August 2020 - Elizabeth Sadove presentation to FDA-CDC: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.
August 2020 - Elizabeth Sadove presentation to FDA-CDC: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.
Longtime Bailiwick readers will understand right away how the slide deck, especially the slide below, fit into the criminal intent evidentiary package. New readers will understand after you get oriented.
For those confused about “right to refuse” to submit to EUA products, the [Potemkin] US government construes this as meaning military targets, known as “volunteers” in the table below, of the mRNA class of pharmaceutical-weapons, known as Covid-19 vaccines, must be told that they have a “right” to refuse, and that refusal may carry penalties such as loss of employment, military position, educational opportunity, or other de facto revocable privileges.
The government construes these information exchanges between conscripted military/public health personnel (nurses, pharmacists, doctors) and targeted individuals (people injected with mRNA/LNP slurries) as non-coercive.
Aug. 25-28, 2020 - FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. (Elizabeth Sadove, Director, Medical Countermeasure Regulatory Policy, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Office of Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration)
Update - Comment I posted to Maryann Demasi’s report Is the FDA “doubling down” on a failed strategy?
In August 2020, FDA and CDC agents already knew that they were never going to need to collect, review, discuss, base decisions on, or produce efficacy or safety data for EUA products; that the EUA product program was “not likely” to produce useful information to benefit future patients; and that there would be “no systematic data collection” although “retrospectives studies may be conducted and published.” See table on p. 18 of the 22-page slide deck.
Hi Katherine
It would seem to me that this document is a lie ...
https://www.fda.gov/media/143890/download
Would that be a correct interpretation?
Thanks again for all the wonderful work you are doing ...
pb
I read that DOJ memo months ago but I must say - it is utter nonsense. How can a medical provider authorized to administer a biologic warn a recipient of said biologic that their failure to take the biologic may result in loss of employment?
Not to mention the failure of logic that there is no coercion when there is choice - you can choose not to take this, but your choice in that matter results in the loss of your job. (By the way, that technique verbatim was used by my employer.)
I did not have a choice. I had direction from God to rely on natural immunity. I had no choice but to follow my conscience and rely on God's direction. God's direction came before the word mandate was ever uttered. I also did not have a credible choice to follow non-specific advice administered by HR that was contrary to the advice I received from the medical provider who had my full medical history. God's will be done.