IHCM Update

Informed Health Choice Legislative Update

Wed. May 3, 2023

IHC’s legislative team has worked hard all session to block bills that threaten health freedom. However, this week, those bills are being added to other bills being heard on the House and Senate floor.

The video below explains these bills and consequences should they pass either as amendments or stand-alone bills. Stand by for action alerts coming to soon for instructions on how you can help us continue to fight this legislation.

Surveillance State – Updated May 3, 2023

Missouri Bills That Contribute to Global Data Collection and Control

SB 41Pharmacists Administer Vaccines

STATUS: On Monday, May 1st, this bill was added as an amendment to another bill, SB 45. That bill will soon go to conference.

ACTION NEEDED: Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote NO on SB 45 if the pharmacy (Cook’s) and dentist (Busick’s) amendments are not removed in conference.

Find your Senator here:

SB 41 Endangers Children

SB 41 doubles the vaccines pharmacists and staff can administer to individuals as young as 7. During a public health emergency, the list expands to include ANY FDA recommended vaccines with no age minimum.

Pharmacists and their staff make serious mistakes in dosing while administering vaccines. In Missouri, pharmacy interns and techs, who can be as young as 18, are authorized to administer vaccines by this statute and regulation. According to VAERS, 25% of the “inappropriate age” mistakes for all providers was made in pharmacies. One teen in WV was given 5 times the recommended dosage by a student working at that pharmacy. Another 2 children in TX were given a Covid vaccine instead of a flu vaccine.

Most of these improper dosing cases mentioned came to light because the pharmacy contacted parents to let them know of the error. Missouri does not require pharmacies to notify the vaccine recipient, their parents, or any regulatory body. Missouri doesn’t monitor dosing errors for pharmacist administered vaccines. The Show Me Vax system, RSMo 338.01, and SB41 treat pharmacy administered shots as being administered by the health department.

SB 41 Violates the Constitution

This bill also violates Constitutional rights by ceding power to the FDA during a public health emergency. In this case, the recommended vaccines would include ALL vaccines the FDA recommends, even for babies. The Missouri State Medical Association testified against this bill in the Senate, expressing safety concerns. A House Rep who is also a doctor voted NO on this bill in both committee and on the floor.

Detailed Bill Summary

SB 41 Current statute, section 338.010 limits a pharmacist’s authority to administer vaccines to just seven: flu, pneumonia, shingles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, DTaP, and meningitis for persons at least seven years old.

SB 41 (Section 338.010 1. (4)) expands the number of vaccines a pharmacy may administer to those “approved or authorized” by the FDA. This broad definition would include vaccines given emergency use authorization (EUA).

Unless authorized by a state of emergency, SB 41 (4) does not allow pharmacies to administer the following vaccines: cholera, monkeypox, Japanese encephalitis, tick borne encephalitis, typhoid, rabies, yellow fever, anthrax, TB, dengue, Hib (flu), polio, rotavirus, smallpox, and any vaccine approved after January 1, 2023.

Assuming no state of emergency is declared, SB 41 would allow pharmacists to administer the seven vaccines currently allowed, plus the following: Pfizer’s Comirnaty for COVID (approved 8/23/21), Moderna’s Spikevax for COVID (approved 1/31/22), the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen COVID shots currently given under EUA, Mumps, Measles, Rubella, HPV (one of the most toxic vaccines), and chicken pox.

The FDA does not require approval for new flu shots but instead considers them reformulations of a previously approved vaccine. It is widely anticipated the FDA will do the same with existing, traditional vaccines that are “reformulated” to use mRNA. If the legislature intent is to protect the public and particularly children, from mRNA technology, SB 41’s exclusion of vaccines approved after January 1, 2023 will not be effective.

Pharmacist Administered Vaccines During Public Health Emergency

SB 41(Section 338.010 18) adds entirely new language to the statute allowing pharmacies to administer FDA “approved or authorized”, vaccines (which again, would include emergency use authorized) to “address a public health need,

Certified pharmacy techs and interns in Missouri are authorized by regulation (below) to give any vaccine pharmacists can give. Pharmacy techs in Missouri can be as young as 18.

Here is the regulation authorizing administration by techs and interns in the Missouri Code of State Regulations — go to pg. 5 and scroll down to 20 CSR 2150-5.025 “Administration of Vaccines Per Protocol”

We have to remember that this bill expands what pharmacists AND their staff can do. If SB 41 passes, someone as young as 18, a pharmacy tech, could be giving your 7 year old any of the vaccines listed in this bill. During a state or federally declared state of emergency, that list could and expand to include any vaccine approved by the CDC at whatever minimum age they recommend.

