Available Soon: Request your printed copies of the Idaho Freedom Index mailed to you!
Request Your Copies

Vaccine mandate should be viewed as assault, invasion of privacy

Vaccine mandate should be viewed as assault, invasion of privacy

Wayne Hoffman
August 3, 2021
Wayne Hoffman
Author Image
August 3, 2021

The Idaho lawmakers defending Big Medicine’s decision to impose vaccine mandates on their employees, contractors, and volunteers are trying to make it out as if they’re unable to intervene in an employer-employee relations question. I’ve already explained why such arguments are disingenuous (Hint: lawmakers regulate businesses all the time) but it’s important to remind people that this is not an employment matter. 

It’s about assault, and it’s about medical privacy. 

No one should have the power to force another human being to undergo any kind of medical procedure unless that procedure is freely agreed to. This has been the standard since the adoption of the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which established that voluntary consent for any medical procedure is essential. 

The code states that a person is able to “exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Telling someone that they must have a vaccine in order to work, play, travel, or simply exist is a form of coercion.

It’s easy enough to see how this coercion could be viewed as a form of assault. I recognize that Idaho law would probably have to be changed a little bit to make such a charge stick, but bear with me a little: Say you’re walking down the street, and a random stranger ordered you to put something in your body as a condition for continuing on your way. Would that be much different from a stranger sticking you with a hot iron and branding you? Or roughing you up a little? Would it be acceptable for a business concerned about employee pregnancies to force folks to be sterilized? There’s nothing special or sacrosanct about the use of force against a person because it’s happening in a workplace.

Additionally, no one should have the power to make you surrender your medical privacy as a condition for employment, travel, assembly, or housing. No one should have the power to make you reveal which vaccines you’ve had or medical ailments you suffer from. And no one should be forced to wear a special name badge, bracelet, or other marker in order to distinguish them as vaccinated or unvaccinated. 

Whether being forced to provide confidential medical records or put something into their body against their will, the unwilling party has no choice. They’re not doing it because they want to – they’re doing it because someone else wants them to. 

So clearly this is beyond an employment matter. It may be that businesses big and small are trying to be vaccine enforcers. But in doing so, these businesses have taken from individuals their ability to act, denying people their God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the proper role of government to protect those rights. 

View Comments
  • T. Christensen says:

    I work in the medical field (family practice). I agree completely with what Wayne has written here. Thank you for your voice.

  • KF says:

    Thank You! This is a gathering Nuremberg Code, Ama policy, medical privacy, sovereignty of my own body! Medical Tyranny and Medical Genocide.

  • Michael Tillery says:

    My understanding is that since the “vaccine” is under EUA, Emergency Use Authorization, no one, not government, not employers, not businesses, can compel anyone to take this experimental treatment. This violates bioethics rules; disclosure of risk, comprehension of risk and willing consent.

  • Dan Foreman says:

    I fully agree with your analysis Wayne. Holding one’s right to work, travel, seek education or engage in commerce hostage to a vaccine requirement is antithetical to the God-given rights enumerated in our Constitution. We must all stand up for our rights, or they will quickly become privileges selectively enabled by the hand of government. And this we will not allow.

    • Keara Donahue says:


    • Mark Arrowood says:

      Which God given right has been violated? In searching the constitution no where did I find that God gave anything. Please explain this as well.

      • Deep Midnight says:

        Life. Liberty. Property. https://nccs.net/blogs/our-ageless-constitution/creator-endowed-rights-the-foundation-of-americas-constitution

        Mark, I am very concerned that you somehow missed this, as the declaration of independence is super important to understanding which planet you live on.

        The creators of these documents were very wise men, wise enough to know that we would eventually become entitled, child like, and unable to keep our republic.

        God does not require your belief in order for you to enjoy these rights. These rights were written in to our documents for a simple reason: no one can take away rights that God gave us. Otherwise we would all be dependent upon the whims of would be kings for our daily bread.

        Religiously speaking, however, God - above all - wanted you to be free. He was not a fan when we demanded our first king and perhaps is still not a fan.

