28th Medical Freedom Amendment
POST IN
  • Home
  • Call to Action
  • Blog
  • Q&A
  • Petition
  • Questionnaire
  • Representative Letter
  • Onlione Petition
  • New Page
  • Link Page

The Battle for Your Body Has Gone Digital

4/7/2026

0 Comments

 

The National Health Federation 71st Anniversary Conference

Picture
There was a time when the fight for health freedom was simple.
It was about access.
Access to supplements.
Access to alternative treatments.
Access to information.

Today, that fight has evolved into something far more complex, and far more dangerous.
Because the battleground is no longer just physical.
It is digital.
And according to longtime health freedom advocate and NHF Board Member Michael LeVesque, we are rapidly entering an era where the most fundamental rights, your body, your data, and your autonomy, are at risk of being absorbed into a system of surveillance, control, and compliance.

From Health Freedom to Digital Sovereignty
We are living through a technological transformation unlike anything in human history.
Biological systems are merging with digital infrastructure.
Every heartbeat, every step, every biometric signal can now be tracked, stored, analyzed, and monetized.
In his recent article published in Health Freedom News, LeVesque delivers a clear and urgent warning:
Without firm protections, health technology will not serve humanity.
Humanity will serve the system.
From smartwatches and wellness apps to telehealth platforms and biometric tracking systems, the amount of personal health data being collected is staggering.
But the real issue is not the data itself.
It is who controls it.
Because once your biological data is no longer private, it becomes something else entirely:
A product.
A profile.
A mechanism for influence.

The Rise of the Digital Health Surveillance State
LeVesque outlines a reality that many are only beginning to grasp.
Health data is no longer isolated.
It is being fused with:
• GPS tracking
• Purchasing behavior
• Social media activity
• Behavioral analytics
This creates what he describes as psychographic profiles—deeply personal models of who you are, how you think, and how you behave.
And once those systems are in place, the implications are profound.
Insurance pricing.
Access to care.
Travel permissions.
Even social standing.
All potentially tied to your health data.
Not your choices.
Not your consent.
But your data.
This is where the line between healthcare and control begins to disappear.

The Medical Freedom Amendment
In response to this rapidly evolving landscape, Michael LeVesque has been leading one of the most important initiatives in the health freedom movement today:
The Medical Freedom Amendment.
Designed as a proposed constitutional amendment, it seeks to permanently establish:
• The right to informed consent
• The right to medical choice
• The right to medical privacy
• The right to own and control your biological data
At its core, the amendment is simple, but powerful:
Your body is not government property.
Your data is not a corporate asset.
Your consent is not negotiable.
The amendment explicitly states that all biological and medical data belongs to the individual, and cannot be accessed, stored, or used without explicit, informed, and revocable consent.
In an era where digital systems increasingly operate without transparency, this is not just a policy proposal.
It is a line in the sand.

A Lifetime in the Fight for Health Freedom 
Michael LeVesque’s perspective is not theoretical.
It is the product of a lifetime spent in the health freedom movement.
A polio survivor as a child, LeVesque experienced firsthand both the failures and the possibilities of medicine. His recovery through alternative methods helped shape a lifelong commitment to natural health.
He went on to build Vitamin Express, one of the most respected supplement retail chains in the San Francisco Bay Area, operating for over three decades with a focus on education, quality, and consumer empowerment.
He is also the author of The BIG Vitamin Dictionary, a widely used reference guide in the natural health space.
Today, as a member of the NHF Board of Governors, he continues that mission on a global scale, advocating for health freedom, raising awareness about emerging technological threats, and leading efforts like the Medical Freedom Amendment to protect future generations.
National Health Federation

The Choice We Now Face
LeVesque puts it plainly:
We are the first generation forced to confront this question:
Will we choose human autonomy… or algorithmic obedience?
Because the systems being built today will define the boundaries of freedom tomorrow.
And once those systems are fully in place, reversing them may not be possible.

Reserve Your Ticket
Hear It Directly in Dallas
This is not a theoretical discussion.
This is one of the most urgent conversations happening in the health freedom movement today.
And you will have the opportunity to hear it directly from Michael LeVesque himself.
📍 71st Anniversary National Health Federation Conference
📅 April 23–25, 2026
📍 Dallas, Texas
Join physicians, researchers, legal experts, and advocates from around the world as we confront the most pressing issues shaping the future of health freedom.
🎟 Secure your spot now:
👉 Conference.TheNHF.com
Or register here:
👉 https://luma.com/71st-national-health-federation-conference

Join the Movement
For more than seventy years, the National Health Federation has stood at the front lines of the fight for health freedom.
Today, that fight has entered a new phase.
One that will determine not only what treatments we can access--
But whether we retain ownership of our own bodies and data at all.
If you believe in informed consent, medical autonomy, and the fundamental right to choose--
Now is the time to engage.
Join us in Dallas.
Because the future of health freedom will not be decided quietly.
It will be decided by those who show up.
0 Comments

Medical Freedom in the Age of Digital Surveillance

3/15/2026

0 Comments

 

The Gulag Panopticon of AI and Health
Don't Tread On Me

     We live in a time when change has become the beacon of wealth, the promise of security from all disease, and an external conscience of AI striving to create our future and way of life. This is presented as a boon to all humanity and attainable by certain requirements. Most notably the personal deliverance of thought, decision, and control by recognizing and accepting a premise of a superior intellect, a presumptive faultless system, and an era of sustained subsistence through AI technology, reductive thinking, and materialistic science.
     We are entering a new form of governance - a MATRIX administered state, a gulag based on wrong policies, and a panopticon of algorithms and surveillance. Everything becomes observable and turned into data. Personality becomes uniform conformity and interaction becomes automaton civility.
     Life ruled by data, rules, oversight, and enforcement. This requires constant monitoring and the abolition of liberty and freedom.
     The soma of our existence is always in disruption from moment to moment. We are life and living, the miracle of light and the Almighty. It is hallowed and in many ways impossible to fully comprehend. Light in particular is the essence of non-locality and here we exist and health is out most intimate necessity.
     We urgently need the Medical Freedom Amendment as we bound into the future of digital disruption to secure a freedom of health. Health freedom and privacy are essential to liberty itself, we must affirm that every Individual possesses inherent and inviolable right to sovereignty over their own body, mind, and medical data.
     The Medical Freedom Amendment recognizes this inalienable right and establishes a permanent safeguard against medical coercion and digital domination.
       The Amendment places within the Constitution the Rule of Law of Informed Consent. Requiring facts and truth barring deception and dispossession with rights of restitution.
      Therefore, the Medical Freedom Amendment is expanded to protect those freedoms and rights as constitutional recognition of personal digital health sovereignty.
     Your body is not government property, nor a corporate asset. The current MFA brings the Constitution in alignment with the digital age by permanently prohibiting coerced medical interventions and unauthorized use of health data. It codifies bodily autonomy, informed consent, and data ownership as unalienable rights.
     Here is the MFA as fully operational to be added to the United States Constitution.

"All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that: 
   1. Impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.
   2. Impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents.

All people own all data derived from their body, mind, or biological functions, including but not limited to genetic, biometric, physiological, and psychological information. Medical data shall be treated as the personal property of the Individual, inviolate and beyond the reach of corporate or governmental appropriation.
  1. No person's biological data, health record, or biometric profile shall be accessed, stored, or transmitted without the Individual's informed, explicit, and revocable consent. 
   2. Any compelled or deceptive collection or monetization of biological data, directly or through digital systems, shall be deemed an unlawful search and seizure.
   3. Congress and the States shall provide civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized possession, trade, or commercial exploitation of personal health data."

- Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

The Unenlightened Allopathic Physician Becomes the Enforcer of Industrial Wealth

2/9/2026

0 Comments

 

Reilluminating Medicine

Picture
     Modern medicine lives bathed in artificial brilliance – surgical lamps, laser therapies, fluorescent screens – yet it remains curiously blind to the deeper nature of light it manipulates. The very discipline that split the atom and photographed the genome still treats illumination as an external instrument, never as a principle of life itself.
     Nineteenth‑century allopathy announced its triumph over darkness by dissecting the body into chemical data, but in doing so, it dimmed the living radiance that earlier natural philosophers sensed in every cell and cosmos. Today, research in photobiology and quantum biophysics again reveals what the poets and sages implied: that light is not an accessory to life but its organizing intelligence, the bridge between matter and consciousness.
     To bring this recognition into medicine is not mysticism – it is the delayed completion of science’s own enlightenment, a turning of its gaze from domination toward illumination.
     Allopathic medicine “treats disease by providing effects contrary to those produced by the disease itself.” Its goal is to block, eliminate, reverse and oppose the symptoms in an aggressive manner. In the past it was accomplished through purging, bleeding, or dosing patients with powerful substances like mercury or arsenic.
     With the laboratory becoming central to medical authority and the rise of anatomy, physiology, and bacteriology, allopathy turned to pathology and evidence-based medicine emphasizing pharmacology, vaccination, and surgical interventions. These were aimed at altering measurable disease processes.
     This empirical reductionism sought to isolate one variable or biochemical pathway as the origin of disease. This external intervention relied on drugs, radiation and surgery as primary tools. Presently, it focuses on cellular and molecular levels within a materialistic and mechanistic framework.
     Allopathic medicine looks at the body as a machine to be corrected. This has in some ways been very successful in acute care and crisis medicine. However, it fails to address chronic or systemic illness.
     Unfortunately, this system became institutionalized in the early 20th Century and deeply entwined with industrial and state power. The Flexner Report of 1910, funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller interests, standardized medical education around biochemical and reductionist science.
     This effectively marginalized diverse medical systems, homeopathy, naturopathy, eclectic medicine, herbalism, electrical medicine, massage, osteopathy, and chiropractic, consolidating a monopoly under what became known as biomedicine. From that period on, the term “allopathic” became an institutional label for the dominant, officially sanctioned model.
     By labeling alternative schools as “unscientific,” the allopathic path captured the institutions and funding pipelines that define modern medicine — but it did so by narrowing the very concept of science to laboratory empiricism and molecular manipulation.
     When Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), a German physician and polymath, coined “homeopathy,” he had observed that substances causing certain symptoms in healthy people could, in ultra-diluted form, stimulate the body’s innate healing response to those same symptoms. He called this similia similibus curentur — “like cures like.”
     Homeopaths emphasized individualized treatment, minimal interference, and the idea that disease arises from energetic or dynamic disturbance, not merely from material pathology. Homeopathy was so successful in the United Sates that it became the choice of many.
     In fact, President Abraham Lincoln in 1862 signed a bill allocating some civil war military hospitals over to homeopaths because of their unparalleled success in treating cholera, yellow fever, diphtheria and influenza compared to allopathic medicine.
     During this time there was also the famous scientist Antoine Béchamp whose theory of Terrain opposed that of Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theory. His Terrain Theory (Pleomorphism) took into consideration acid/alkaline pH, Electric/magnetic charge, Poisoning, Nutritional Status, and that Germs are not necessarily responsible or necessary for disease. This was quite different from Pasteur’s Germ Theory (Monomorphism), who on dying, said Béchamp was right.
     Also, in the late 1800s and early 1900s Naturopathy emerged. Benedict Lust blended hydrotherapy, herbalism and dietary reform. Naturopathy embraces prevention, detoxification, nutrition, exercise, sunlight, and mental well-being. It views disease as a systemic imbalance influenced by environment, lifestyle, and emotion.
     The momentous change took place with the birth of modern Public Health when medicine went from healing to management. After the Flexner Report (1910) and the First World War, medicine had already shifted from private therapeutic practice to institutional power. But the real transformation happened after World War II.
     The Rockefeller Foundation and similar philanthropic engines began global health programs, exporting the American biomedical model worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO, founded 1948) positioned health as a political instrument — “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being,” which effectively allowed every social issue to be medicalized. Thus began Mass immunization campaigns against smallpox, polio, and other diseases, providing unprecedented central control over populations under the banner of “the greater good.”
     Meanwhile, industrial agriculture, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals simultaneously flooded the environment with novel synthetic chemicals — yet rather than investigate environmental toxicity, the health establishment focused overwhelmingly on pharmaceutical solutions.
     Thus, “public health” became the public-relations face of a system built around interventionism, chemical dependency, and data control. We have now entered the Pharmaceutical Regulatory Complex.
     The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evolved into the gatekeeper of medicine with its funding and personnel increasingly revolved around the very industries it was supposed to regulate in a clear case of regulatory capture.
     Antibiotics, vaccines, and psychotropic drugs were hailed as miracles, masking deeper societal dysfunctions (pollution, malnutrition, social isolation) with pharmacological quick fixes. Chronic disease exploded, cardiovascular, cancer, metabolic, psychiatric, autoimmune. This was quickly transformed into a profit stream rather than a preventable crisis.
     By emphasizing biochemical alteration of individuals rather than systemic reform, public health policy, knowingly or not, entered into secured permanent markets for chronic therapies.
     Now the true danger is exposed as medicine hardens into an ideology of technocratic infallibility. Scientists ceased to be explorers and became bureaucrats within grant-dependent hierarchies and “consensus science” becomes a political shield.
     Any dissent was pathologized as “pseudoscience,” while environmental factors, such as lead, mercury, PFAS, pesticide residues, EMFs are chronically downplayed or denied.
     Every cover-up had the same template: deny, delay, discredit, replace with a milder narrative, then claim the discovery as one’s own once the damage became undeniable.
     Biomedicine then becomes a form of soft empire through aid programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America for geopolitical purposes. This results in Vaccine and sterilization campaigns doubling as population control measures. Local medicine delegitimized with Western pharmaceuticals replacing indigenous knowledge systems.
     The World Bank and IMF become embedded as “public health reforms” linked to debt restructuring, ensuring economic dependence alongside supposed “health modernization.”
     However, what is packaged as altruistic “global health” is building an empire of dependency with nations reliant on Western patents, labs, and expertise rather than local sovereignty over health practices and natural remedies.
     Public Health in the past achieved genuine victories with antimicrobial treatment, sanitation infrastructure, trauma surgery, and emergency medicine. Public Health today is a different story entirely with its expansion into behavioral regulation, mass pharmaceutics, and information control transforming it into a management system for populations and a mechanism of governance rather than a healing art.
     However, the greatest change has been from “Global Health” to “Global Health Security.” After the Cold War, the political justification for vast spending on militarized systems weakened. But the model was repurposed: instead of fighting communism, Western states began fighting microbes.
     In the 1990s and early 2000s, after HIV/AIDS, SARS‑1, and Ebola, governments reframed disease as a national security threat. Institutions like the WHO, World Bank, and CDC built programs focused not on sanitation, nutrition, or independence, but on surveillance, predictive modeling, and emergency response infrastructure.
     The rhetoric shifted from “health for all” to “biosecurity.” Now, the implicit goal was not preventing disease but preventing instability of social, economic, and political establishments.
