention, the manufacturer and the regulator hold a fiduciary position of trust. In such a relationship, silence regarding a material fact—such as the presence of functional genetic elements — is not merely negligence; it is the legal equivalent of a false representation. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) grants permission to expedite administrative hurdles; it does not grant a license to misrepresent the biological composition of the product. Therefore, even if the intent was benevolent, the suppression of material facts voids the “meeting of the minds” required for consent, rendering the administration of these products a medical battery. Since consent was obtained for a product without SV40 sequences, the injection of a product with such sequences potentially constitutes an unauthorized physical trespass, regardless of the biological outcome.
In this context, the discovery of undisclosed DNA contamination — specifically SV40-related sequences — is not merely a quality control issue; it is a procedural fatal error. Regulatory immunity assumes honest disclosure. However, hiding functional genetic elements under the vague label of ‘residual DNA’ constitutes a misclassification of material fact. If regulators were aware of the SV40 promoter’s functional capacity and yet failed to mandate its disclosure to the public, they abdicated their duty, rendering the consent process void. If they were unaware because the manufacturer characterized it merely as inert debris, then the fraud was perpetrated against the regulator as well. In either scenario, the end-user — the human being whose body is the vessel for this product — was denied the critical information necessary to assess the risk of a genetically active contaminant. By failing to disclose this material information in regulatory submissions, the manufacturer has arguably voided the very contract that grants them immunity (unintended pun).
Even if regulators argue that DNA quantities were below established thresholds, the legal issue is not quantitative toxicity but qualitative non-disclosure.
The central debate, therefore, is no longer about the amount of DNA or the degree of biological risk — a distinct quagmire of endless scientific interpretation — but about the fact of non-disclosure. In law, a camouflaged risk is a procedural fraud, and fraud vanquishes all defensive shields.
Crucially, the amount of DNA is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The key issue is procedural: undisclosed material information. This fact reframes the debate away from prolonged risk–benefit arguments and places it squarely into binary legal questions (Yes / No) that cannot be delayed indefinitely.
The sound structure of this reasoning does not depend upon proving biological harm, nor does it presume intent; it rests solely on the integrity of regulatory disclosure as a precondition for lawful consent. Once material non-disclosure and process divergence are established, the question is no longer whether informed consent was imperfect, but whether it was possible at all.
If informed consent could not be meaningfully obtained, then the legal and regulatory assumptions that justified emergency authorization (EUA) and manufacturer immunity must be fully re-examined. Avoiding that re-examination is no longer a scientific choice, but a regulatory and ethical one.
Conclusion
Although morality and ethics remain undeniably important in complex modern societies, ethical debates tend to end in a stalemate since ethical standards and definitions of ethical behavior are subject to context, cultural trends, and the passing of time. This unstable ground appears especially to be the case for COVID-19 as it has been interpreted across cultures throughout the world. While these reasons may seem satisfying at first glance, we believe that the issues humanity now faces can and must be resolved through the courts.
In this article we have shown that the central problem is a matter of law. One need not possess specialized medical or academic training to see that fundamental legal principles appear to have been violated, that procedural governance has been circumvented, and public accountability left undone.
Law, unlike ethics, demands procedural clarity, rhetorical precision, and enforceable standards, making litigation the only remaining authoritative framework capable of producing concrete accountability and resolution. If we can go on pretending that we live in a civilised society, that “the rule of law”[38] still matters, we should be able to pretend, at least, that the necessary redress of grievances for harms done during COVID will produce the enforcement of law and the restoration of regulatory integrity for the transgressions we have presented here. Recent legislative moves, such as Senate Bill S.3853[39] introduced to challenge liability shields, indicate a shifting political landscape. However, legislative reform takes time. Immediate justice for current victims requires the judicial recognition of procedural fraud as detailed herein.
To restore regulatory integrity, we propose the immediate enforcement of mandatory sequence-level disclosure for all genetic products and independent verification of product comparability between clinical trial batches and commercial lots. Without these procedural safeguards, informed consent remains a fiction.