        This country is so unique and special. We are the freest in the world, and besides all the foreign interference we are the wealthiest. Revel in that as you see our great nation burn to the ground due to child like populations putting bubble gum in each others hair. And even beyond, our culture is being deleted. Anything from Coke to sports to our national anthem. What is happening here is far larger than these gotcha moments we see so frequently on the comment section. We are being deleted, and if you look into history, you might be able to see where we are going next.

        Christian belief systems are actually pretty good at creating a stable society that can accomplish really just about anything. In particular the westerns Christian belief systems.

        But our founders were men, and man kind is flawed. So much so that you would be an idiot to give up your sovereign self to any man, blood oath or otherwise. Despite their flaws of hell fire clubs and sometimes even luciferianism (Mason), what they produced in this country was and is something that not even a single soft person of today could come close to. I personally am in awe of these men despite their religious beliefs that I am aware of but do not subscribe to.

        My point is...go explore. Learn. It really is an amazing journey and even a little frightful. Take for example Washington, I believe, who rode out having sever and constant diarhea. He got things done. Do you know of a single current person who could ride with brown running down his leg? I cant find a single example of that caliper of man. Instead we have degenerated into whimpering children waiting for gotcha moments. Having exchanged genuine glory for temporary moments of internet fame.

        • Al says:

          I would say that Mark was questioning Dan about constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independemce is an entirely different document.
          And i concur with Mark. There are so many people claiming thei constitutional rights are violated but so rare is it when a person can articulate a basis for that claim. I ask the same as Dan. Which constitutional provision is he pointint to here?

          • Deep Midnight says:

            Thank you. I apricate you pointing out that I am neither Mark or Dan as I sometimes worry that people mistake my handle as a vain attempt to hide that I am both. Believe me, people get frustrated when they cant at least pretend to know who I am. It causes consternation for them. However, in such a world where children place bubblegum in each others hair, I am not willing to be doxed and have my life canceled.

            I think I understand better the other side of things.

            It looks to me like you view each document having nothing to do with one another, whereas I view each document building upon each other or at least equal in intent.

            It appears to be the same argument as whether we are a democracy or a republic. Much of the left sees us as a democracy, whereas much of the right as a republic. Honestly, neither are true. We are a democratic republic in intent, but this may not be so in practice. In intent, its the combination of both that makes it work.

            Likewise, in my view, the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights work together and should never be viewed as separate. Its kind of the same as how I view Christ and the Father. They are the same, but build upon one another. Or the old testament verses the new. Each built upon each other and while I suppose someone could view them as separate, it is not wise. For example, did you know that Jesus plainly stated he did not come here to abolish the fathers law but rather to fulfill it? This law will not be fulfilled until his second coming. Thus, we should not be eating pork, and the sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. By accepting the sabbath on Sunday, we are acknowledging the Popes authority above God. This makes us Babylon. Which is what I was hinting toward in my previous intrusion on this article.

            My point is, why must we always be separate and unequal when it was intended for us to be together and equal? A well oiled machine needs many components to function; in this case it needs both the left and the right in order to achieve consensus; both democracy and republic, both Jesus and the Father. This requires an understanding that the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are actually intended to be the same or at the very least built upon each other.

            I very much enjoy building others up instead of tearing them down and so I am probably prone to understanding things in this frame. Though in my understandings of what this world actually is, I believe I am pretty on course.

            To anyone who is interested, Ron and Rand Paul used to sell a copy of his pocket constitution which included all 3 documents. I dont know if he still does, but I find it to be a very good resource to have. Additionally, skyhorse publishing sells a bill of rights primer that is super detailed, and the George Washington Papers are really good too.

            Anyhow, thanks a bunch AL. This new insight that you have provided will help simmer the storm brewing inside me as to how divided we will all fall. I worry about the men in this country, chiefly that there are none, and I worry about the women, chiefly that they have turned into men. I worry about the children becoming used to being spied upon and not being taught anything about America other than white boys like me are somehow racist for breathing. I worry about all of us, as I believe I have a pretty clear understanding of where all this is going.