     At the same time, the rise of digital technology created new feedback loops. Electronic Health Records (EHRs), genomic databases, and biosurveillance platforms turned human beings into continuous streams of data. We are replacing the promise of “personalized medicine” with personalized monitoring.
     This was not accidental at all it matched the interests of both governments (control and compliance) and corporations (monetizing health data). Wearables, smartphones, and later vaccine passports (the logical culmination) links biology to bureaucratic infrastructure.
     The events of 2020–2022 revealed mass biocontrol and the decades of preparatory policy (like the 2005 International Health Regulations, and U.S. “pandemic preparedness” frameworks) laid the foundation for the largest social experiment in modern history.
     Here is the key point. The same financial entities funding vaccine development also financed the media narratives and regulatory approvals that promoted them. Lockdown, track‑and‑trace, and digital ID mandates were trial runs for a future system in which access to participation (jobs, travel, finance) could be conditioned upon biometric compliance.
     Once medicine became computerized, public health becomes indistinguishable from social control. There are four basic ideological assumptions for the system to sustain itself.
   1. Risk Abolitionism — the promise that technology can and indeed must eliminate all biological uncertainty.
   2. Centralized Expertise — belief that only state‑licensed experts can decide what constitutes “health information.”
   3. Algorithmic Objectivity — trust that data models (funded by interested actors) are more “scientific” than lived experience.
   4. Behavioral Management — subtle manipulation of populations through nudging, censorship, and digital incentives masquerading as care.
     The result? Medicine turned moralized. Non‑compliance became heresy; dissent equaled danger; debate itself was pathologized. To be good means to stand six feet away and masked, otherwise you are a bad person.
     By 2026, the global project is to merge medical identity (health records, immunization status) with digital identity (social credit, financial access), with environmental sustainability tracking (carbon budgets, “green health”) creating a unified system whereby health metrics become the foundation for civic participation.
     Its justification is through propaganda slogans of safety, resilience, and sustainability, while creating compliance through dependency. Meanwhile chronic disease rates climb up and up, mental illness increases up and up, while fertility goes down and down - and the environmental toxins that proliferate go unabated, unaddressed and unresolved.
     Never in history have we produced more health interventions. The obvious truth is that the system is not organized around healing, it is organized around management and wealth.
     What began as allopathy, the theory of opposing symptoms, matured into technocratic governance opposing uncertainty itself.
     Allopathy’s 19th century German materialism was based on reductionism. All life processes are chemical and mechanical. Therefore, “thought is a secretion of the brain just as bile is a secretion of the liver” (Mole Schott). Also, that the conservation of energy was not dynamic vitality but a closed bookkeeping system and opposed to life being self-organizing and luminous.
     Therefore, disease is cellular pathology localized and not a systemic imbalance. The focus was on dissection and microscopy as supreme and light purely an optical aid to see tissue and not interact with it. With this they stripped the invisible dimension from the concept of life making medicine an industry of measurement.
     Over the last half‑century, the silent return of light to biology has begun to undo two centuries of mechanistic darkness. Photobiology, biophotonics, and quantum biophysics now confirm that cells do not merely react to chemical cues; they converse in pulses of light and electromagnetic rhythm.
     Mitochondria, the powerhouses once thought purely metabolic, respond to specific wavelengths as if decoding a forgotten language. Genes express differently under coherent illumination; tissues regenerate when bathed in red and near‑infrared light. These discoveries expose the limits of the allopathic creed that every cure must be chemical.
     Light medicine, in its modern scientific form, reveals nature’s subtler grammar: interaction through frequency, resonance, and coherence. The empirical and the luminous are no longer adversaries but partners, inviting medicine to correct its course away from the domination of matter toward genuine dialogue with the radiant intelligence of life itself.
     There has been a long struggle between homeopathy and allopathy. There has also been a long struggle between materialism and the spiritual world. One sees this as technocracy struggles with humanity and technology’s world of robotics and AI.
     Historically, light is perceived and comprehended by Michael Faraday and the advent of field theory is initiated. 
     Michael Faraday (1791‑1867) was quietly doing something revolutionary in London laboratories. He had a conceptual breakthrough with the discovery of lines of force, invisible yet real, that carry energy through space. He intuited that light, magnetism, and electricity are manifestations of a unified field initiating field theory.
     This meant energy was a living continuum. Faraday’s worldview was empirical mysticism with experiment guided by reverence for an intelligent cosmos. He bridged matter and spirit through electromagnetism. Thereby he seeded electrobiology, the curiosity about cellular potentials, nerve conduction, and regeneration and photobiology, the understanding that light directly influences metabolism.
     Faraday never practiced medicine, but the ontology of his science, energy as formative intelligence, underlies every modern therapeutic use of light.
   1. Fritz‑Albert Popp’s Biophoton Theory: Biological systems emit ultra‑weak light; cells communicate via coherent photon emission — Faraday’s “fields” internalized.
   2. Low‑Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) / Photo biomodulation: Specific wavelengths stimulate mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase, enhancing cellular ATP production and tissue repair.
   3. Chronobiology / Circadian Medicine: Sunlight synchronizes hormonal and immune rhythms — light as regulator, not just illumination.
   4. Red and Near‑Infrared Therapies: Clinical evidence shows light modulates inflammation, neurogenesis, and even mood (seasonal affective disorder).
     This has produced a new world of medicine where the organism is electromagnetic before it is chemical, that health depends on resonance and coherence, not solely on molecule collisions and that light information precedes biochemical reaction, an inversion of German materialism.
     The German materialism led to biochemistry and pharmacology creating action through tangible molecules.
     Faraday’s discoveries lead to biophysics and information medicine recognizing that light organizes matter. Without this recognition the solution to disease is incomplete.
     In allopathy the disease is purely mechanical dysfunction requiring pharmacology of gross chemical dosing. That is why homeopathy seemed like heresy. Hahnemann proposed that a medicinal substance carries a dynamic imprint capable of stimulating the body’s self-organizing force.
     Therefore, homeopathy became a philosophical rival, not merely a medical alternative. It also was producing dramatic results. Faraday’s work (electromagnetism, induction, field lines) offered an ontological model that Hahnemann lacked the language to express. He described “dynamic influence” and “spirit‑like power,” while Faraday later gave those forces physical legitimacy by revealing that reality is constituted of patterns of force, not isolated particles.
     Homeopathic dilution and succussion can be understood as attempts to translate biochemical information into coherent field patterns in water. Potentization becomes a form of signal amplification — mechanical agitation aligning molecular clusters into semi‑stable information states (analogous, conceptually, to Faraday induction).
     The “vital force” becomes a living informational field and exactly the domain Faraday’s physics uncovered, and quantum biology now explores. While institutional medicine dismissed homeopathy’s claims as “placebo,” emerging studies in water structure and photonic communication uncover mechanisms that rhyme with its principles.
     Here are some of the relevant discoveries
   1. Structured (Exclusion Zone) Water – Gerald Pollack:
Demonstrates ordered water layers at hydrophilic surfaces storing charge and electromagnetic information.
   2. Biophoton Emission – Fritz‑Albert Popp:
Shows living cells radiate and respond to ultra‑weak light; coherence defines health.
   3. Electromagnetic Resonance in Biology:
Benveniste and later researchers demonstrated frequency‑encoded water responses (controversial, but conceptually consistent with Faraday’s induction).
   4. Photo biomodulation:
Modern red‑light therapy proves biophotons regulate mitochondrial function — evidence that frequency and coherence drive metabolism, not mere chemistry.
     This all implies that the body is a resonant electromagnetic system, sensitive to ultra‑faint informational stimuli. Also, homeopathy’s low‑dose signaling is not “nothing,” but an information transfer below molecular threshold — an idea unimaginable in allopathy’s chemical determinism, yet natural in Faraday’s energetic continuum.
     Therefore, we go from allopathy that only the visible is real, to homeopathy that the invisible organizes the visible. We end up with allopathy fighting disease by force while homeopathy teaches harmony to form.