References
[1] Hijiya, J. A. 2000. The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 144(2) https://ia802907.us.archive.org/8/items/gitaandoppenheimer/Gita and Oppenheimer_text.pdf
[2] Barnett, L. 1949. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life magazine, 10 Oct. 133
[3] DARPA. 2020/4/6 The DARPA Difference: Pivoting to Address COVID. DARPA. https://www.darpa.mil/news/2021/covid-19
[4] React19. 2025. Scientific Publication Directory. Database. https://react19.org/science
[5] Allen, D., 2020. America Needs to be on a War Footing. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/20/america-needs-be-war-footing/
[6] Sullivan, K. 2023. Three Levels of Framing. WIREs: Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1651
[7] Joffe, A. R. 2021. COVID-19: Rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Frontiers in Public Health. 9,625778:1-25 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778/full
[8] NYC Mayor Chomps on Fries to Promote Vaccine Incentive Scheme With Burger Chain. Storyful News & Weather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTFTzIt6Ry0&t=4s
[9] COVID-19 Nurse Dance Compilation. 2020. Going Viral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRJq_S9R2O0
[10] Basile, K., Maddocks, S., Kok, J., and Dwyer, D. E. 2020. Accuracy amidst ambiguity: False positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests when COVID-19 prevalence is low. Pathology, 52(7):809–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2020.09.009
[11] Lee, S. H. 2020. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in cellular components by routine nested RT-PCR followed by DNA sequencing. International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation 2(1):69-96. http://www.dnalymetest.com/images/IJGeriatRehabLee_on_SARSCoV2_test.pdf
[12] Lyons-Weiler, J. 2021. Plan B public health infrastructure and operations oversight reform for America. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 1(2):283-294. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/19
[13] Dearth, D. H. 2002. Shaping the ‘Information Space’ Journal of Information Warfare. 1(3):1-15.https://www.jstor.org/stable/26504099
[14] Gates, B. 2010. Innovating to Zero. TED. https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=273
[15] Todhunter, C. 2025. Land of Confusion: The Great Reset in Motion. Counter Currents. https://countercurrents.org/2025/12/land-of-confusion-the-great-reset-in-motion/
[16] Walsh, F. 2024. How Assisted Dying Has Spread Across the World and How Laws Differ. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dpwg1lq9yo
[17] Sidely, G. 2025. Let’s not forget the mass casualties of the covid RESPONSE – Part III:
‘Do Not Resuscitate’ orders and Midazolam. Manipulation of the Masses. https://garysidley.substack.com/p/lets-not-forget-the-mass-casualties-8ac
[18] Adams, S. 2020. Did care homes use powerful sedatives to speed Covid deaths? Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8514081/Number-prescriptions-drug-midazolam-doubled-height-pandemic.html
[19] Menage, J. 2021. Assisted Dying is Open to Abuse. British Medical Journal. https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2128/rr-11
[20] Davis, I. 2021. Planned Euthanasia Does Not Constitute Healthcare – No Matter How Hard You Clap For It. OffGuardian. https://off-guardian.org/2021/08/11/planned-euthanasia-does-not-constitute-healthcare-no-matter-how-hard-you-clap-for-it/
[21] Amnesty. 2020. UK: Older people in care homes abandoned to die amid Government failures during coronavirus pandemic – new report. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/uk-older-people-care-homes-abandoned-die-amid-government-failures-during-coronavirus/
[22] Cannon, B. D. 2024. Hippocratic Oath. EBSCO Knowledge Advantage. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/hippocratic-oath
[23] THE NUREMBERG CODE [from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.] https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/librariesprovider41/default-document-library/the-nuremberg-code-1949.pdf?sfvrsn=d8fb8821_2
[24] Helsinki. 2024. Declaration of Helsinki revisions: our response to the consultation. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/declaration-helsinki/
[25] https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_appendix_belmont_report_vol_2.pdf
[26] BASF. Chemical Warfare Agents and Zyclon B. BASF. https://www.basf.com/global/en/who-we-are/history/chronology/1925-1944/1933-1945/kampfstoffe-und-zyklon-b
[27] Song, J., Jeong, S., Chun, A.-Y., Jung, J., Park, S.-J., and Park, S-M. 2025. Incidence of respiratory infections after the COVID-19 pandemic (2023-2024) and its association of vaccination among entire populations in Korea, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 162: 108194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2025.108194
[28] Martellucci, C. A., Capodici, A., Soldato, G., Fiore, M., Zauli, E., Carota, R., De Benedictis, M., Di Marco, G., Di Luzio, R., Flacco, M. E., Manzoli, L. 2025. COVID-19 vaccination, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for cancer: 30-month cohort study in an Italian province. EXCLI Journal. 24:690–707. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2025-8400
[29] Kuperwasse, C. and El-Deiry, W. S. 2026. “COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms,” Oncotarget. 17:1-29. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28824
[30] INX100594280: PF-07302048 (Comirnaty) Residual DNA Characterization Report. https://www.ghr.agency/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/comirnaty-residual-dna-characterization-report_en.pdf
[31] Banerji, J., Rusconi, S., and Schaffner, W. 1981. Expression of a beta-globin gene is enhanced by remote SV40 DNA sequences. Cell. 27(2):299-308. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6277502/
[32] Dean, D. A. 1997. Import of plasmid DNA into the nucleus is sequence specific. Experimental Cell Research, 230(2), 293-302. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9024788/
[33] Dean, D. A., Dean, B. S., Muller, S., & Smith, L. C. 1999. Sequence requirements for plasmid nuclear import. Experimental Cell Research, 253(2), 713-722. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10585295/
[34] Kämmerer, U., Schulz, V., and Steger, K. BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2024 Dec 03; v5.2019-2024 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386414408_BioNTech_RNA-Based_COVID-19_Injections_Contain_Large_Amounts_Of_Residual_DNA_Including_An_SV40_PromoterEnhancer_Sequence
[35] Speicher, D. J., Rose, J., & McKernan, K. 2025. Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada. Autoimmunity, 58(1), 2551517. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40913499/
[36] Massie, T. 2023. Your primary care provider was bribed to suggest you take the COVID vaccine. https://providers.anthem.com/docs/gpp/KY_CAID_PU_COVID19VaccineProviderIncentiveProgram.pdf?v=202110121818
[37] EMA. 2021. Assessment Report. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
[38] Courts, US. 2025. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law
[39] Paul, R. 2026. S.3853 – A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to end the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers, and for other purposes. Congress.gov https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3853
(Featured Image: “Sign with text ‘Freedom to choose. Informed consent. Bodily integrity. Nuremberg code’. Protest against vax mandate in Austria” by Ivan Radic is licensed under CC BY 2.0.)
