By Mike Adams | Natural News
It is a fundamental and non-debatable scientific truth that all vaccines have inherent health risks. The spectrum of harm varies widely, from small skin rashes to full-blown neurological damage and lifelong debilitation. Some children have even been killed by vaccines, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out nearly $3 billion to families of children who were provably injured by vaccines in America.
The UK government, similarly, has just agreed to $90 million in financial compensation to victims who suffered permanent brain damage from another vaccine. (You will not find any truthful reporting on vaccine injuries in quackpot mainstream media publishers like the Washington Post, of course. They are largely funded by Big Pharma and therefore propagate the junk science delusion that vaccines never cause any injuries at all.)
Because vaccines have the potential to cause harm — and do indeed cause severe harm, injury and even death for some children — when they are forced upon people against their wishes and consent, they represent a form of medical violence against women and children.
“Vaccine Violence” is very real, in other words, and it is a form of violence against women and children that the state of California wants to commit via government coercion. That’s the whole point of SB 277, the so-called “vaccine mandate” law. It seeks to eliminate all religious or philosophical exemptions from vaccines, thereby forcing a potentially harmful medical intervention onto the bodies of children (and soon, adults) who did NOT give consent to the procedure.
As the SB 277 website explains, “If there is a RISK, there must be a CHOICE.”
Federal sentencing guidelines characterize a vaccine assault as a serious felony crime
As background on this point, it is important to note that individuals carrying the HIV virus have been charged with felony assault crimes for spitting on people or engaging in sexual intercourse with them.
The state of Ohio, for example, considers it a “felonious assault” to be an HIV-positive person and have sex with someone without informing them of your HIV status. (SOURCE) Those found guilty of this assault are sentenced to up to 11 years in prison.
This is because HIV-positive people are generally believed to carry live viruses which can enter another person’s body and cause them harm. This is precisely the same situation encountered with many vaccines, where faulty quality control procedures have resulted in “live” viruses being administered to people through polio vaccines (see the history of 98 million Americans exposed to cancer viruses via polio vaccines), MMR vaccines (which shed live viruses, causing the recently vaccinated to readily infect others), flu vaccines and many more.
According to federal law enforcement, a needle is categorized as a “weapon” in the context of a physical assault. For example, if you were to acquire the blood of an HIV-positive person, fill a syringe with it, then assault someone with that needle, you would not only be charged with a felony assault, but an assault with a deadly weapon (the needle).
Under Ohio law, for example, it is explained as: “…causing or attempting to cause serious harm with a deadly weapon or a firearm — referred to in the Ohio statutes as a ‘dangerous ordnance.'”
When administered without consent, a vaccine injection is a physical violation of a human body. The substance contained in the vaccine is provably harmful and, in some cases, even deadly. Under Ohio sentencing guidelines, an individual forcing a vaccination upon someone without their consent would be committing a “felonious assault with dangerous ordnance.”
Federal sentencing guidelines and vaccine violence
Under federal sentencing guidelines, a vaccine assault upon an individual without their consent would be considered an “aggravated assault,” part of the category of sentencing covering “offenses against the persons.”
As explained in this sentencing guidelines document, the “base offense level” of a vaccine assault (i.e. aggravated assault) is 14.
This document goes on to explain, “If the assault involved more than minimal planning, increase by 2 levels.” Because all vaccine violence against children is premeditated, it qualifies as “more than minimal planning.”
This sentencing guideline also explains “[if] a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was otherwise used, increase by 4 levels.” Because a needle containing a potentially dangerous substance is considered a “dangerous weapon” by all law enforcement organizations — including local police, the FBI, etc. — this elevates the vaccine violence to an even higher level.
If that needle weapon “…was brandished or its use was threatened, increase by 3 levels,” says the sentencing guidelines document.
Where injury occurs, the aggravated assault becomes even more serious
“If the victim sustained bodily injury, increase the offense level according to the seriousness of the injury,” says the federal sentencing guidelines document.
