Arizona senators concerned about eroding freedoms

“Safeguarding our freedoms” was the theme of a meeting held by the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee of the Arizona State Senate on October 20, 2023, to help citizens learn how to make educated decisions regarding vaccines.[1] Attorney Aaron Siri was invited to educate committee members and the public on informed consent as the Biden administration had been giving out signals that it might reinstate COVID countermeasures.

Be informed — uphold your rights

Siri explained in detail what true informed consent really entails and the information required in order to make an informed decision, either yes or no, when considering any vaccine for oneself or one’s child. Informed consent, Siri stated, is the right or ability to consent or not consent. That occurs when you are provided information by a doctor, medical professional, or when you do your own research, at which point you decide if you do or do not want to consent.

The need for informed consent, he explained, was born out of the horrific human experiments conducted during the Holocaust. The Nuremberg Code was developed to prevent such atrocities from again occuring. In order to give proper informed consent, he emphasized, one must understand both the risks and benefits before making a decision whether or not to agree to vaccinate, take a medication or undergo a medical procedure.

Invalid “informed consent” during COVID

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health agencies and medical authorities paid much lip service to the concept of informed consent, but the pressure and coercion brought to bear on many people to vaccinate was the antithesis of informed consent, as are vaccine mandates. Many people also chose to vaccinate because they believed the government and their doctors who said that the (rushed and insufficiently trialed) vaccine was safe and effective.

Researchers agree – risk requires informed consent

Concerned about the lack of informed consent for COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic, K. Acevedo-Whitehouse and R. Bruno, authors of a January 2023 paper entitled “Potential health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis”,[2] emphasized the need for informed consent in the introduction:

In 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA-based vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed. In less than a year, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were designed, manufactured, tested and authorized for general and widespread use in the human population. An emergency public health situation can oftentimes justify rapid decisions, and some will necessarily be based on less than the minimum desirable information. However, regardless of the emergency, some corners must never be cut, particularly those that, if overlooked, could seriously impact human health. 

. . . Although it can be argued that every preventative or therapeutic pharmacological intervention is a two-edged sword if we consider every single potential side effect that could be associated with its use [9], before consenting to receiving the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, recipients must certainly be informed about what is known and what is not known in terms of immediate- and long-term safety . . . This was explicitly reminded to the medical and scientific community soon after vaccine authorization [10], [11], but has not been done systematically, at least not in most countries. (Emphasis added.)

Ramifications of corner-cutting

What did Acevedo-Whitehouse and Bruno uncover that had them so alarmed? The answer to that question and more will be addressed in Frontline News‘s follow-up post.