Perspectives Re: SB4

by RNonymous

Dynamic Relationships

There is a dynamic relationship between the Physician, Pharmacist, nurse and patient which allows for the convergence of different roles and professions. Each role has an obligation to represent the training of their profession in an ethical way and also to advocate for the patient. When the patient encounters a caregiving environment where these three professional roles converge, there is a system of checks and balances that ensures the safety of the patient and optimizes the outcome for the patient’s health. The physician’s approach to the patient brings with it years of scientific study, medical training and professional expertise to make recommendations and direct the care of patients. Physician orders are based on assessment of patient history, physical observation, analysis of data from lab work as well as imaging techniques. The pharmacist has special in-depth knowledge of drugs including vaccines with respect to their mechanism of action and specific effects on particular organ systems as well as the rate at which a pharmaceutical is cleared from the patients’ system. The nurse often has a more personal relationship with the patient that ensures advocacy for the patient on a more intimate and personal level and often in conjunction with the family provides a voice for the patients’ needs and desires. This system of medical practice has allowed the United States to achieve a level of effective healthcare delivery that is the envy of many other nations and in many respects has pioneered the way for modern medicine.

The Healthcare System

The achievements of the United States healthcare system were made possible via three mechanisms. Innovation of ideas in pharmaceutical science, application of those ideas through healthcare delivery in clinics and hospitals, and funding. The healthcare system was originally comprised of family caregivers and later extended to caregiving from charitable and religious organizations who had altruistic motivations to delivering care for the benefit of the patient. The healthcare system originated out of love. But delivering care became increasingly problematic as health innovations became more advanced and complex, and therefore more expensive. The expense of healthcare became an increasingly notable problem. Initially, insurance companies stepped in and provided a service whereby their members paid premiums and effectively pooled their resources by paying a nominal fee. The insurance company paid out on the relatively rare occasion that one of its members needed care, and pocketed the remainder as profit. However as time marched on, insurance companies, in an effort to maximize their profit, began to exert more influence over the decisions of the physician and eventually resulted in Health Management Organizations or HMO’s. Now to some degree, if a physician wanted to prescribe a treatment it was subject to the influence of the insurance company’s approval. Later movement toward governmental programs like Medicare and Medicaid became an additional source of funding eventually culminating in the Affordable Care Act. After government funding became broadly available and represented a seemingly inexhaustible financial resource, the patient whose interests were once the main purpose of the healthcare system now became the door through which economic resources flowed from the government to the pharmaceutical and hospital systems. The pharmaceutical industry and hospital systems have attempted to maintain the image that their services are rooted in altruism and love. But the billions and billions of dollars that flow into these organizations and the jaw dropping financial benefits seen by these entities has called into question whether it is the still the patients’ best interest that is being served or, instead that the patient is now a piece of chattel or commodity whereby the pharmaceutical industry acquires its wealth.

SB 41 is a bill being proposed in the State of Missouri in 2023 which changes the fundamental role of the pharmacist by allowing the pharmacist to be not only the formulator and dispenser of vaccines, but also the ordering medical professional (via physician-guided protocol) thereby circumventing the role previously restricted to physicians.

Conflict of Interest

If pharmacists are able to order vaccines under protocol, and receive financial benefit for the vaccines they are dispensing, they will have a financial incentive to order vaccines without consideration of the individual patient and will be left to provide them to the patient in good faith and “on their honor” that they are acting in the best interest of the patient. There is a conflict of interest. The pharmacist only gets paid if he or she dispenses the vaccines. Whereas a physician is paid for his or her right discernment for the health of the individual patient independent of whether or not a drug or vaccine is prescribed. The obvious benefit to the patient under the care of a physician is that the physician is free to make decisions about the patients care without the incentive of financial gain and therefore remains free of the conflict of interest.

Vaccines are prophylactic medical care, and every patient has the right to receive medical care and counsel from a medical doctor who is paid for providing medical expertise and judgement for the individual whether or not a medication is recommended.

SB41 would allow for greater efficiency for the distribution of vaccines during a disease outbreak. However, in doing so the bill also treats the people of Missouri as though they are member of a herd instead of individual persons. It strips us our humanity. The people of Missouri are not animals.