     Health and disease arise not solely from molecular interactions but from the coherence of bio‑fields—the electromagnetic, photonic, and vibrational patterns organizing matter. Medicines or therapies function as information carriers that can restore this coherence when disrupted.
     There are many factors working simultaneously. With biophysics we find living systems convert photon energy into electron motion into biochemical change. We find biological regulation occurs through resonance, not concentration. Subtle signals can yield large systemic changes if frequency‑matched. We also know that every organ has a special frequency and wavelength.
     The body’s vast aqueous matrix stores and transmits information through phase‑ordered states. Coherent photonic emission indicates well‑organized physiology; decoherence parallels illness. In all cases every claim must be experimentally reproducible in open, community‑verifiable protocols.
     The implications are far reaching when you realize that matter’s structure is the standing wave of its informing field. That disease arises when information flow between cells loses coherence and can be restored to phase synchrony by appropriate treatment. And here we find medicine works not by attacking but by returning the organism to its natural frequency bandwidth.
     When the bridge between biochemical and electromagnetic models of life come together there is a drastic reduction of iatrogenic harm due to the non-toxic modalities resulting in medicine’s ethical core being revitalized - first, do no harm and second, comprehend.
     Just imagine a health system where clinics look more like light observatories than factories and healers adjusting frequencies instead of prescribing suppression, and patients educated in environmental and emotional coherence.
     This would not abolish pharmacology or surgery but set them within a larger informational ecology guided by three watchwords: transparency , resonance, and autonomy.
     And now we look at the rainbow found in the picture of this article.
“To know light is to know life;
to heal with light is to restore coherence
between the seen and the unseen.”
— Synthesis of Goethe, Steiner, Einstein
     The modern study of photobiology and electromagnetic coherence can be situated within a lineage that unites Goethe’s phenomenological perception of nature, Steiner’s spiritual–scientific morphology, and Einstein’s field physics.
     Goethe viewed light not as a mechanistic quantity but as a living interface between observer and phenomenon: each color experience revealed the formative law of nature itself. Rudolf Steiner extended this insight into his conception of etheric fields—organizing forces through which light shapes the vitality of matter, insisting that scientific inquiry must include ethical and conscious participation. Einstein, converting Faraday’s intuition into mathematical form, demonstrated that matter is condensed energy and the field the true substance of reality.
     Together these perspectives converge in the idea that biological order arises from the coherence of light‑bound fields, suggesting that healing processes engage not merely chemical mechanisms but the restoration of informational harmony within the living continuum.
     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832): The Artist‑Physiologist
Goethe’s entire Urphänomen project was built on the principle that life must be understood through participation, not dissection. In his Theory of Colours he argued that color, and by extension light, is not merely a wavelength measurable by prisms, but a relationship between light, darkness, and the living observer’s consciousness. He rejected Newton’s abstraction because it killed the experience; he wanted a morphology of phenomena that preserved vitality.
     Goethe would say, “If you reduce the living to chemistry and digits, you bleed out its meaning. To know light, one must see through the eye of life itself.”
     Applied here, he would applaud photo biomodulation and coherent biophysics when approached phenomenologically—when researchers watch how light behaves in living tissue rather than forcing it into pre‑set equations. He would warn against turning photons into yet another mechanistic fetish.
     In other words, Goethe would call for empirical empathy—science as conversation with nature, not conquest.
     Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925): Etheric Fields and Moral Physics
Steiner inherited Goethe’s worldview and expanded it into what he called spiritual science. He maintained that behind chemical and physical processes stand four interpenetrating organizations:
   1. Physical body
   2. Etheric body (life forces / formative fields)
   3. Astral body (sensation and desire)
   4. I‑organization (individualizing spirit)
     Light, for him, belonged to the etheric, a formative principle that weaves matter into coherence.
     Steiner would say, “Every cell lives within a light‑woven garment; alter the quality of this light and you alter the whole being.”
     He would read modern photomedicine and structured‑water research as partial rediscoveries of the etheric body in physical language. He would urge that research ethics expand beyond safety to include moral resonance, whether an experiment strengthens or weakens the formative vitality of its participants.
     Thus, he would welcome biophotonic study, yet demand that researchers cultivate inner discipline, so their own chaotic thinking does not imprint dissonance on the subtle system they observe.
     Albert Einstein (1879–1955): The Field as Source of Form
With Einstein, Faraday’s intuition reached mathematical adulthood. His general relativity made space, time, energy, and matter continuous, matter being space “where the field is extremely intense.”
     Einstein saw light not as particle or wave alone, but as the architecture of reality. The body, viewed through Einstein’s equations, could be described as a standing pattern in the field, a localized curvature of spacetime filled with energy flow. In his later years he sought a unified field theory, precisely what biological coherence studies hint at on a microcosmic level.
     Einstein would say, “The field is the only reality; the particle is a convenient fiction.”
     Applied to medicine a living organism’s physiology is a dynamic equilibrium of local field curvatures. Healing occurs where field harmony is restored, conceptually identical to re‑coherence in photomedicine. He would appreciate rigorous quantification: “Show me the equation linking photon phase coherence to ATP yield, then I will call it physics.”
     Goethe gives the experience, “Each phenomenon, rightly observed, opens the way to its law within itself.” Color and light are not separable from the observer; perception completes the event. Knowledge arises from active participation, not analytic detachment.
     Healing requires the same empathy as artistic seeing: The researcher must perceive how light lives within the organism, not merely measure its frequency.
     Steiner gives the meaning. “In light we have the creative principle of life itself.” Life depends upon etheric fields, interweaving physical and spiritual energies. Scientific understanding must be joined to ethical responsibility: what we imagine and intend affects living systems.
      Research into subtle energies must include the researcher’s inner coherence.
Every experiment becomes a moral act. Does it strengthen or disorder the life‑field being studied?
     Modern bridge: Integrates consciousness studies and biofield research; anticipates psychosomatic and environmental coherence approaches.
     Einstein gives the mathematical skeleton. Model coherence, “The field is the only reality; the particle is a mathematical abstraction.” Light is the fundamental connector, energy, information, and geometry in one. Matter is condensed energy; structure is a local configuration of the field.
     The living body is not a machine of parts but a standing field configuration; health is restored when field harmony is re‑established. Physical law must describe wholeness, not fragmentation.
     Modern bridge: Provides the physical vocabulary – energy density, coherence, field curvature – for testing what Goethe and Steiner described qualitatively.
     Recognizing light as both physical energy and formative intelligence re-frames medicine as the science of coherence rather than control. The Goethean call for participatory observation reminds researchers that phenomena reveal their laws only through living encounter; Steiner’s emphasis on the moral and etheric dimensions anchors technology within ethical responsibility; and Einstein’s unified field vision renders these insights measurable within physics.
     Modern photobiology now provides the instruments to evaluate what these thinkers perceived intuitively: that restoration of health corresponds to restoration of order in the body’s light – field dynamics. Integrating their perspectives invites a medicine that heals through resonance, transparency, and respect for living organization – a synthesis of empirical precision with the reverence that true science demands.
     At the deepest level, this is a return to medicine as covenant, not contract.
Healing is not control. Health cannot be engineered from above; it emerges when individuals, communities, and ecosystems communicate truthfully.
     When transparency replaces secrecy, cooperation replaces coercion, and local stewardship replaces corporate capture, medicine will once again become a sacred art rather than a bureaucratic operation.
-Michael LeVesque-
Picture
Picture
                The Medical Freedom Amendment

