If you are a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or other health professional administering these COVID shots, you may be wise to reconsider your participation in this scheme. A significant problem is there’s no way to provide or obtain informed consent.

“If you're injecting someone with these drug vaccine biologics, you are injecting them with something that you cannot possibly give them informed consent for, which means you're violating your Hippocratic Oath, you're violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty, you're violating the Nuremberg Code, you're violating the Declaration of Helsinki.

It's right across the board. It's not even something that you can pretend doesn't happen anymore. It's just in everybody's faces. And you can see that the powers that be are so stressed out right now that they are cajoling and coercing and manipulating and attacking. My friends in Italy tell me that vaccinated people are behaving in the same way that they did during World War II towards the Jews and the intellectuals.

"Anytime you are using a mandate, you are taking away the ability of the patient to give consent," Barrows argued. "In terms of justifying it, you have to have a clear and obvious good that is achieved that outweighs the removal of patient consent."

And let's remember, the first people Hitler put in concentration camps weren't the Jews. The first people were the intellectuals, because if you take the intellectuals and the doctors off the street, if you stop people from talking, you can control the people.

So, the pressure being put on the medical community in this country and in countries around the world to simply go along is nothing more than the equivalent of what Adolf Hitler and the SS did during World War II when they rounded up the intellectuals. One [thing] will lead to the next and there's nothing about this that has been a successful campaign to control an infectious virus …

All you have to do is read the emergency use authorization documents. I'm just stunned at how many people have not read these. I'm stunned at physicians not having read these.”

On flemingmethod.com, you can find several video presentations and PDFs where Fleming goes through the emergency use authorization documents. With that data in hand, Fleming suggests asking yourself some fundamental scientific questions, such as: “Is there any statistical difference in the number of people who developed COVID-19 or died among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?”

The answer provided in the documents is no. There is no statistical difference between the two groups. The vaccines do not statistically reduce COVID-19 infection or death thereof. There are fewer cases in absolute numbers, but statistically there’s no difference. Add to that the risk of side effects. If you take the shot, you risk developing inflammation and blood clotting.

The same people that were involved in the funding of this bioweapon are the same people that have interfered with doctors providing treatment to patients, and the same people that have been involved in the development of these vaccines. ~ Dr. Richard Fleming
As noted above, coerced administration of these shots violate any number of laws. Fleming also cites supreme court rulings in which the court ruled people have the right to choose their own health care.

“Rochin versus California had to do with an individual who was forced to undergo emetic medications to force him to vomit, to bring up things in his stomach. The Supreme Court said, ‘You do not have a right to force this medication on people.’

Griswold versus Connecticut showed that the U.S. government cannot take away the personal rights of health care in individuals unless there's some type of compelling and substantial reason, and then it has to be put into law. It can't come out of the executive branch.

Cruzan versus Director of Missouri Department of Health in 1990, specifically stated that patients have a right to refuse any treatment. You cannot force treatment on people. Well, this is forced treatment. This is coerced treatment.

And Doe v. Rumsfeld proved in 2004 that investigational drugs could not be forced upon people unless there is a presidential waiver or informed consent. Well, here's the kicker on presidential waiver, which is what they're going to go to.

Anybody who takes an oath of office — the president of the United States, senators, representatives to Congress, governors, police officers, judges, lawyers, administrative officials — cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. If they do, they've committed treason, by definition.

In the U.S. Constitution, it states that Treaty Law and the Constitution and statutes are the supreme law of the land. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically states that you cannot force people to take a drug; that they have to have informed consent, and that animal research has to have been done beforehand to prove it's safe.

So, if a president, including this one, issues an order that this is a mandate and is required, then he is violating the U.S. Constitution by violating Treaty and therefore has committed treason.

It's not only an impeachable offense, it is punishable by death because that's [the punishment for] treason. You can't force U.S. citizens to undergo forced experimentation.

And you can't get around that by doing something cute like having the FDA say, ‘Whoa, well, we've now approved it, OK?’ Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot force people to take a treatment and the only party that can change that is the Supreme Court.”