MO 191.1146 stipulates that a physician-patient relationship must be established in order for the physician to prescribe medications and deliver care through the practice of Tele-medicine and that, “A questionnaire completed by the patient, whether via the internet or telephone, does not constitute an acceptable medical interview and examination for the provision of treatment by telehealth.” This statute indicates that filling out a questionnaire DOES NOT provide the physician with enough information to provide adequate care. The statute requires that the physician, (in order to provide adequate care) must have PERSONAL AND PARTICULAR knowledge of the individual patient beyond that which could be acquired by a questionnaire. The purpose of the statute is to ensure that every patient is treated as an individual and that the practice of medicine NOT per performed via the meeting of generic exclusion or inclusion criteria. This ensures that Missourians receive the individual care they deserve.

SB 41 flies in the face of this previously established personalized approach (MO 191.1146) to the practice of medicine and supposes that personal and particular knowledge of an individual patient is NOT necessary and instead that the practice of medicine with respect to vaccines can be done per protocol and without the evaluation of the patient by a physician. If a questionnaire (as in Telemedicine) cannot establish enough information to treat a patient, then why would administering a vaccine or medication per protocol be acceptable? The practice of medicine is more complex than simply meeting inclusion or exclusion criteria because every individual patient has past medical histories that are completely different and there may be underlying conditions that are affected differently by different vaccines and/or medications. Furthermore, because the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the data that come from individual vaccine trials, then the pharmaceutical industry also MUST play a key role in the recommendations and protocols set forth by whatever physician is responsible for the protocol used to guide the pharmacist to administer vaccines and medications. This represents yet another conflict of interest because the pharmaceutical industry only stand to gain if their vaccine is dispensed by the pharmacist and has nothing to lose if the vaccine administered results in a vaccine injury because under federal law pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccine injuries. Instead the U.S taxpayers bare the burden of liability via vaccine courts/VAERS.

SB41 allows the government of the State of Missouri to treat its citizens not as though they are individuals with inherent dignity endowed by their Creator, but as though they are members of a herd. This is reminiscent of the way African-Americans were treated in the slave trade over 100 years ago. It is an abomination.


The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act is a piece of legislation signed into law by Barack Obama in 2012. The Act amends the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 which prevented the use of propaganda against citizens in the United States. It authorized the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act also amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (fiscal years 1986/1987) to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion of propagandizing in the United States. In short this Act makes it legal for the government or its agencies to lie to the American people.

Recall for a moment the number of times you heard the term “safe and effective” in reference to the recent broadly distributed COVID-19 gene therapy marketed as a “vaccine”. The term “vaccine” is somewhat of a misnomer because the mechanism of action of the mRNA “vaccine” is significantly divergent from traditional vaccines. Since it is now LEGAL for the government to distribute propaganda and lie to the American people, it is reasonable to question to veracity of the “safe and effective” claims made by the CDC, NIH, and the parroting mainstream media outlets. They have absolutely zero liability if their claims are false.

Profit Margins Keeping Secrets and Selling Drugs

According to CNN, Pfizer expected $81-82 billion in revenue from the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. This is a significant increase from the $1.7 billion it received in a previous year from vaccine sales.

In 2022 a federal judge denied a request from the FDA that it be given 75 years to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by a coalition of doctors and scientists with the nonprofit Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency which sought material about the vaccine creation process during the COVID-19 pandemic. The apparent desire for secrecy from the FDA certainly does nothing to inspire confidence for the American consumer. In addition the endless number of video clips following TV programs like the superbowl or various news casts saying “brought to you by Pfizer” call into question just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over main stream media. Interestingly, the United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to directly market their products to consumers.

Please contact your Missouri House member and urge them to vote NO on SB 41 if it gets to the House floor for debate.

SB 7 – Chief Data Officer —

Creates a Chief Data Officer Position – Centralizing Data and CONTROL

STATUS: This bill has been sitting on the Senate’s formal calendar. However, during the budget debate Tuesday evening, April 25th, Senator Hough added it as a 40+ page AMENDMENT to SB 4, an appropriation bill. Leadership is determined to pass this bill. We have to educate our legislators.

Bill Summary

Data is the new gold. SB7 lists the word DATA 145 times.

It’s interesting that in the now added pages that they didn’t take the time to define the exact meaning of Data, Personal Data, etc. Our personal data belongs to each person, not the government.

SB7, starting on page 2, allows the Data to go to the Federal level. This is unacceptable. The PDMP has our data in Warsaw, Poland and Canada, etc. There was NO consent, NO disclosure, and NO notice given to patients.

SB7, even with all the twisted terminology and attempt of defining Data, without truly listing the definition, prepares for a problem. The bill creates a “Consumer Privacy Fund” where “actual damages” could be fined up to $7500 per violation. However, this goes into a fund to determine if someone may or may not be worthy of compensation, due to damages they never agreed to or consented for their data to be used in this manner.

