This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

I now know what it is like to get your life upended by disease. My heart goes out to all who are suffering from chronic illness, vaccine injury, and cancer.

There is incredible progress on the legal front, so I intend to increase my posts going forward.

Here is the December 2, 2025 appellate argument at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans against the federal government’s interference with our case against Pfizer:

This is one creative way to address the problem. I saw this in Trial Site News: here.

Grok generated a fake mocking image of Pfizer’s Albert Bourla upon this suggestion. We can hope executives start to get scared straight.

We are going to start off by talking with Attorney Davis Younts Military defense attorney - R. Davis Younts - Pennsylvania (yountslaw.com)  He is fighting flu mandate issues.  

Alexis is getting some help. Her story is partly here.

This situation highlights practices in many hospitals where patients are denied care based on vaccination status. Some ideas:

Key Concerns

1. Potential Violation of EMTALA

   • The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates that hospitals provide emergency medical treatment to patients, regardless of factors such as insurance status or ability to pay.

   • Denying emergency care based on vaccination status likely violates EMTALA, exposing hospitals to significant legal and financial risks.

2. Patient Rights and Informed Consent

   • Patients have the right to make informed decisions about their healthcare, including the right to refuse vaccines or medications. Requiring vaccination under duress violates this principle.

   • Policies that deny care without considering individual circumstances infringe on patient autonomy and the principle of informed consent.

3. Ethical Considerations

   • While hospitals must protect staff and other patients, this must be balanced against an ethical obligation to provide care to those in need.

4. Public Health Implications

   • Denying care to unvaccinated individuals may have unintended negative consequences, such as discouraging people from seeking necessary medical attention.

EMTALA

1. EMTALA Requirements

   • Hospitals must provide medical screening to determine if an emergency medical condition exists.

   • If an emergency is identified, the hospital must provide stabilizing treatment regardless of vaccination status.

2. Private Right of Action

   • Patients denied care in violation of EMTALA have the right to file lawsuits against hospitals and healthcare providers.

   • This exposes hospitals to significant legal and financial risks.

The discussion will focus on issues and speakers at the Freedom Counsel Conference on June 8th and 9th in Downtown Denver.

A while ago my friend, a cop, was dragged down the road trapped in a side window of the car of a criminal he was trying to apprehend. He got broken up pretty badly. Returned to the force when he could have gone out on disability. He is now a captain. This music video is a tribute to people like him:

"Hold That Line" Official music video. (youtube.com)

Five Times August is always great:

Fight For You (Live from Cuyama Valley, CA) Five Times August (youtube.com)

Struggle Jennings and Caitlynne Curtis:

'God We Need You Now' 🙏 Struggle Jennings & Caitlynne Curtis (Live Acoustic) (youtube.com)

Hi-Rez and Jimmy Levy:

Hi-Rez & Jimmy Levy - Welcome To The Revolution (youtube.com)

Hi-Rez & Jimmy Levy - This Is A War (Official Video) (youtube.com)

Last but not least-Joseph Arthur from my hometown Akron, OH:

"In The Sun" by Joseph Arthur & Five Times August | Official Lyric Video (2023) (youtube.com)

Employers must evaluate exemption requests individually through an interactive process under the ADA, rather than applying a blanket policy only allowing CDC/FDA contraindications. An employee's specific medical needs and physician recommendations should be considered.

Some employers have wrongly limited exemptions to CDC contraindications only. This violates the ADA's requirement to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities and overlooks medical judgment.

Exemption requests should identify a medical condition and mechanism of potential harm from the vaccine. A simple doctor's note saying the employee shouldn't get vaccinated is probably not sufficient justification.

As for COVID-19 vaccines originally authorized as investigational new drugs (INDs), with no legal indications or labeling of contraindications. Policies only allowing exemptions for labeling contraindications do not make sense legally.

In summary, employers should evaluate exemption requests individually, not apply blanket CDC/FDA policies, consider the employee's specific medical situation, and gather sufficient medical details rather than tying requests to current labeling.