            My thanks to the comment moderator for your patience with my long comments. For your sake, I shall take a break.

        • Al says:

          Here's the dilemma, then Deep Midnight: if you believe God created the "right" to employment free from undesirable conditions of employment, and (despite no such reference in state or federal constitution), wouldn't you also have to agree that God gave the same unalienable right to employ whom we want and set any such conditions of employment as we want?
          If BOTH rights are God-given, why are we willing to violate one over the other?
          Who are we to decide, for example, that a nurse's "right" to work for St Lukes without vaccine trumps the hospital's right to terminate that nuse's employment?
          There is NOTHING in the constitution about this. If I am wrong, then someone can point out in the constitution a specific provision on this.
          I'm a believer. Baptised, church-going servat, but I disagree with the logic here.

    • Al says:

      Citing the constitution for support on this has its limits. How do you respond to the Jacobson case 100 years ago, which is still valid law?


    • Al says:

      I keep asking people and never get an answer: what specific provisoon of the constitution provides "the right to work"? And more particularly prohibits a private employer from mandating certain conditions as a term of employment?
      The burden here is on employees to prove their rights are violated, and the allegation has to be made with specificity. Otherwise, its just blustering.

  • Keara Donahue says:

    PLEASE put a GETTR option for posting! I got this via email but I want to share it to my social media and I don’t participate in the social media options you have listed. Most conservatives don’t. TELEGRAM, PARLER and GAB also.

  • Sandy Thomas says:

    The EudraVigilance European database reports that through July 31, 2021 there are 20,595 deaths and 1,960,607 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

    From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (968,870) are serious injuries.

    CDC: 11,940 DEAD 618,648 Injuries and 1,175 Unborn Babies DEAD Following COVID-19 Shots
    So no I won’t be getting the jab, it is a personal choice.
    Thanks for your analysis Wayne.

    • Mark Arrowood says:

      Site your sources, I scoured the EudraVigilance European database looking for any report that vaguely matches your assertion and found nothing. Please cite the exact report or post it would be even better.

  • Lynda says:

    I moved to Idaho as I understood it's people and legislative bodies acted differently from the liberal state I left. Governor Little and all our elected representatives should be ashamed of themselves.The tyrannical business overreach regarding mandated covid vaccines, and the silence from our representatives is deafening! ..disgusting! Governor Little, Senator Crapo, Senator Raisch, best have other employment lined up. They will not get votes at reelection time from me, my family, or firends!

  • Gary Koontz says:

    Any erosion of the rights conferred by Nature’s God, and articulated, in the Bill of Rights is prohibited by the constitution. Allowing any such erosion will weaken the bond, and ultimately separate this government from the constitution restraining it.

  • Keith Newberry says:

    I agree. How do we implement this, because the coercion is here. The Texas nurses, for example, that were fired for not getting this vaccine. Many people are going to have to make this decision soon.

  • Mark Arrowood says:

    You’re peddling trash. This is an at-will employment state. These demons that you speak of provided a choice to the employee, get vaccinated or find employment elsewhere. It’s a simple request. Much like random drug testing or medical evaluations to fly a plane. You must meet the employer’s criteria in order to satisfy the job requirements.

    Additionally, it is because of you and your ilk that many more people will die from COVID. You promote freedom and preach fear.

    • Al says:

      In addition, those hospitals have already had in place conditions of employment other vaccines. It didnt get political until THIS vaccine was grouped into existing policies. The law hasnt changed but the politization of the COVID vaccine created this

  • Cheryl says:

    Mandating the EUA 'injections' which are not safe or effective or free (as falsely claimed on their billboards) is wrong on every level. Our so-called BLUE RINO 'government' is also wrong on every level. If they do not uphold our rights, are they any good to Idaho at all? None. No good for Idaho. This is one more manifestation of their corruption. Goes right along with their Unethical 'Ethics' Committee. Ethical (Webster): syn. moral, upright, honest, righteous, virtuous, honorable; ant. immoral.