Bodily Injury = + 3 levels
Serious Bodily Injury = +5 levels
Permanent or Life-Threatening Bodily Injury = +7 levels
Permanent bodily injury would include brain damage or autism, by the way, both of which are caused by vaccines. Even the CDC has evidence that vaccines increase the risk of autism, as publicly admitted by CDC scientist and whistleblower William Thompson. We also know as an established fact that vaccines cause permanent brain damage. The UK government, in fact, just agreed to pay out $90 million in financial awards to families whose children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine.
Finally, this sentencing guideline document explains, “If the assault was motivated by a payment or offer of money or other thing of value, increase by 2 levels.”
Because virtually all doctors are financially influenced by vaccine manufacturers through extensive bribery networks, they are also guilty of being “financially motivated” to participate in the vaccine assault of an innocent child. This would add +2 levels to their sentencing. (Flashback: GlaxoSmithKline admits to running massive illegal bribery network involving 40,000 doctors across the United States. The U.S. Justice Dept. prosecuted this case after a company whistleblower stepped forward.)
In total, an act of vaccine violence against a non-consenting person would qualify, under U.S. federal sentencing guidelines, as a Base Offense Level of 22 even if no injury was sustained by the child. If an injury is sustained, that Base Offense Level could rise to 25, 27 or 29 in the case of permanent brain damage.
Why doctors committing vaccine violence against children would earn 41 months (or more) in federal prison
What do these numbers mean in terms of sentencing?
A base offense level of 29 would result in 87 months in federal prison.
An act of vaccine violence committed against a non-consenting person, if prosecuted by law enforcement authorities, could earn a doctor serious prison time regardless of whether the child was actually injured by the vaccine.
Will California parents start calling 911 and pressing assault charges against doctors?
All this brings up a very important question for Californians, SB 277, medical freedom and the rule of law.
If California claims to be a state operating under the rule of law, then laws regarding aggravated assault must apply equally to all people, including doctors. If an adult or child is forcibly violated against their consent with a needle weapon known to pose a real threat to that child’s safety, that act clearly qualifies as aggravated assault.
Under both federal and state law, parents who believe their children face the risk of imminent harm from a violent attack upon their bodies have every right to call 911 and request armed police officers come to their defense to stop the assault and arrest those attempting to commit those acts of violence.
I am now publicly predicting that, should SB 277 be signed into law, we will see a wave of California parents calling 911 to report their doctors while demanding the government press felony assault charges against medical personnel engaged in vaccine violence.
Doctors have no immunity against civil lawsuits stemming from vaccine violence
The civil prosecution of those administering forced vaccines upon children is not in any way protected by the legal immunity from liability which has been granted to pharmaceutical companies by Congress. That protection only exempts the drug companies from lawsuits of injury and harm caused by vaccines. It does not confer any legal immunity to doctors and medical personnel who personally engage in the acts of violence — i.e. administer the vaccines — against the consent of the parent(s).
In a court of law, there can be little doubt that a coercive violation of a child’s body with a potentially deadly substance is a violation of that child’s civil rights (and human rights). An assault with a vaccine needle is no less of a crime than an assault with a surgeon’s scalpel. Both are “medical instruments” which may cause permanent damage and even death.
The “intent” of the doctor administering the vaccine in no way immunizes that doctor from the letter of the law. Even if the doctor testifies that he “intends” to protect the child, that does not negate the fact that he willfully carried out a felony assault upon the body of that child with a dangerous weapon. There is exhaustive legal precedent to support my contention here. While intent is a factor in sentencing, it alone does not negate the act of assault with a dangerous weapon.
All that is necessary to see this happen is for parents to start calling the police
Fascinatingly, California parents already have the power to unleash this law enforcement campaign against anyone administering vaccines without consent. State and federal laws are written to protect innocent victims against their bodies being physically violated / assaulted, and citizens merely need to invoke those laws which already exist.
