Already our claim for unconstitutionality in September 2014 and the corresponding Constitutional Court judgement in 2015 (case number: C-752 of 2015)

• not only cleared away the intentional ambiguity of the HPV-Vaccination Act of 2013 and with it the alleged mandatory nature of HPV vaccination (HPV = so-called human papillomavirus),

• but also prevented the medical doctors’ class and their executive arm from using the intentional ambiguity of the HPV-law of 2013 as a pretext for their acts of violence against the people of Colombia in order to get them vaccinated by force. Already at that time, the HPV vaccination had wreaked havoc on the Colombian women and girls, causing countless irreparable bodily injuries.

Our claim of unconstitutionality of 2014 was therefore groundbreaking for the new Constitutional Court Ruling of 27.08.2017 (case number: T-365 of 2017) – a ruling based on a constitutional claim filed by a vaccine-damaged woman, supported by the Association of Women affected by the HPV vaccine.

Forced by patients’ resistance and obliged to be consistent with its own previous jurisprudence, the Constitutional Court of Colombia in its ruling of 27.08.2017 (T-365 of 2017) affirmed and decreed that any coercive medical treatment, meaning: treatment against the will of the patient, and thus any forced vaccination, here: the HPV vaccination, is unconstitutional and constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
The will of the patient has highest legal priority.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court warns and instructs the Colombian Ministry of Health that the medical doctors bear the burden of proof in proving that they are in possession of the patient’s consent for any medical treatment, including the administration of the HPV vaccine and any other vaccine. Because "any manipulation of the body without the consent (of the patient) is one of the most typical and basic forms of any legally inadmissible and illicit act", as the Court points out, referring to one of its rulings already in 1999 (!), a judgement reiterated in another sentence of the year 2006.

In its new ruling, the Constitutional Court states that several countries have expressed doubts and objections against the HPV vaccination and that, for example, the Japanese public authorities "stopped the HPV vaccination campaigns due to the relationship between its administration and the death of four women in 2011" (!).

Although the Colombian medical doctors’ class, too, had been aware of these vaccine deaths since 2011, they submitted – under the pretext of the Colombian HPV-law of 2013 – the Colombian women and girls to medical mass experiments without their consent. This constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of Colombian women, a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and legally binding for each State – an infringement contrary to International Law, which stands on the same level as "torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", as stated in Article 7 of the International Covenant. And in view of the medical euthaNAZIsm, the HEIL&HEAL-doctatorship, which then, in 1966, was still vivid in their memory, the authors of the International Covenant knew very well what they were talking about.

In addition, the Constitutional Court had previously pointed out that the mere absence of the consent of the patient is to be recognised as reluctance to the respective medical treatment. One should not be deceived or intimidated by manipulations such as the "presumed consent" or the alledged demand to provide a "written informed assent" – as the Ministry of Health has attempted with iatrophile make-stupid-astuteness – because these are law-abusive misrepresentations and distortions that serve only to relieve the medical doctor of his burden of proof and to give the green light to the doctor to violate the will of the patient with impunity. No, none of that! Thanks to the patients’ class the silence of the patient has acquired the legal force of a refusal of the medical treatment. But in order not to provide the doctor with any pretext, it is in any case better to express to him in all clarity your refusal of the respective medical treatment.

The recent ruling of the Constitutional Court is an effective ammunition to keep the medical doctors at bay and at a distance and to release illness from its medical chains.
However, the Constitutional Court felt compelled to also satisfy the medical class and its executive arm by urging them "to promote massive information and public education campaigns". Or, bluntly said: medical brainwashing.

Ongoing vigilance of the patients’ class against the medical doctors’ class is therefore still necessary!

Stop the medical doctors’ iatrobiontic warfare against all people!
Make front against it!

Against all science

Iatrocracy on a world-wide scale

Iatro-Imperialism