    • Al says:

      "Mandating" the injections, i agree, would be wrong right now. But thats not whats going on. And as to the safety factor, read Dr Livingstones comments in the july 16 article. I wont speak on a dubject i am not trained on so read his opinion.

  • Mark Martin says:

    Very well stated! Completely agree.

  • Terry F says:

    I’ll say what most are thinking: we are at the precipice of an armed conflict with an out of control illegitimate government. Talking doesn’t work and our courts are compromised. Let me know when to suit up and boot up. I’m sick of talking and acting like this can be resolved legally or peaceably.

    • Mark Arrowood says:

      Wow Terry, can’t wait to kill people? You claim our government is; “out-of-control”! What causes you to say that? Certainly not this article, right?

    • Mark Arrowood says:

      You’re so repressed. I bet you own your own house, your own car, have food on the table every night. Have a job that pays a fair wage. Bet you can pack that family in that car and drive from one side of this country to the other without anyone questioning why. Yes, such an illegitimate government! You know not of what you speak.

  • Creed says:

    Well written. Scary Times are Here For sure. Its amazing just how far they are willing to Push a dangerous Narrative and trample on WE THE PEOPLE.

  • Al says:

    The Nuremburg Code had to do with forced experimentation. Nazis committing horrible atrocities on unwilling subjects.
    It's not the same thing here. It's not even analogous. Not even close,
    Having the government intervene to prohibit discrimination against un-vaccinated people is far more akin to government intervention to prohibit discrimination based on gender, age, sexual orientation, etc., than to the Nuremberg Code.
    Let's consider something here. Say, I favor transgenders and in the private business that I own, I declare to my employees that unless they have a sexual reassignment surgery, they will be fired (Preposterous, I know, but bear with me here because it's not the most preposterous thing I've heard in the news this past year)...
    You may detest my decision. You may hate me for it. But have I forced sexual reassignment surgery on anyone akin to the type of forced experimentation that was the subject of Nuremburg? The answer is an astoundingly easy answer...NO!
    It's not the same thing.
    I have placed pressure on my employees but I have not involuntarily inflicted the kind of Nazi experiments on people that was the subject of Nuremburg. This isn't an original concept by Wayne, he's copied it from others, and it's simply flawed no matter where he got the source idea.
    You may hate St. Als, St. Lukes and Primary Health for their policy, and that's entirely understandable, but it really is an employment law issue. Look up protected classes in the workplace in any Business Law textbook and you'll see it covered in employment law chapters. What the government must do to "correct" the decision of St. Als, St. Lukes and Primary Health is to create a new protected class of un-vaccinated people.
    That's legitimate and is how it's done. I wouldn't argue against lawmakers if they did that but let's stop the nonsense of comparing Nazi experiments to hospitals telling their employees to vax up or find other employment.
    Read here about Indiana's Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana University's vaccine mandate. Note the complete LACK of any kind of nonsense about Nuremburg.

    • Dave says:

      AL its still an experimental vaccine that people are being coerced to take without even the 6 mo case studys published.

      • Al says:

        Yes, it is still categorized as "experimental" but that doesnt mean its unsafe. So i asked IFF's medical policy expert John Livingston to provide his opinion on that. From the voice of someone in the field, not mine, read his opinion on the vaccine, please. I am not a scientist, i am only commenting on the legal issues reflected in waynes article. He derisively calls it "experimental" but does support any claim that its unsafe.

    • Warren says:

      The covid vaccines are experimental and therefore it would be violating the Nuremberg Code if the government mandates that everyone be vaccinated. It could be a violation of the freedom of religion for employers to mandate it. Some people, such as the Christian Scientists, oppose vaccinations due to their religious beliefs. Ultimately it should be my body, my choice.

      • Mark Arrowood says:

        I don’t think anyone is arguing your point, especially women. However the operative word is choice. Me, you, the Christian Scientist all make choices. Don’t want to comply with an employer requirement, don’t work there. Question; the pilot on your next plane trip refuses to get his medical evaluation because of his beliefs, making the case that the results of the test aren’t always correct. He has a known but treatable heart problem. You gonna get on that plane?