Parents who believe their children are being placed in harm’s way by vaccine violence might call 911, demand police arrive on the scene, and express their genuine belief that their children are about to be assaulted with a dangerous weapon. Of course, parents engaging in this action might risk a visitation by Child Protective Services, another enforcement arm of an oppressive government that demands obedience to the pharmaceutical industry’s profit agendas. So parents must carefully weigh the risks associated with their actions in this context. (Personally, I would never recommend a parent call 911 on a “vaccine violence” doctor unless they first consult with an attorney and have a solid legal strategy in mind.)
If hundreds (or thousands) of parents do this across the state, it would bring the issue of vaccine violence to the surface, demanding a legal review of the practice of physically violating a person’s body with a potentially harmful medical intervention in violation of medical ethics and medical consent. It might even result in the successful prosecution of a doctor for aggravated assault, sending an important message across the entire medical profession that you are not immune to the laws of the land. You may not commit acts of medical violence against children without simultaneously subjecting yourself to legal or civil consequences in a court of law.
Why SB 277 brings all this to the surface
When vaccines are optional, doctors injecting them are only engaged in a controversial “treatment.” But when vaccines are coerced by the state, doctors are now colluding with a state-sponsored system of coercion that combines medical violence with the threat of denying a child their right to an education. Thus, the doctor is now playing a key role in the coercion / collusion which demands a child be physically violated with a harmful substance administered via what law enforcement already recognizes as a “dangerous weapon.”
The doctor, in other words, is now a “co-conspirator” in the aggravated assault of the child. Under federal law, in fact, that doctor could technically be charged with conspiracy on top of the aggravated assault charge.
Suddenly, the doctor is in the position of carrying out an act of violence which is resisted by the parent. The context is now different: it’s no longer “medical treatment” but rather “medical violence.” Acts of violence against children are illegal under California law and federal law, opening up doctors to being charged, prosecuted and sentenced to prison for their role in the scheme.
Doctors may soon start requiring consent signatures from parents
For this reason, I now expect that many medical professionals in California who administer vaccines will begin requiring signatures on consent forms. This is their primary protection from being sued — or potentially arrested — if caught engaging in vaccine violence committed against a child.
Such “consent forms,” interestingly, would have to include detailed descriptions of the potential side effects of vaccines in order to be recognized as valid. If the forms fail to provide the parent with full details of the vaccine side effects, the parent can rightfully claim they were not given “informed consent” and would therefore have a very strong civil liability case against the doctor.
SB 277 is what changes the context of all this. If it is signed into law, it will force parents who are adamantly opposed to vaccines to have their children vaccinated without their consent. These parents are rightly motivated to protect the health and lives of their children, which is why I predict we will see all the following taking place if SB 277 is signed into law:
1) Parents calling 911 on their doctors and demanding they be arrested for felony assault via vaccine violence.
2) Parents hiring lawyers to file civil lawsuits against pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens where vaccines are administered.
3) Parents of vaccine-injured children who were coerced into vaccination by SB 277 mounting new challenges under civil rights law. A case most likely to receive media attention and social media traction would involve an African-American child damaged by vaccines who was forced to be vaccinated due to SB 277. Under a properly-configured legal challenge, this family could sue the state of California, the clinic administering and vaccine and possibly even take a vaccine injury challenge back to the U.S. Supreme Court which might overturn its previous decision on Big Pharma’s legal immunity. (The logic demands a review when the vaccines are now coerced rather than voluntary.)
In other words, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs SB 277 into law, he will unleash a “medical civil war” in California, involving protests from outraged parents and possibly even billions of dollars in medical liability on the state of California itself.
Sadly, the vaccine industry is so desperate to force compliance with its for-profit agenda that it will pull out all the stops to see this bill signed into law. Expect a medical civil war to erupt in California if Gov. Brown signs this, pitting doctors against patients… with law enforcement and civil rights attorneys thrown into the mix for good measure.
Source for this story include:
This article originally appeared on Natural News.