JAN 17, 2024 8:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Legal & Medical Resources for COVID injection and Remdesivir injury

Speakers:  Attorney Warner Mendenhall, Esq., Mendenhall Law Group                    and Elizabeth Lee Vliet MD, President and CEO, Truth for Health Foundation

This seminar is for lawyers and the lay public interested in learning more about new avenues for lawsuits on behalf of those injured by the experimental COVID shots, or anyone with a family member who died as result of being the COVID injections or Remdesivir (Veklury).  Dr. Vliet will briefly present the expanded resources created by Truth for Health Foundation for medical and legal help, and the TFH direct citizen reporting of these injuries at www.VaxDamage.org

We urge you to attend and learn about options for medical and legal help.

Register for the Legal Symposium here:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUsdeGsqDItHtFnsJ60LzkN0pfHY5-VkInp After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. If you miss the LIVE program, you can always access the archive on our website here: www.TruthforHealth.org

THE INDOCTRINATED BRAIN WITH DR. MICHAEL NEHLS - The HighWire

You can participate as follows:

Truth for Health Foundation LEGAL  JUNE 19 6:30 pm Eastern Time. 

Moderators: Warner Mendenhall, Esq. with TFH CEO Dr. Vliet

JUNE PROGRAM:

I.              EMPLOYMENT LAW & The Disney Case: Rachel Rodriguez, Esq.

II.          Disability Law: Know Your Rights.  Presented by Disabled Rights Advocates, LLC Team: Todd Callender, Esq; Chris Pazzula, JD, and Jay Shore, ADA Advocate

Register in advance for this meeting:  https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMsdOiurzIsEtVU51swVyntMLastX3cANnr After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. If you miss the live program, there will be an archive for replay on our website at

https://www.truthforhealth.org

Doctor Melissa McCann explains the class action lawsuit and her involvement here.

To read the 652 pages of allegations go here.

The Pfizer Clinical Trial by the numbers starts on page 152 and goes as follows:

There in fact were 43,448 participants wherein:

1. 21,720 were in the Pfizer Vaccine group;

2. 21,728 were in the placebo group;

Of that number only 170 subjects tested positive for Covid and developed mild or greater Covid symptoms during the trial period, being the defined confirmed cases endpoint for the study determined by Pfizer and known to the Respondents;

Of the “confirmed Covid cases”:

1. 8 were reported in the Pfizer Vaccine group;

2. 162 were reported in the placebo group;

Clinical efficacy of 95% was erroneously concluded and determined by applying these two relative numbers to each other as follows:

1. comparing 8/170 for the Pfizer Vaccine group and 162/170 in the

   placebo group;

2. inferring from that the Pfizer Vaccine was shown to be 95% effective;

Wherein in fact:

1. 99.07% of the unvaccinated group in the Pfizer Clinical Trial did not

   develop symptomatic Covid infection;

2. 99.95% the Pfizer Vaccine group in the Pfizer Clinical Trial did not develop symptomatic Covid infection;

3. there was scientifically demonstrated and disclosed: (1) an absolute risk reduction of symptomatic Covid infection of only 0.71% in the Pfizer Vaccine group; (2) the number of doses of Pfizer Vaccine needed to treat, being the number of doses needed to prevent a single case of symptomatic Covid infection, of 141 doses.

Her letters are here.

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means.

The conclusion:

Our first commander in chief cautioned that “[w]hile we are Contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others.” Letter from George Washington to Colonel Benedict Arnold (Sept. 14, 1775), in THE PAPERS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1 REVOLUTIONARY WAR SERIES 455–56 (1985). … Our Constitution “obligates Congress, upon creating an Army, to make religion available to soldiers” because the Army must not “deprive the soldier of his right under the Establishment Clause not to have religion inhibited and of his right under the Free Exercise Clause to practice his freely chosen religion.” Id. at 234. Here, the Army does not dispute this history or its ongoing obligation to accommodate its soldiers’ religious freedom, including compliance with RFRA. But it has failed to prove that its ongoing imposition of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which indisputably burdens some soldiers’ sincerely held religious beliefs, serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means available. As a result, the Army must retreat from imposing its mandate in this particular field and permit religious exemptions to these plaintiffs.

The decision is here.