MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN & MEDICAL FREEDOM 

The right to bodily autonomy and the right to informed consent are basic civil liberties and fundamental principles of medical freedom. To support our basic right to medical freedom, we need to establish a clear separation of science and state in America, similar to the time-honored tradition of separation of church and state. Freedom and competition are the solutions to our healthcare crises and the antidote to medical tyranny.

Bodily autonomy is the right to control what happens to your body without the threat or use of violence, aggression, or negative consequences. 

Informed consent is inherently tied to bodily autonomy and is considered the standard of care. It involves providing patients with vital information, including potential risks and benefits regarding a medical procedure, treatment, genetic testing, or clinical trial. Full disclosure of these risks is essential. The ability to decline without force or coercion is crucial for proper informed consent. Informed consent is a competition-rich process in which the patient can choose whether the medical procedure is right for them, weighing the risks and selecting the doctors they believe are the most qualified. If one chooses to decline a medical intervention there can not be subsequent infringement of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are constitutional rights that can not be infringed.

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individuals’ rights. We therefore reject the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. The protection of individual rights and informed consent is paramount in the realm of healthcare. Our Constitution provides a solid foundation for defending these principles. To ensure a free and just society, we must continue to advocate for these principles and work.

Our Constitution exists to delimit government power, not to infringe upon our freedoms. It is our duty as both citizens and elected representatives to take action. Mere words on paper alone cannot safeguard our rights; we must stand up and vigorously defend our inalienable rights as declared in the Constitution, which serves as the cornerstone of our republic. It is imperative to hold our leaders accountable when their actions undermine the very principles they swore to protect.  As it relates to medical freedom the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments offer us protections.

The First Amendment: Private corporations such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube have the right to dictate what is on their platforms, similar to 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.' However, a violation of the First Amendment occurs when government officials force or coerce these companies to censor on their behalf. It is important to recognize that the pursuit of scientific discussion in the medical arena is essential for a free society. The government should have no role in the censorship of medical or scientific discussions, as science, as we know, is never settled. Debate and discourse in the scientific community are normal, expected, and healthy. In the end, patients alone must decide with informed consent what is right for them after private discussion with physicians who render recommendations based on medical opinion. Medical opinions are just that. Never should an opinion be based on coercive government intervention, or form the basis for governmental central planning.

Tenth Amendment: The federal government should not have power over healthcare or any other public health or safety matter. Such authority was not granted to the federal government and so was left to the states or to the people, by the Tenth Amendment. Public health and safety were not intended as federal authorities but were meant to be within the purview of states or the people. The government should not make healthcare decisions for individuals or force policies on businesses. Such intervention both violates personal freedom and stifles competition.

Fourteenth Amendment: All federal mandates lack a constitutional basis. The federal government and the governors of states do not have the constitutional authority to institute mandates under the guise of an emergency. The federal and state governments exist to protect Americans and their life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness and not be to the destroyer of civil liberties.

While it is true that our medical freedoms are constitutionally protected, in light of the recent events it would behoove us to have them explicitly enshrined.

The following is a proposed Medical Freedom 28th Amendment to the Constitution: “All people have the right to secure their health in the manner of their choice, subject only to the limitations of their personal values and means. No law shall be made nor shall any government action be taken to limit individual medical freedom, inhibit the flow of public information, undermine informed consent, violate medical privacy, impede medical choice, or coerce medical action.” Proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, https://www.themedicalfreedomamendment.org/index.html

Proposed Medical Freedom Action Items

• Repeal immunity created by the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The right to seek redress is more important than mere retrospective accountability. It is fundamental to incentivizing the prospective weighing of costs and benefits by the industry.
• Repeal immunity created by the PREP Act of 2005. Again the right to seek redress is more important than mere retrospective accountability. It is fundamental to incentivizing the prospective weighing of costs and benefits by the industry.
• Repeal the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. Eliminate the EUA designation it created. It is not for the betterment of the population for medications and vaccines/biologics to be rushed to market with inadequate safety and efficacy trials under the guise of an “emergency”. Even worse, this pathway led to the administration to the general population of known unsafe and ineffective treatments due to its many flaws, loopholes, as well as abuse by the decision makers and pharmaceutical industry. 
• Repeal Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This act inadvertently created the pathway for massive corruption between industry and regulators leading to escalating agency capture at the NIH and other Federal Agencies.
• Immediate cessation of any and all Gain of Function Research as well as cooperative pathogen research by HHS as well as any and all agencies of the Federal Government.  

Proposed MAHA Action Items:

• Work with the Department of Agriculture to promote local and regenerative farming practices.
• Establish and promote food freedom concepts to respect less-processed nutrition. 
• Require warning labels for foods and additives including items listed “natural and artificial flavors” that have not been tested for safety and may be harmful. A Food Additive workgroup can create a list of harmful food additives. This is already available in Europe as a list of banned substances. 
• All foods with GMO ingredients labeled prominently with information on safety studies and/or lack thereof.

As a campaign our purview is to promote American principles and the constitution. As politicians we recognize the power of our words, actions, and deeds in the media and the political area. Moving forward since we believe in separation of science and state, we will have no position on specific matters of science or medicine. We leave that to the scientists and doctors. With that said, we again reiterate that medical freedom and in particular informed consent are tantamount to a free society and are constitutionally protected. We encourage physicians and scientists to remember the basic tenets of medicine which is to first, do no harm and the important concepts outlined in the Ethical Guidelines put forth in the Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Code of Ethics, and the Belmont report. 

Current medical freedom bills that John Shulli supports:

Senator Rand Paul’s bill S.3853 and Congressman Paul Gosar’s companion bill H.R. 4668 to repeal the special liability protections granted to vaccine and biologic manufacturers. These bills restore plaintiffs’ right—denied since 1986—to choose civil lawsuits against manufacturers or compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). H.R. 4668 also removes COVID-19 vaccines from “covered countermeasures” status under the 2005 PREP Act, allowing civil action for related injuries.