This Personal Letter From Brazil Highlights Deep Despair After Unjust Federal Supreme Court Ruling
Babies and children must continue to get toxic COVID shots. Why? So as not to undermine the public immunisation policy...
Over the past two years, the World Council for Health Brazil team has been representing groups of desperate Brazilian parents in municipal courts around the country asking that parental rights to choose not to have their babies and children injected with the experimental, toxic Covid-19 vaccines are upheld. Most people now know that Covid-19 vaccines were never tested properly for safety in adults, let alone babies and children.
As a result of concerted efforts in the state of Santa Catarina, numerous municipal court cases were won, including in Balneário Camboriú, Modelo, Presidente Getúlio, Taió, Criciúma, Brusque, Ituporanga, Sombrio, Santa Terezinha do Progresso and São Pedro de Alcântara, giving parents hope that continued efforts in the legal direction would prove fruitful.
However, a month ago all this changed with a Federal Supreme Court ruling - invalidating all the hard won ground in protecting Brazil’s youngest citizens.
I received this sad letter with an update on the situation from a WCH Brazil colleague yesterday:
The SPF decision (in the state of Catarina) I mentioned is very recent, from this month. Below is the original link from the Brazilian Supreme Court’s official website.
Honestly, and this is why I feel emotional, when things reach this level, there is very little we can do. As I mentioned, we have political prisoners (without crimes), journalists, and even elderly people (without crimes) with serious illnesses like cancer being kept in prison, and there seems to be no effective way to restore justice.
My colleagues may see things differently, but the reality is that we are currently unable to stop mandatory vaccination in the state of Santa Catarina. Other states, for now, do not have the same requirement.
Let me explain what is happening:
1- A doctor issues a medical exemption for the vaccine, whether for one or all vaccines, but health clinics, schools, and daycare centers are not accepting these medical certificates. When that happens, families turn to lawyers.
2- However, lawyers defending these families are facing strong pressure, as judges are choosing not to recognize the medical exemptions or the legal arguments, and are ordering forced vaccination of children.
You have already very kindly sent a letter to President Lula, and I am truly grateful for that. Politicians have even spoken about it, but it was not taken into consideration.
Many people, in order to escape unjust imprisonment, are going to the United States. The U.S. has been receptive, welcoming persecuted Brazilians, including the son of President Bolsonaro and journalists who have faced censorship. There is also a well-known case of a journalist whose daughter was, unfortunately, affected after a BCG vaccine, and he has been speaking about it publicly.
As an example of censorship, these same ministers do not allow access to the Rumble platform, which is prohibited here. Twitter was temporarily banned, but after negotiations, access was restored.
Recently, Trump applied the Magnitsky Act to some Brazilian authorities and their family members for other reasons, and this was very significant. I believe that presenting this context, regarding the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, could be one more relevant element.
A strategy that directly impacts the decision-making of these ministers is anything that affects them financially or involves Magnitsky-type measures. There are no other effective mechanisms at this point. They do not respond to health, science, or justice, only to American international pressure... just it make them return ....I feel veeeryyy embarrassed to say this!
From my perspective, as a necessary course of action, we should present this situation to a U.S. health committee and especially to President Trump, who has been helping Brazilians facing persecution and injustice. This could support both our doctors, whose medical exemptions are being disregarded, and our lawyers, who are receiving decisions that we consider unconstitutional.
Even the mere possibility of this, or the fact that they know they could be subject to Magnitsky sanctions or other measures that could harm them, due to the fact that they are forcing COVID-19 vaccination in babies from 6 months to children up to 5 years old, is in itself enough to generate the necessary pressure to reverse mandatory vaccination.
Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court ruling 5 March 2026:
This is the official notice about the Federal Supreme Court ruling: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-decide-que-e-obrigatorio-comprovar-vacinacao-contra-covid-19-para-matricula-em-escolas-de-sc/
Here is an English translation of the notice:
By majority vote, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) invalidated decrees from 10 municipalities in the state of Santa Catarina that had removed the requirement to present proof of COVID-19 vaccination for enrollment or re-enrollment in the public school system. The decision was made in the judgment of Claim of Noncompliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 1123, during the virtual session concluded on February 24.
In March 2024, the full bench had upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the reporting justice, Cristiano Zanin, which suspended the effectiveness of the decrees at the request of the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), due to the start of the school year and the need to avoid exposing children to public health risks.
Federal jurisdiction
In the judgment on the merits, the rapporteur’s understanding prevailed that waiving the requirement to present proof of vaccination undermines the effectiveness of public immunization policies, in addition to violating the fundamental right to health and the full protection of children and adolescents.
According to the justice, the municipalities exceeded their supplementary authority to issue regulations, since it is the responsibility of the federal government to establish general rules in matters of health. The municipal rules, as highlighted in the opinion, conflict with federal and state legislation that provide for compulsory COVID-19 vaccination and require proof of vaccination at the time of school enrollment. By removing this requirement, the municipalities compromised the unity and coherence of the legal system for protecting public health.
Regularization
The rapporteur emphasized in his opinion that the absence of proof of vaccination does not immediately authorize denying a child access to school. A deadline must be granted to regularize the situation, with possible notification of the Guardianship Council or other competent authorities if noncompliance persists. According to Zanin, this measure reconciles the guarantee of the right to education with the legal duty of parents or guardians to vaccinate.
Dissent
Justices André Mendonça and Nunes Marques were partially in the minority. They recognized the mandatory nature of childhood vaccination and the constitutionality of requiring an updated vaccination record at enrollment. However, they argued that noncompliance should not prevent enrollment or re-enrollment in the municipal school system, and that cases of proven medical contraindication must also be respected.
Invalidated decrees
By majority, the full bench declared unconstitutional the decrees issued by the municipalities of Balneário Camboriú, Modelo, Presidente Getúlio, Taió, Criciúma, Brusque, Ituporanga, Sombrio, Santa Terezinha do Progresso, and São Pedro de Alcântara [but the ruling applies to the whole state of Santa Catarina].
Thesis
The legal thesis established was as follows:
A municipal decree that removes the requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for enrollment or re-enrollment in the school system is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the municipalities’ supplementary authority.
Waiving the requirement for proof of vaccination undermines the effectiveness of public immunisation policies and violates the fundamental right to health and the full protection of children and adolescents.
This ruling has very serious implications, not only for Brazilians but all people around the world, and must be challenged. We shall be forwarding to colleagues in the United States to ask whether the Magnitsky Act can be applied to promulgators of Covid-19 measures in Brazil that lead to the violation of people’s inalienable human rights and freedoms.
Brazilians should consider returning to home birthing, to avoid any hospitals. Hospitals can be trusted no longer. Take a chance on baby surviving home birth than the certainty of its death or chronic disability in an injecting hospital.
Pure vaccine terror, torture and murder.