For the past decade, the federal government has pushed toward making more data publicly available. As Bill Eggers, one of the co-authors of A CDO Playbook, A Guide for Chief Data Officers, said in the recent interview,

“…[Collecting data] goes beyond just economic benefits to literally saving lives, in many respects. If you look at the health care sector alone, it collects an immense amount of data. You’ve got genomic data, electronic health records, clinical trial data, not to mention all of the patient-generated data from all the technologies like smart watches and mobile apps. So, the health care world is truly a data-rich landscape. But right now, the data exists in silos due to privacy concerns, competitive concerns, and barriers to interoperability and so forth. You could literally save millions of lives if we can figure out how to bring all that data together, and government plays a big role in this because government has a lot of the data. Increasingly, government can be the platform for bringing together a lot of the public and private data.

This is why they need government.

Other state Governments have implemented a CDO, and are giving direction to other states on how to establish one. Federal agencies are implementing CDOs.

As this Beeck Center publication from 2020 explains,

“Open data extends beyond transparency by providing easy, open, and self-service access to datasets for which there are no legal restrictions to data sharing.”The Evolving Role of the State Chief Data Officer, A Framework for Today (Tyler Kleykamp, State CDO Network, The Beeck Center)

The more the government collects, the more they can control us.

As James Holderman with Stand for Health Freedom explains,

“States all across the country are creating data repositories in order to make citizens’ personal/private information available through citizens’ DIGITAL IDENTITY profiles, which are also being simultaneously created.

Private companies, which do not have to respect a citizen’s constitutionally-protected rights, are going to require and/or coerce citizens to divulge more and more of this personal/private information, which will include not only government-held information, but, location tracking, biometrics, past transactions, etc. And, that is just on the identity front.

These digital identities profiles will then also be used to discriminate against citizens based on the agenda du jour of the powers that be.

As you can see in this tweet thread, Bill Gates and Microsoft are behind this initiative is a BIG WAY, working with both the World Bank and Mastercard.

And, as most everyone knows, Bill Gates is leading the advancement of the global vaccine agenda. So, don’t be surprised when vaccination status is used to discriminate against citizens (in many cases, in violation of their religious freedom) by the private sector, which itself will be coerced to do so.

“Technology is not inherently bad, but we need to make sure that the system(s) being created have our input, are not able to become centralized or monopolized and that human rights and patient privacy comes first. ”

– Breeauna Sagdal, Policy Journalist and Editor

As Policy Journalist and Editor-at-Large for the Dakota Leader, Breeauna Sagdal, one of the first journalists to break the story about South Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code bill, writes,

“There IS synergy between the policies we’re seeing at the state and federal level.


– We’re seeing a push to criminalize DeFi (Decentralized Finance), and the decentralized network,

– We’re watching the real-time creation of the SMART Grid, IoT and “15 minute cities”

– We’re watching the real-time roll out of CBDC and the federal reserve’s instant settlement system known as FedNow.

What I believe is happening;

– The parallel economy is being criminalized in order to centralize control.

– Simultaneously we’re watching the creation of these smart cities as more land is contaminated and water rights are being taken by the federal WOTUS (Waters of the United States) regulations.

A Florida-based doctor is currently using remote tracking technology (The Internet of Bodies as coined by the WEF) to check real-time updates on geriatric patients. These are remote sensors via pill, that track patients internally and uploads data to the cloud.

I strongly believe that in order to maintain our bodily autonomy and sovereignty, we must protect the decentralized parallel economy.”

Technology is not inherently bad, but we need to make sure that the system(s) being created have our input, are not able to become centralized or monopolized and that human rights and patient privacy comes first.

These things are coming quickly, regardless of our personal wishes. But perhaps we can help to steer them in an ethical direction.

SB7 creates a CDO, a Chief Data Officer, to create an Open Data system. Did you know Federal Agencies are also doing the same? Did you know states were instructed to get this in place? Did you know federal will have access to our personal data?

SB 7 is a data grab with one official in charge of it all.

Are you willing to stop this bill to keep our Data and our kids data from landing in the hands of the Feds?

Help us STOP this bill!

Please call your Senators and tell them to vote NO if SB 7 comes up for a vote, either as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment! Find your MO Senator here:

HB 249 – Rep. Busick — Dentist Administer Vaccines

Dentists authorized to administer vaccines

STATUS: On May 1, this bill was added as an amendment to Sen. Gannon’s SB 45 along with SB 41, the bills that allows pharmacists to administer vaccines. Please stand by an action alert on this legislation.

Bill Summary:

Representative Busick’s HB 249 changes the definition of dentistry to authorize dentists to do something beyond the scope of their practice — to administer an open-ended list of vaccines to individuals, including children as young as seven, with minimal training and no knowledge their medical history.

This bill authorizes dentists to administer vaccines to anyone of any age during a state of emergency with complete protection from liability.

This bill also does not require necessary safety measures such as an observation period after vaccination administration or a safety and emergency protocol in place in the case of anaphylaxis or other adverse reactions and no provision for a safety or emergency protocol in the case of anaphylaxis or other adverse reactions. The prescribing dentist will neither have access to a patient’s doctor nor his/her medical history.

Vaccines are not like vitamins. They can pose serious even deadly risk to individuals that not all medical doctors and nurses are prepared to address, let alone dentists and their staff.

Please contact your Missouri House member and tell them you are OPPOSED to HB 249. Stand by for additional action alerts once this bill has been assigned to a rules committee.

HB 1165 -Rep. Hicks 

Digital Currency Control Bill

This bill could be added as an amendment to SB 100 (a good bill that we have been suporting), which unfortunately opens it up to more amendments on the House floor that could include CBDCs. Please stand by for action alerts should this language get to the floor.

Bill Summary:

HCS HB 1165, which is intended to appear like a routine update to Missouri’s Universal Commercial Code (UCC) law, actually lays the groundwork for a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

HCS HB 1165 would fundamentally change key financial definitions in Missouri’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statutes. The UCC is a comprehensive set of laws that governs ALL commercial transactions in the United States. This bill sets up a framework for contract payments using digital currency — but ONLY that which the government authorizes. It redefines “money”, “person”, and over a dozen financial terms that businesses use in interstate commerce and authorizes biometrics and UNKOWN emerging technologies for transactions. Read more about this bill here.

A centralized, federal digital currency means the government could have complete control over ALL transactions — think vaccine passports.

Though this bill is not explicitly promoting a Central Bank Digital Currency, it is saying that ONLY digital currency the UCC laws will legally recognize as “controllable electronic record” must be “issued by the government”. It’s like building a highway, even though you might not have the cars to run on it. Scroll down an analysis of the bills with notes about IHC’s concerns.

1) HCS HB 1165 repeals 84 sections of current Uniform Commercial Code law and adds 107 new sections related to the Uniform Commercial Code.

2) Line 90 – Definition of “Money” adding “and is not in an electronic form.” 

In response to concern from the public and legislators about this bill, the sponsor presented a committee substitute and claimed to have taken out all references to the two words, “electronic money”. However, the substitute simply massaged the definitions of “money” and “controllable electronic record” so that nothing was actually changed with regard to which digital currencies will be accepted or not accepted after Article 12 is enacted.

The committee substitute moved page 4 line 93 to page 93 line 7 to the definition of controllable electronic record.

Also, page 5 definition of “person”, the term includes a protected series. This looks to possibly be setting up Limited Liability series with more information on page 28.

3) Line 1 – Definition of “Security procedure”, adding “impose an obligation on the receiving bank or the customer and …. symbols, sounds, biometrics,”. We don’t see a definition in this bill for biometrics and wonder what that would be.

4) Line 49 – line 62 – talks about “powers of the person” and remember the definition of “person” included “individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity. 

Line 57 – is very concerning! “A person that has control under this section is not required to acknowledge that it has control on behalf of another person.” and read through to line 62.

5) Line 39 – “A person that has control under the section is not required to acknowledge that it has control on behalf of a purchaser.”

6) Line 2 – definition of controllable electronic record, line 7 is where they added the phrase that used to be under the definition of money. “400.12-102. (a) In this article: (1) “Controllable electronic record” means a record stored in an electronic medium that can be subjected to control under section 400.12-105. The term does not include a controllable account, a controllable payment intangible, a deposit account, an electronic copy of a record evidencing chattel paper, an electronic document of title, investment property, transferable record, or an electronic record that is currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and is not a medium of exchange that was recorded and transferable in a system that existed and operated for the medium of exchange before the medium of exchange was authorized or adopted by a government.

Isn’t this definition of Controllable electronic record making any existing medium of exchange UNAUTHORIZED? Think about that.

7) Line 1, 400.12–105 a person has control of an electronic record if…

This section was referred to on page 93 under the definition of control of electronic record.

8) Lines 29 through 35 The default jurisdiction is the District of Columbia. 

Umm, no thank you!!

Please sign up for our email list to learn how you can protect health freedom in Missouri!

If you care about health freedom, please join our email list. If you are interested in traveling to the capitol for our Worker Bee Wednesday meetings with legislators, please let us know. We can make a difference if we all work together!


Leave a Reply