        • Al says:

          Before i answer your questiin, Al, does the Nuremburg Code apply at that altitude? If not, then the answer, of course is we hogtie him and force the meds on him. Its all about the nuremburg code here....

      • Al says:

        What gives you the concern that any level of govt is going to mandate it? Thats not what this article is about nor is it being contemplated seriously, is it?

    • ka says:

      Are you willing to be held liable for pressuring your employees to take an experimental gene therapy drug? That hasn't been fully tested? And are you okay knowing that it could harm them physically someday?
      Why would someone pressure anyone else into taking an experimental drug when it is not proven that it actually will prevent people from getting Covid or its variants, nor from spreading it to others? Have you done your research before making this decision or just following the seesaw of CDC guidance that basically claims, "Science is Science", yet it can change from minute to minute? I do NOT feel it is humanely intelligent to pressure people to take an experimental jab from an experiment rolled out so quickly with disregard for current medications that resolved the situation and illness without all the "vaccination" intervention. Vaccinations should be voluntary. You cannot claim that you are protecting anyone. There is enough evidence that both vaccinated and unvaccinated are spreaders. What other reason do you have?

    • Guest says:

      "It's not the same as the experiments that were happening in Nuremburg"....yet

  • Dawn says:

    I work in the Healthcare field and am terrified and appalled that our Govenor doesn't want to fight for us.

  • Kam says:

    A majority who are subscribed and reading your column have a strong religious beliefs and see the writing on the wall. What I would like to see in conclusion on steps to a call to action. What can we do to protect the Idaho we knew and love?

  • Rachel says:

    Exactly!! Thank you, Wayne, for sharing truth, common sense, and what used to be the American way.

  • Mark Arrowood says:

    Thanks Al, I’ve submitted a comment that they, so far, refuse to post.

  • James Collins says:

    When children go to school we have to disclose their vaccination records to show that they have had all of the required vaccinations and if they don't they must get any vaccinations they are missing or have a doctor's note saying why they can't receive the vaccinations and if they don't have a medical or religious reason they are not allowed to attend school. How is this any different than an employer saying that if you want to continue working at their business you will get vaccinated for COVID-19?

    • Vic says:

      For years when my children went to school, every year they would ask me if they had been vaccinated. They had some, but not all. The school DID NOT have the right to not let my kids go to school. The secretary would like to have seen them not be able to come to school without the vaccinations but they did not have the right to refuse my kids from coming.

    • Vic says:

      Every year the public school secretary would ask me about my kid's vaccinations. They had some, not all. She wanted them to have all and looked into not allowing my kids to be able to come to school but found out that the school did not have the right to force my kids to be vaccinated.

  • Bruce O Broughton says:

    We are in some uncharted territory here. I believe it is up to the person if they want to get the vaccine, or wear a mask. I don't live in the fear that is being spread. I understand as a member of the 'general public' we are all loons. As one man, I am much smarter than what I hear coming out of the CDC, and NIH. It's too much mis-information that rely on how we, as the 'general public' are too stupid to question them.

    • Mark Arrowood says:

      First, Bruce, what’s your Doctorate in? Which field of medical study did you commit your life to? You don’t seem to trust science but have no problem with taking an aspirin. Nobody is saying you must get vaccinated. However, in free market society your employer can make demands on you to maintain employment. Capitalistic freedom!

  • Alan Hueth says:

    Thanks Wayne...keep up the good work!

  • Jay says:

    Our RINO governor imposed massive intervention on thousands of Idaho businesses and is now suddenly all laissez faire when businesses trample the rights of their employees. His hypocrisy is boundless.