“All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that:

1. Impedes the Individual’s rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.

2. Impedes the Individual’s right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual’s condition and danger it presents.

All people own all data derived from their body, mind, or biological functions, including, but not limited to, genetic, biometric, physiological, and psychological information. Medical data shall be treated as the private property of the Individual, inviolate and beyond the reach of corporate or governmental appropriation.

1. No person’s biological data, health record, or biometric profile shall be accessed, stored, or transmitted without the Individual’s informed, explicit, and revocable consent.

2. Any compelled or deceptive collection or monetization of biological data, directly or through digital systems, shall be deemed an unlawful search and seizure.

3. Congress and the States shall provide civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized possession, trade, or commercial exploitation of personal health data.”
-Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

Video  -  Medical Freedom Amendment and Digital Health Surveillance

1/22/2026

0 Comments

 

It is Urgent to Act NOW!

     Today is different than 1776. We live in a complex governmental and administrative society. Any Amendment must have content, as in science, to have a basis that is clear and comprehended in a manner that can be correctly reproduced and interpreted by others. 
     To do so otherwise opens interpretations that misdirect, malign,  misconstrue, and dilute the intent and meaning. This must be avoided. 
    It is also necessary to ensconce its goals and meaning in organizations and institutions to retain effectiveness for society.
    This is a battle for the soul of medicine and for the sovereignty of the human self in this new and revolutionary algorithmic era. It is the basis of health of the Individual and freedom.
     The current MFA codifies bodily autonomy, informed consent, and data ownership as unalienable rights. It permanently prohibits coerced medical interventions and unauthorized use of health data.
-Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

Guaranteeing Bodily and Digital Sovereignty in the 21st Century

12/16/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture

Protection from the Digital Panopticon Gulag

     We are in an era of advancing technology that has merged biological, digital information domains of human life. Acknowledging that health freedom and privacy are essential to liberty itself, we must affirm that every Individual possesses inherent and inviolable right to sovereignty over their own body, mind, and medical data.
    The Medical Freedom Amendment recognizes this inalienable right and establishes a permanent safeguard against medical coercion and digital domination. Therefore, the Medical Freedom Amendment is expanded to protect those freedoms and rights as constitutional recognition of personal digital health sovereignty.
     Digital health platforms, algorithmic diagnostics, and global ID frameworks are turning private health information into state-corporate property. Without explicit constitutional boundaries governmental powers and commercial incentives threaten to reduce citizens to data sources. The Medical Freedom Amendment ensures medical innovation serves humans, and not the other way around.
     Your body is not government property. Your data is not a corporate asset. Your consent is not negotiable. Technology now reaches deeper than politics ever could. It reaches into our hearts, our genes, and our thoughts. Every pulse, every step, every medical record is tracked, sold, and stored. The line between healthcare and control is vanishing. All health technologies must be transparent and accountable to the people, not to power.
     There is now operating continuous surveillance via smartwatches, "wellness apps", and telehealth systems that produce granular biometric data - your heart rate, sleep cycles, stress levels, fertility metrics, glucose patterns, even facial micro expressions. That data does not stay in the doctor's office; it is stored in corporate or governmental databases, often unencrypted or sold to third parties.
     The rise of data fusion technology means private medical data is cross referenced with purchasing history, GPS data, and social media behavior to create psychographic profiles. Therefore your biological signals are no longer private data. The data has become commercial products and potential instruments for behavioral control.
     We are the first generation to face this choice: Human autonomy or algorithmic obedience. We must not fail to protect our future  and the generations to come.
     Here is the expanded wording of the proposed Medical Freedom Amendment to the United States Constitution. The image above is the cover of the forthcoming book on the Medical Freedom Amendment which is in process.

"All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that: 

1. Impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.

2. Impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents.

All people own all data derived from their body, mind, or biological functions, including but not limited to genetic, biometric, physiological, and psychological information. Medical data shall be treated as the personal property of the individual, inviolate and beyond the reach of corporate or governmental appropriation.

1. No person's biological data, health record, or biometric profile shall be accessed, stored, or transmitted without the Individual's informed, explicit, and revocable consent. 

2. Any compelled or deceptive collection or monetization of biological data, directly or through digital systems, shall be deemed an unlawful search and seizure.

3. Congress and the States shall provide civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized possession, trade, or commercial exploitation of personal health data."

This is not just a battle for the soul of medicine, but for the sovereignty of the human self in this algorithmic era. The current MFA brings the Constitution in alignment with the digital age by permanently prohibiting coerced medical interventions and unauthorized use of health data. It codifies bodily autonomy, informed consent, and data ownership as unalienable rights.
- Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

Quick Breakdown on the Medical Freedom Amendment

11/16/2025

0 Comments

 

How the Medical Freedom Amendment
Protects Medical Freedom

Picture
The proposed Medical Freedom Amendment (MFA) as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution first proposed in 2020 is gaining much support. Now your support is essential. The National Health Federation is the first organization to  endorse and promote the MFA and is pushing forward the pendulum of change to success.
The Medical Freedom Amendment:

"All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that: 

1. Impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.

2. Impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents."

Here is a breakdown of the MFA and its implications:
1. “All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose.”
  • Establishes health sovereignty as a natural right, not a state-granted privilege.
  • It connects to the broader philosophy that health is part of life and liberty, not public property.
  • It also means that the government cannot define “public health” in ways that override individual choice.
2. Enumerating Explicit Limits on Power
  • Note the meticulous listing: Congress, the President, State Legislatures, Executives, Agencies, Departments.
    • This makes it clear the restriction applies to every level of government — federal, state, and local.
  • The inclusion of “countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration” directly addresses what happened during the COVID era, when extraordinary powers were invoked to bypass laws and constitutional checks.
  • “Treaty or international agreement” language is crucial. It prevents global health treaties — such as those proposed by the World Health Organization, UN, or World Economic Forum — from overriding individual rights through the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution.
    • This is essentially a constitutional firewall against global governance in medical policy.
3. Article VI Nullification Clause
  • The line “The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment” is extremely rare and radical in constitutional design.
  • It means international treaties or WHO agreements could never supersede this Amendment, even if ratified by the Senate.
  • In simple terms, no global authority could compel Americans to accept mandates, digital vaccine IDs, or global emergency protocols.
4. Judicial Warrant Requirement
  • The second paragraph pushes medical privacy protections to a Fourth Amendment level.
  • It declares that no intrusion on personal medical freedom or privacy can occur without a specific judicial warrant, based on probable cause (“Oath and affirmation”) and describing the exact harm and danger posed.
  • This would:
    • Outlaw broad “public health emergencies” used to justify mass surveillance, quarantines, or forced testing.
    • Require individualized assessment before violating medical privacy — ending blanket “emergency powers.”
In essence, this wording reflects strict constitutional originalism infused with bodily autonomy. It recognizes that:
  • The state is not competent to define individual health decisions.
  • Informed consent is sacred — and cannot be suspended, even during a proclaimed emergency.
  • International bodies cannot be allowed to shape domestic health policy or override individual rights.
The Medical Freedom Amendment treats medical autonomy as the ultimate civil right, equal to speech, property, and belief. Once ratified, the constitutional order would shift from a managerial administrative decree to a consent‑based republic in practical health governance.
Please join the National Health Federation in this monumental fight for Health Freedom!
Sign the petition, support NHF’s lobbying, and donate to their efforts.
Thank you! Medical Freedom Amendment.
-Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

What Must Happen Now!

