Articles have resurfaced from 2015 in which a doctor uncannily predicted that vaccinations would be used as a pretext to annul freedom and liberty. 

On February 4, 2015, Dr. Lee D. Merritt M.D. (nee Hieb) first wrote an article in WND titled, “How vaccine hysteria could spark totalitarian nightmare”.

In the piece, Merritt defends then-Governor Chris Christie, who came under fire for saying that parents have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. 

Merritt then methodically broke down the pro-mandate argument using the very same logic and philosophy used today. 

First, she said, the proponents of forced vaccinations are the same who are proponents of Roe v. Wade. These individuals believe that a woman should have autonomy over her own body, but only up to a point. That point – where the woman’s autonomy ends – is where the government says that public health begins. 

Second, she explained that medical ethics are clear when it comes to informed consent for vaccinations. 

“We condemn the forced sterilization of the '20s and '30s, the Tuskegee medical experiments infecting black inmates and the Nazi medicine that included involuntary ‘Euthanasia,’ experimentation and sterilization,” Merritt wrote. “How can we force vaccination without consent? Vaccination is a medical treatment with risks including death. It is totally antithetical to all ethics in medicine to mandate that risk to others.” 

Third, she discussed the fallacy of the oft-repeated statement by politicians that “the science is indisputable”. The science, said the surgeon, is always disputable – and that is, in fact, the point of science. 

Newtonian science was refuted by Einstein, and even Einsteinian physics has been modified in the modern era. In a piece called, “The Half-Life of Truth”, a team of cardiologists reviewed their old papers and found that only 50% of the science was still true. 

Fourth, Merritt asks the fundamental question many ask today. If the vaccines work, why force others to get them? If they don’t work, why get them? 

In her own words: 

If you believe absolutely in the benefit and protective value of vaccination, why does it matter what others do? Or don't do?  . . . If you believe you need vaccination to be healthy and protected, then by all means vaccinate your child and yourself. Why should you even be concerned what your neighbor chooses to do for his child – if vaccination works? The idea of herd immunity is still based on the idea that in individual cases vaccines actually are protective.

Lastly, she suggested that with forced vaccinations, it won’t end there. 

“If you think the government has the right to forcibly vaccinate people – for the good of society – what is to prevent them from forcibly sterilizing people, or forcibly euthanizing people, or forcibly implanting a tracking device – for the good of society?” 

“At the end of the day, the issue here is one of freedom, and freedom is the freedom to choose – even if we make a bad choice,” Merritt concluded. “The argument that I must vaccinate my children for the good of the community is not only scientifically questionable, it is an unethical precept.” 

Merritt went on to say that it is an argument as old as time. 

“It is the argument all dictators and totalitarians have used. ‘Comrade, you must work tirelessly for the good of the collective. You must give up your money and property for the good of the collective, and now … you must allow us to inject your children with what we deem is good for the collective.’” 

She then called on Americans to defend their liberty. 

“If American's don't stand up against this, then we are lost. Because we have lost ownership of ourselves. Our bodies are no longer solely ours – we and our children are able to be commandeered for the ‘greater good’.” 

The day after Merritt wrote the article, the Obama administration drafted the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), a 67-page proposal for forcibly vaccinating the adult population. It was a five-year plan, to reach its climax in 2020. 

For most, the NAIP quietly slipped by without objection or comment. But Merritt caught it. 

“Is it just my sense of irony or is it a signal to fellow travelers that this is a ‘Five-year Plan’?” she wrote in an article on March 10, 2015. “Did they hire old Soviet central planners or come up with this all on their own?” 

Merritt once again exposed the hypocrisy of those who are pro-forced vaccinations. 

“...you can't have both. You cannot scream for a ‘woman's right to choose’ when it applies to abortion but give her no right to choose what gets administered to her in a syringe.” 

Regarding the claim that vaccination is different because it’s a “public health” issue, she asserted that it shouldn’t be. 

“Let me be clear,” she wrote. “Public health does not trump individual liberty. End of story.” 

Merritt then concluded with words that would emerge five years later as near-prophesy. 

"If you Americans do not stand against this, it's over. What liberty do you have if the federal government can force you to have a medical procedure, can force you to surrender your very body to their control? Answer: none. Because there is nothing that cannot be justified on the basis of "the good of society".  

She then cited the world’s worst atrocities, such as the Holocaust, which were perpetrated on the back of the “public good”.  

As for doctors – Merritt said that they can easily hide behind a government mandate. 

“Even doctors start believing that they can determine who should die or be sterilized for the good of the whole society. And if you as a doctor have qualms, it is much easier to just throw up your hands and say you have no choice – it's a government mandate.” 

“There is no ‘general public’ when it comes to decisions about your personal health,” she added. “No one cares more about the risks versus benefits of vaccination than you do personally. To leave it to a group, to treat you as a member of a group for medical care, is not ethical medicine. It is the stuff of jails and forced labor camps and socialist hellholes – and apparently American academia and bureaucrats. It is time to say no.”