  • john nashman says:

    I do not agree with you
    If i am walking down the street and you are smoking i have the right to cross the street to move away from you
    STOP let me finish
    If you walk into my store smoking i have the right to tell you
    stop smoking or do not come into my store
    If you work for me and you are not vaccinated you have the potential of infecting
    everyone else that does work for me and i could loss my business and we would all be out of work
    As a business owner i have the right to insist that you show me your card
    When i was hiring people to work in my shop i would interview them to see what
    position they would fill or if i wanted to hire them at all
    You do not have the right to spread the varices were ever you go just because
    you do not want to take the shot
    Way to go Al

    • Deep Midnight says:

      Wait. What? You are worried about someone who refused the Vax infecting those who took the Vax? If this is so, then by your own words the Vax is useless. This makes me question not only your intelligence but also your motive. And anyway, didn't Doolittle extent immunity to all his nazi companies who enforce this ridiculous non-law set of issues? Friend, I would say the bulk of your comment is bunk. In fact, it's so similar to others made by that jewelry guy downtown that I am wondering if you are him, a paid provocateur.

      On so many levels, your post seems more like Chinese propaganda and less like an actual argument.

      Please inform us all which business you own, because when I interview my fist question is exactly about covid. Why would anyone want to work for a beta? I believe those who answer in the affirmative regarding face masks and Vax are simply and only offering an abusive relationship.

      • Al says:

        I was appreciating yoyr previous posts on your religious views, sincerely, and am disappointed youve stooped to sarcasm like the rest of us. But oh well, i am just as to blame on that as you.
        The vaccine has been tremendously effective in diminished the severity of symptoms if infected. Read Dr. Jhn Livingstons comments to the July 16 IFF article. From the words of the medical expert IFF relies on, the vaccine is worth taking.
        But waynes article is really about the legalities of this situation, we are just muddying it up with our divisiveness anout the efficacy of the vaccine. Question: even if there was uncontrovertable proof that the vaccine is HARMFUL, what constitutional provision are you people citing to tell me, as an employer, that i cant demand it of my employees? I may be a tyrant. A deranged tyrant. But my business is my business. Thats conservative values, am i not right?

    • Al says:

      Thanks. And good example, John.
      Last night I thought of another analogy. I have a good friend who insists visitors at his home take their shoes off upon entry.
      His family do it out of obedience. As do visitors. It's his home, he has the authority to dictate it as a condition of your entry and stay in his home.
      But he doesn't hold anybody down and force their shoes off. It's a condition of being a part of his household and you'll be asked to leave if you don't comply. But it's your choice.
      Let's stop with the Nuremberg histrionics.
      Come on, IFF, let's put the "think" back into "think tank", all right? 🙂

    • noindoctrination says:

      You're assuming that ALL people who are not vaxxed are shedding the virus, when in reality it is those that have gotten the experimental injection who are shedding and spreading! There have been no studies done that contradicts this.

      If all your other employees are shot-up and "protected", why should they or you care that the rest of your employees are not? Either the "experiment" works or it doesn't. Also, it is counter to real science that if a person came down with virus and his body did what it does best and made antibodies, then getting the experiment would be counterproductive and even deadly to his system.

      Those of us non-guinea pigs are not willing to spin the roulette wheel regarding our health and/or life.There has already been an Idaho rancher who took it and is now paralyzed from the waist down with the J&J shot and all pharma companies are protected from being sued.

      Maybe you'll want to donate a buck or two his way to help in paying his hospital and rehabilitation costs. For the rest of his life!

  • Bee says:

    So far only Gov. DeSantis (FLA) and Gov. Ducey (AZ) have been 'man' enough to stand up against the atrocities. They have stated NO 'vaccine,' masks, or Lockdown MANDATES and no discrimination
    in schools and business regarding a person's health status/choice.
    Why is Gov. LITTLE not doing the same for Idaho?

  • Bee says:

    Gov DeSantis rocks it:


    Brad LITTLE r??? Crickets!

  • Bee says:

    Professor Luc Montagnier, a French virologist and Nobel Prize winner, predicted a potential outcome of mass vaccinations.  He said:

    Mass vaccinations are a scientific error as well as a medical error.  It is an unacceptable mistake.  The history books will show that because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants. 

    …there are antibodies created by the vaccine forcing the virus to find another solution or die.  [This how the variants such as the Delta variant are created] These variants are a production and result of the vaccination.