10/13/2025

0 Comments

 

70th Anniversary Celebration of
the National Health Federation
in Dallas, Texas, March 2025

     This video is created from the presentation of Michael LeVesque at the Anniversary event of the National Health Federation. It was preceded with this music video. All together it was a ten minute presentation. Medical Freedom Amendment has many ramifications. There will be a book released by the end of the year in full detail.

      "For most of our lives we accepted, almost without thought, that government experts, pharmaceutical corporations, and international agencies could decide what entered our bodies, what treatments we must accept, and which questions could not be asked. We were told this was science, but it was in truth bureaucracy wearing the mask of science. Yet a human being is not the property of a program. The flesh that breathes, feels, and thinks belongs first and last to the individual soul that inhabits it. Whenever that simple truth is forgotten, civilization’s moral compass spins into confusion and fear.
     The Medical Freedom Amendment restores balance. It declares that the liberty proclaimed in 1776 and the rights enshrined in 1791 extend all the way to the skin, the cell, and the conscience. It forbids coercion in medicine because coercion breeds error, and it protects informed consent because truth cannot flourish where speech is stifled. To secure one’s own health in the manner one chooses is not a privilege but the cornerstone of self‑government itself. When citizens regain sovereignty over their bodies, they regain the capacity for genuine trust, voluntary cooperation, and the renewal of public virtue. That is the purpose—and the promise—of medical freedom."
     The Medical Freedom Amendment is the proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Time is proving its urgency as AI takes over many facets of medicine and the government continues on its road of personal surveillance, digital ID's, and monetary policy of CBDC’s (Central Bank Digital Currencies). 
     These are treacherous times and in need of emergency action to protect personal freedom and rights, body autonomy, medical privacy, medical choice, and Informed Consent - a Rule of Law which is legally beyond those denied by government actions and government mandated medical interventions once placed within the United States Constitution.
     This is a battle between 1910 materialism, that advocated pharmacology and vaccination as the only solutions to what ails people and often wrong. Wealth pushed it forward for obvious reasons of gaining more wealth and with that wealth used it to lobby and pass legislation that protected pharmaceutical industry from us when harm occurred. 
      The second part of the Amendment is the explicit reversal of the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld compulsory smallpox vaccination on the premise that individual liberty could yield to “public safety.” That 1905 decision has been the legal keystone supporting every mandate, quarantine, and emergency order since.
     The Medical Freedom Amendment’s warrant clause conceptually overturns Jacobson — it replaces collectivist utilitarianism with personal sovereignty + due process.
     Where Jacobson said, “the community has the right to protect itself,” this Amendment says, “the individual is the community — and must first be proven a demonstrable danger before any intrusion.”
       The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.” is not a throwaway line in the Medical Freedom Amendment. It is constitutional dynamite. To appreciate just how powerful it is, you need to understand what Article VI actually does, and how global institutions have been using it.
      Once the U.S. Senate ratifies a treaty, its provisions are binding on every state and citizen — even overriding state laws, and in practice, sometimes being treated as having quasi constitutional weight. For decades, global bureaucracies have exploited this mechanism to bypass Congress and the public under the label of “international cooperation.”
     This Amendment severs the chain of command between international treaties and individual rights. By saying Article VI does not apply, it removes medical autonomy from the scope of any treaty or global regulation. It prevents the federal government from using treaty obligations as justification for restricting domestic freedoms. It creates a new constitutional hierarchy. It forces judicial warrant standards for any intrusion, which means even if WHO policies claim an emergency, implementation inside the U.S. would require a case-by-case probable cause warrant. 
     The government can suggest personal health aids but should never supersede the person or the relationship with the health care provider. Always, the Individual has the final say. We must choose action if there is to be change.
Support the Medical Freedom Amendment as follows:

     "All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that: 

1. Impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.

2. Impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents."

     The National Health Federation has a link on their website to actively take part at thenhf.com/campaigns
     Also, updates at TheMedicalFreedomAmendment.org website
-Michael LeVesque-
0 Comments

Freedom of Medicine

9/26/2025

0 Comments

 

Freedom of Medical Choice
MUST
Include Freedom of Medicine

Picture
     Is there an alternative, a solution, and a salvation for medical care in this country?
     Yes, most definitely! It is freedom of medicine which is necessary to have freedom of medical choice as stipulated in the proposed Medical Freedom Amendment.
     What is freedom of medicine? Freedom of medicine is a free exchange with differences co-existing in an open exchange that belong to the whole field of medicine creating health of the Individual. This inclusion of all fields of medicine and health care reduces control, domination, and isolation by any single field.
     Conflicts will arise since that is a necessary part of medical freedom. Such conflicts require medical disclosure and integrity of those presenting. Conflict is a necessary condition where resolution of conflicts find resolution without destroying the rules of exchange. It enhances medical and health knowledge. It is another aspect of the free marketplace.
     Without freedom of medicine medical choice remains as a chattel and bound by an outdated medical system that was ensconced and maintained by the Flexner Report of 1910 financed by John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Their extreme wealth produced a system of control of illness based on the strength of the current German medical orthodoxy system as the only solution.
     With their wealth and dominance, they effectively secured the government’s endorsement of the goals of the Flexner Report. The Report gave detailed regulations of education and pharmacology as the only solution against diseases. Period!
     This followed the theory of materialism. That all phenomena including human consciousness was considered medical interactions. That medicine should focus on experimentation as the most important function of education to promote learning rather than focusing on the patient. Therefore, all medical research must adhere fully to the protocols of scientific research of the 1910 materialism, medication, and vaccination.
     This elimination of freedom of medicine produced the dire conditions of today. Advances in biochemistry, bionutrition, and biophysics makes this view of the world outdated. Nevertheless, allopathic drug medical practice maintains this monopoly. It has lied, cheated, propagandized, and bought governmental control through lobbying and re-election donations. It has isolated itself, dominated medical treatment while controlling the marketplace, government, and the media.
     Allopathic medicine maintains control through hospitals, educational institutions, Medical State Boards, independent medical journals, advertising, propaganda and tightly regulated membership of the American Medical Association, a trade organization and a multitude of other medical trade associations. It uses rules and regulations called Standard of Care through state medical boards and medical tests that project conditions often inaccurately placing people on medications.
     Medical freedom and freedom of medicine go hand in hand. Medical informed choice requires freedom of medicine as well as informed consent. What does this mean? It means the FDA controls medical choice to our detriment. It should not be allowed to do so. The government must be lobbied and pressured to create a new and independent Department of Medical Modalities and Bio-nutrition.
      Science requires pharmaceuticals to be highly regulated because of the possible injury and death from its products. At the same time, the FDA has as its pronounced goal the protection and advancement of the pharmaceutical industry against all other competition. It is completely counterproductive for American society to have such a monopoly of medical and health care regulating all other competitors.
     A new Department of Medical Modalities and Bio-nutrition would bring competition back into a competitive marketplace and help create new orientations of learning in our educational institutions with knowledge of advancement available long overdue. Freedom of medicine enhances informed consent and medical choice. It would remove unnecessary governmental control over personal health and personal medicine. It would free up current areas of concern from public health while enhancing public health’s focus on securing a healthier environment from pollutants advocated by corporate wealth such electromagnetic radiation pollution (EMRP).
     Many institutions in the early 1900’s were shuttered because of the Flexner Report of 1910. Homeopathy, herbal eclectic, chiropractic, osteopathy, electromedicine, and massage were all denigrated as quackery.  This stopped the advancement of medicine and produced the morphed, often dangerous and ineffective pharmaceutical industry’s dominance. Homeopathic remedies have long been more protective and cost effective than allopathic pharmaceuticals and vaccination. It was grandfathered in under the FDA and treated as competition to allopathic medicine.
     For example homeopathy has a distinguished record of safety, effectiveness, and gentleness for endless countless diseases, infections and illnesses.  It was one of the major schools of medicine before the Flexner Report was issued and in constant competition with allopathic medicine. It remains today one the most used system of healing throughout the world but ridiculed in the United States. The FDA recently created new rules to successfully eliminate homeopathic eye drops from the marketplace. Smilisan eye drops were a number one seller for eye relief. Without one complaint it was forced to leave the marketplace by the FDA creating new rules for homeopathic eye drops that mirror those requirements for allopathic drugs.
     Abraham Lincoln was a big advocate of homeopathy because of its unparalleled success in treating cholera, yellow fever, diphtheria and influenza compared to conventional medicine. During that post Flexner Report period, one saw the shuttering of schools of chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, elector-therapeutics and herbalist, specifically the Eclectics.
     The Eclectic’s herbal encyclopedia, King’s American Dispensatory was updated in 1898 by Harvey Felter MD and John Lloyd MD. It is an extensive compiling of herbal and chemical knowledge in two volumes, over 2,000 pages of in-depth information – preparation, action, botanical source, history, description, chemical composition, medicinal usage, dosage, cautions, specific indication, other uses, related species. A significant percentage of drugs are derived from knowledge of the eclectics and modified or synthesized and patented for sale.
     After 1910 we were faced with an orthodoxy of medicine that reviled all other modalities and restricted any other effective therapeutics. It all started because the two wealthiest men in the world at the time, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, thought they knew what was best for America and of course with oil (coal tar) a basis for organic chemistry and patenting it assured added wealth.
     At present the dangers for medical freedom are at a  new level, and our health is at greater risk than ever before. As great as the hope of MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) to move forward and make the necessary changes, the overriding landscape portends a life struggle that must meet the over-riding power of the pharmaceutical industry and its institutions, media, and trade associations that seek retention of their wealth and seek the removal of Robert F. Kennedy from his leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services.
     One must Include the government’s denial and negligence regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation pollution (EMRP), and the ubiquitous development of censors for surveillance brought forth by the wireless industry. EMRP also affects the Schumann resonance of this planet, the polluting of the skies from space junk and wireless transmitters, and the ionization of the lower atmosphere through geoengineering further polluting our air. The neglect to properly protect the public is a public health issue that will only worsen as more EMRP wavelengths come into use and create such cellular damage to DNA and RNA being expressed through the mitochondria, and the other organelles of the cell.
     This expression within the cell is in the form of metabolic dysfunction, oxidative stress, and chronic inflammation creating disease in all forms. These are not the result of a pathogen, rather the results of the ubiquitous presence of the high levels of micro and radio frequency pollution. To continue unabated and without proper regulation is courting the eventual destruction of Nature and humanity.
     When including 5G in the surveillance and control of organ function and hormone regulation, through the internet of body (IoB) and the control of energy exchange within the body by the internet of quantum (IoQ) through alliteration of 5G into 6G, 7G, and 8G one can see once again an informed orthodoxy that is pulling a curtain of ignorance and hubris over truth, eliminating controversy, and placing all its energy into creating wealth and power for an insane limited perception of reality while denying existence.
     Much of the advancement in health has been through public health- clean water, clean air, and clean food aligned with dietary knowledge and especially in this country nutritional supplementation. There is much more to be gained. We are living in an era of synthetic intelligence that if properly given facts can speed up some analysis and offer some creative solutions.
     At the same time, it is a dangerous tradeoff with our ignorance and hubris leading us down a primrose path. Medical and environmental science has moved far ahead in protecting health and eliminating disease. Allowed freedom and implementation based on true facts there would be an end to the overwhelming debt of medical care. Once again we would experience vibrant health for ourselves and our children through time.
      These advancements however need medical freedom not to be controlled, manipulated, and isolated by those seeking to retain their wealth at the expense of effectiveness. This will be controlled by securing freedom of medicine, medical freedom, and opening the communication of the health sciences to each other.
     To keep a new Department of Medical Modalities and Bionutrition as a fact based and independent agency and not captured by powerful corporate wealth require a unique agency. There is a model from the past that appeared to work well. It was the Office of Technology Assessment which was designed in a way to offset many of the problems of Congressional advisory systems. Its main objective was governmental and public access to relevant information.
     This abundance of accurate information available to the public, media, and government representatives enhances competition unlike the present structure and rules of the Food and Drug Administration. Most importantly, it would enhance informed consent while reducing the profit motive within its body. For example, bionutrition must compete in the marketplace because there is no patenting of a nutrient with a high safety profile. There will be competition and patents on processes of delivery and manufacturing. However, many nutrients by companies are sourced equally and it is  beneficial competition amongst companies benefiting the public marketplace. 
     Freedom of medicine enables health advancements and provides a landscape that encourages health care providers focus on the emotional state and sensitivities as well as physical of the person.
     One book I recently read provided an excellent and thorough view of the many modalities available. It is by Ana Maria Mihalcea, M.D., Ph. D. in her book Light Medicine, A New Paradigm – The Science of Light, Spirit, and Longevity. There are many great books providing insights to good health. One published by a Board Member of the National Health Federation deals with pregnancy filled with information and recently reviewed in Health Freedom Magazine called Expecting Fitness and Nutrition - Quantum Pregnancy is by Birgitta Lauren.
-Michael LeVesque-
Picture
Picture
0 Comments

A Podcast Conversation -  Medical Freedom Amendment

8/29/2025

0 Comments

 

An Overview of Medical Freedom and Its Future

     This conversational interview regards the proposed Medial Freedom Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    Afterwards it was requested that I share a copy of the cover letter written to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. read in the podcast.
     Here it is:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary
United States Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr.,
     As Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) your leadership directs our government’s role to improve our health and at the same time protect our individual uniqueness and protection from unnecessary and coercive medical interventions. However, there is more than ever a great danger of harm as wealth girds its limbs for battle to maintain its role of authority and protection of wealth.
     This has become a plague upon us that needs righting and justice. Our relationship with our health care provider is a special and unique one that should take priority over any governmental medical intervention. History has proven damage and suffering when one medical choice is enforced upon us all. It has also proven beyond any doubt the necessity for true facts as absolutely necessary for informed consent. Government should never create or endorse medical tyranny and lying. Government’s role is to protect us from despotism and not to abuse and betray us with injustices, propaganda, and dispossessions.
     It is with this heavy heart that cries out for all those who have suffered that we must take up the most difficult of labors. Wealth is a dangerous state of being. The mind creates corporations for protection and laws which seek protection against legal retribution with retention of its wealth no matter the consequences. The results as you have well pointed out are catastrophic, painfully so. If we are not to have freedom, protection, and choice then we are to enter into our own government’s created holocaust.
     Please read over the attached writing for the addition to the US Constitution of the Medical Freedom Amendment and further the possible creation of a governmental department to enhance and protect the Freedom of Medicine. Faith and trust abide with you and if I can in any way assist this process, I am at your service.

Most sincerely,
Raymond Michael LeVesque
0 Comments

Courts Sanction Authoritarianism

8/9/2025

0 Comments

 

The Ninth Circuit Rules against the Rule of Law

Picture
This is a guest Blog presentation by The Health Freedom Defense Fund with a vision near and dear to my heart written by Leslie Manookian whose broad background lends to the depth and meaning of her writing. 

The Ninth Circuit Rules – Court Sanctioned Authoritarianism?
By Leslie Manookian August 4, 2025

     On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs.
     The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is an affront to all who value truth, justice, the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.
     Here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for mandating Covid injections for all employees. We argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. We contended that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case from 1905, did not apply to our case because Jacobson was predicated both on the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification.
     Nearly a year later, in September 2022, the district court ruled against the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. In June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. That petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case.
     It bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. This case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such an ignominious reputation.
Indeed, the recent ruling is so egregious that it warrants a thorough breakdown of the main issues:
     {1} The Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1995), in which the court held, “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” To be clear, nowhere does our Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people. Moreover, there is not a single case in the 120 years since Jacobson when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that our society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false.  By this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. In actuality, Jacobson did not allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. Instead, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receipt of an injection.
     {2} The Ninth Circuit not only claimed that Jacobson is binding but it ignored ample and more recent SCOTUS jurisprudence that holds otherwise. In recent decades, SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v. Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v. Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the immoral and century-old Jacobson.
     {3} Perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Bennett wrote, “Jacobson holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” But this contention is false.  Jacobson did hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease. Clearly, absent that ability, there is no public health rationale. Most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health.
     {4} In Jacobson, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” (197 U.S. at 30). [Emphasis added.] The Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox. No comparison could be further from the truth. Evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, LAUSD’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.
     {5} In Jacobson, Justice Harlan wrote, “According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” Since the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection, they do not “protect the public health and the public safety” and are not “reasonable”—the Ninth Circuit, or any court for that matter, cannot conclude that Covid injections do protect public health and safety when they do not affect either.
     {6} In further justifying the court’s ruling, Judge Bennett wrote, “The SAC [Second Amended Complaint of plaintiffs] concedes that COVID-19 vaccines “lessen the severity of symptoms for individuals who receive them.” From this, the LAUSD could have reasonably determined that the vaccines would protect the health of its employees.” Here, the Ninth Circuit slyly and dishonestly shifted from public health and safety to the individual health of school district employees. But since when has it ever been a school district’s job to direct the medical treatment of individual employees? Going forward, will LAUSD also mandate that its employees get regular exercise and eight hours of sleep? Will cholesterol-lowering drugs be forced on teachers? Will their consumption of sugar and of alcohol be monitored and regulated? Where does Big Brother stop?
     {7} When a plaintiff files a lawsuit, courts are obligated to accept the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations at the initial stage of proceedings as long as the claims are plausible. In our case, both the three-judge panel and the dissent in the latest ruling acknowledged that we had plausibly pled that Covid injections do not stop infection or transmission. It is our right, according to the rules, to have the opportunity to prove our case in court. However, the Ninth Circuit robbed us of that right. In addition, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has denied us the right of any plaintiff to dispute the issues of fact in front of the court. If the Ninth Circuit can abdicate its duties and thereby violate the basic principles of our judicial system, what is the point in attempting to resolve disputes in the courts? Moreover, how can any American have faith in our judicial system?
     {8} When a party disagrees with a ruling from a district court, the party may appeal to the circuit court. If a party disagrees with a ruling from the circuit court, the party may petition the circuit court for an en banc review by a broader panel of judges than the small panel. A review of the en banc process in the Ninth Circuit reports, “To qualify for en banc review, the petition must show that the decision of the three-judge panel conflicts with “a decision of the United States Supreme Court,” “an authoritative decision of another United States court of appeals,” or “a decision of the court to which the petition is addressed” and consideration by the full court is “necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,” or “the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.” Rule 40(b)(2)(A)-(D).” None of these conditions were met in our case, yet the rehearing was granted. Was this apparent violation of the rules a politically motivated decision?
     {9} The Ninth Circuit did not even acknowledge that in September 2021 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had suspiciously timed and conveniently altered its definition of “vaccine” from an injection that prevents disease and produces immunity to the “act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection.” This deceptive move allowed authorities to label Covid injections “vaccines” instead of categorizing them as “gene therapy.” It should be obvious that the public would be reticent to submit to a new gene therapy while it would be more comfortable with a vaccine.
     {10} The Ninth Circuit repeatedly noted that Jacobson allows the legislature and executive decision-makers to enforce reasonable laws to protect public health. But there is no mention of school boards in Jacobson! And the California legislature did not enact any legislation regarding Covid injections. Therefore, pretending the 1905 ruling empowers school boards and legislatures is a fallacious claim. This is another instance of how the Ninth used deceptive sleight-of-hand in reaching its decision.
     There are many more issues with the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling. But for brevity’s sake, I will make only a few more comments.
     It is remarkable that no Ninth Circuit judge took the time to write a concurrence-especially in light of the tenor of oral argument before the en banc panel in March of 2025. During oral argument, the questions posed by the majority of the judges suggested they favored the arguments of plaintiffs and we left the court feeling very optimistic while counsel for the defendants looked downcast. Yet none of those judges championing the principles during the hearing took the time to write a concurrence in support of the majority opinion. I can only wonder why not.
     The biggest takeaway from the ruling is this: If the state can mandate a medical product under a real or a fake public health scare, can it mandate any medical intervention it chooses? What are the limits of the state’s power? Can it mandate psych meds to improve public morale? How about Adderall to enhance public productivity? Or regulate sugar to improve immunity? And why not forced pregnancy to ensure a stable population base? Of course, all of these dictates would be for the greater good!
     Judge Bennett wrote, “We reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit Jacobson to only those vaccines that prevent the spread of a disease and provide immunity.”
     By the court’s logic, there is no limit to the power of the state—a conclusion that should terrify us all. Equally concerning: The Ninth Circuit has abdicated its power and authority to hold public servants accountable. When the courts cannot be relied upon to hold public servants accountable, who can? And where does that leave us?
     As Judge Lee wrote in the fitting conclusion to his powerful dissent, “As a practical matter, I fear we are giving the government a blank check to foist health treatment mandates on the people—despite its checkered track record—when we should be imposing a check against the government’s incursion into our liberties.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022

    Michael LeVesque

    Webmaster and Gatekeeper,
    Board Member of the National Health Federation

    RSS Feed

    Picture

      Signup for the Medical Freedom Amendment Broadcast

    Subscribe
    We have no marketing or promotional materials - only the Broadcast.