  • Al says:

    Fred and Wayne, this is addressed to you. All of 2020, IFF was protesting mask mandates and you cited the "Great Barrington Declaration" to support this - despite there being no mention of masks whatsoever in that Declaration. The main point of the GBD was to have "focused protection", such as for the elderly, and let the rest of us have normal lives, essentially, to allow herd immunity to build a defense against COVID. (one can easily argue that if masks were worn, we wouldn't have had the lockdowns that IFF protested so much about, so masks are consistent with the policies of GBD and would allow herd immunity at a pace that hospitals could keep up with)

    Do you stand by the position(s) you took all of last year, IFF? Do you still support the GBD? Because the physicians at the GBD conference supported supplementation of herd immunity through vaccines, you know.

    Below is a relevant portion of the GBD. Although completion of the vaccines we are presently utilizing were not yet completely developed, those physicians attending the conference were aware they were a work in process and anticipated them to be nearly complete and advocated utilization of the vaccines. The research for the vaccines had started long before the first cases of COVID - as those physician were certainly aware.

    From GBD: https://gbdeclaration.org/ :
    "As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity."

    • Al says:

      And, Fred and Wayne, before you respond that the COVID shots have only been approved on an "emergency" basis, yes, we all know that. And the physicians at the GBD conference would certainly have known that any vaccine shots developed in time to be relevant to their discussion and pertinent to the portion of the Declaration I quoted, would have necessarily only be made on an emergency approval basis. It's a necessary inference. Everyone knew last year that fast-tracking, or "Warp Speed" as the very non-RHINO Trump would say, a vaccine could ONLY be administered on that basis. So, just wanted to beat you to that defense of your position.

      • Al says:

        Crickets from Wayne and Fred. Nothing but crickets. Spotted inconsistencies again, eh, and not sure how to react?

    • Bob says:

      Herd immunity "can be assisted by" vaccines. CAN not must. Herd immunity "is not dependent upon a vaccine." So how does such a weak endorsement of vaccines in any way support mandatory vaccines? It does not. In fact, the primary point of the GBD was to point out not only the absence of a necessity for heavy-handed government intervention, but the fact that such interventions are counterproductive and potentially as deadly as the virus itself.

      Not getting vaccinated is not only a decision regarding personal risk, but a decision not to contribute to the greater government strategy. There is a very real death toll associated with the government's overall strategy that could eventually surpass that of COVID-19 itself. It is most likely that the greatest portion of those deaths will occur in third world countries.

      That the government, media, and you do not even consider this in the defense of this strategy is coldly telling. The GBD is a strategy to minimize not only the deaths due to COVID-19, but also the deaths due to the consequences of the government's pandemic strategy itself. This strategy may include a vaccine component, but certainly one that is mandated is not indicated.

  • Mark Arrowood says:

    What? My comments speak too much truth to your group?

  • john nashman says:

    Mr Wayne is a very good writer and i am not but i do understand facts
    the world is begging for the vaccine and here in the U S we are making
    excuses why we do not want it
    what i do know 700,000 people are dead in this country from the covet
    and most of the hospitalized today did not get the shot
    i have heard the stories about DR getting more money
    for covet then a hang nail
    some may be true most are not (it is a federal crime to do that the money part )
    for all the arguments only time will tell
    with the numbers going up we will reach 7000,000 again
    who will take reasonability for all the deaths
    IFF republican party the no vacsers you
    we are talking about life and death

  • Max says:

    Idaho fish and game is now pushing there people to get the it or there be write ups

  • Bee says:

    ''No one should have the power to force another human being to undergo any kind of medical procedure unless that procedure is freely agreed to.''

    The problem with that statement is there are ''Ds'' Federally, and LITTLE ''rs'' in Idaho Legislation that are
    nazi minded and do not see that or care.

  • Idaho Freedom Foundation
    802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 405, Boise, Idaho 83702
    p 208.258.2280 | e [email protected]
    COPYRIGHT © 2022 Idaho freedom Foundation
    linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram