Discover more from Bailiwick News
Laws that contradict each other.
Excerpts from academic paper.
For the last couple of weeks, I worked on an academic paper for a summer conference in Dublin: Entrenching a Global Health Emergency Mode: Implications for Health and Human Rights Law.
I pulled together a bunch of material, reorganized it, added some things and developed a much-too-long draft, which will eventually take shape as the short paperback book readers have requested.
But because the conference organizers said that conference participants will be mostly people who are not familiar with my legal research, and also requested a “dry and legalistic” tone, I decided to rework a legal history summary originally written for Sen. Ron Johnson and his staff in December, by removing “kill box” references, replacing biochemical weapons with harmful, regulation-exempt biochemical products and adding some international law context.
May 22, 2023 - Securitisation of Public Health Law: US Origin (PDF)
For long-time Bailiwick readers, most of the academic paper just offers another version of what you already understand.
As with the prior versions, the report is mostly useful for two sorts of readers:
people who want to understand why legal systems worldwide are not stopping the mass-torture, mass-mutilation, mass-murder program that has been underway for at least three years; and
lawyers, judges and legislators who may become interested in using the remaining shards of legitimate national and international legal systems, with the documents cited in the footnotes, to criminally prosecute individuals posing as government officials for acts of treason that established the corrupt legal conditions through which other men and women, posing as doctors, nurses and pharmacists, are committing torture, mutilation, murder and other crimes.
Excerpts from the new sections:
In this paper, I describe the legislative transfer of the US Department of Defense chemical and biological warfare program, to the public health emergencies program operated by the US Department of Health and Human Services, between 1969 and the present.
The American transfer of chemical and biological weapons development and use from military programs to public health programs has occurred in parallel to, and in compliance with, analogous developments in international law during the same interval, most notably the United Nations World Health Organization International Health Regulations, 2005 (IHR), and its implementation in WHO member-states.
These legal developments present the question:
What legal recourse do victims of regulation-exempt biochemical products have, under international and domestic law, when material acts undertaken by putative national governments violate international treaties, conventions and federal laws prohibiting stockpiling and use of chemical and biological weapons, and simultaneously comply with other international treaties, conventions and federal laws governing public health emergency management and countermeasure development and use?
Since January 2020, acts of putative national governments have violated (among other international legal instruments) the 1975 UN Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction and the 1997 UN Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, under the auspices of member-state compliance with WHO International Health Regulations, 2005.
In the United States, our putative national government has also been violating federal laws implementing the international biological and chemical weapons conventions (18 USC 175 and 18 USC 229), along with federal laws prohibiting torture (18 USC 2340A), murder (18 USC 1111) and genocide (18 USC 1091), through acts that comply with federal laws authorizing public health emergency management (42 USC 247d) and use of emergency use authorized (EUA) biochemical products (21 USC 360bbb-3).
A note about style conventions.
Terms and phrases cited in relevant statutes, regulations and other legal documents are denoted with italics. Terms and phrases used fraudulently by governments to lie to the public about acts and materials, are denoted with "quotation marks…"
…Covid-19 'vaccines:' case study
21 USC 360bbb-3(k), [Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, Relation to other provisions] is a crucial provision at the intersection of the six statutory pillars outlined above.
This law provides that use of EUA-covered, regulation-exempt medical countermeasure (MCM) products including masks, diagnostic tests, injectable biochemical products, and other products that would otherwise be classified and regulated as "investigational" drugs, devices and biologics, once classified as EUA covered countermeasures during a public health emergency by the HHS Secretary and his/her delegees, “shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.”
Jan. 27, 2020 was the effective date of US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar's Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists, signed Jan. 31, 2020. The determination was recorded in the Federal Register as taking effect Feb. 4, 2020. 85 Federal Register 7316. It has been extended continuously since, most recently by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra effective March 15, 2023 and is in force as of this writing in May 2023. 88 Federal Register 16644.
Effective Feb. 04, 2020, HHS Secretary Azar issued a Notice of Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID–19. 85 Federal Register 15198. The PREP Act declaration has also been extended continuously since and amended eleven times, most recently by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra effective May 11, 2023. 88 Federal Register 30769.
Government announcements about the termination of the public health emergency notwithstanding, the PREP Act declaration remains in force as of this writing in May 2023.
To the extent that use of Covid-19 products after Feb. 04, 2020 "shall not constitute clinical investigation," use of such products is authorized even if there is no safety or efficacy data, even if such products are toxic and ineffective.
Investigators, researchers, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other individuals involved in product dispensing, use, or administration to human beings have had and today have no legal obligations to comply with laws and regulations that apply to use of other experimental, investigational, unapproved or approved drugs, devices and biological products, including compliance with informed consent laws, medical monitoring of recipients during product use and post-administration monitoring and reporting of effects, injuries and deaths.
Recipients of such products are not legally recognized as human subjects of clinical research or patients receiving experimental, authorized or approved products, because use of the products "shall not constitute clinical investigation."
There is no stopping condition, because there is no legally-relevant clinical investigation to be stopped.
On the basis of a self-declared public health emergency and self-declared classification of products as emergency use authorized medical countermeasures, including an unreviewable determination as to the relative risks posed by a compound classified as pathogen as compared to medical countermeasure products, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can suspend informed consent obligations for those who administer regulation-exempt, EUA biochemical products and informed consent rights for those who submit to regulation-exempt EUA biochemical products, on behalf of the entire American population.
Under standard FDA regulations governing non-EUA investigational drugs, devices and biologics, "vaccinators" would be legally required to obtain such information from manufacturers and suppliers and disclose such information to biochemical product recipients prior to administration.
But classified as covered persons or qualified persons, "vaccinators" are authorized by the HHS Secretary to mischaracterize and withhold information about EUA products, including ingredients; vial contents; chain-of-custody and serialization; potential individual risks and benefits based on individual health conditions; treatment alternatives; and right to refuse treatment.
The interlocking corruption of federal emergency management, public health and drug safety laws, for the purpose of covert and intentional deployment of regulation-exempt biochemical products into recipients, by the US Government, under the fraudulent characterization of the products as "Covid-19 vaccines," was deployed fully starting Jan. 27, 2020 and continues to be fully operational at the present time, more than three years later.
These statutes, regulations and related HHS Secretary declarations, Presidential Executive Orders and Congressional appropriations suspend ordinary federal procurement contracting laws and ordinary federal drug safety regulation and informed consent laws; and authorize pharmaceutical corporations, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with several other federal agencies, to develop, produce, fraudulently market, and distribute biochemical product prototypes to American doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical students and other medical personnel.
These "vaccinators" are authorized to use the regulation-exempt EUA products to injure and kill human beings with legal impunity using procedures and products (including withholding of effective non-EUA treatments; and use of restraints, starvation, dehydration, isolation, sedatives, Remdesivir/Veklury and ventilators) to drive public panic and submission to the EUA biochemical products, including injections colloquially known as "Covid-19 vaccines."
The same conclusions may be reached from observations of acts taken and not taken by American drug safety regulators at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since EUA biochemical products were first injected into human beings between March and November 2020 during fraudulent "clinical trials," and then entered mass distribution in mid-December 2020.
If the products were intended for medicinal, healing or protective purposes, and were subject to FDA regulation governing research and development, production and use of medical drugs, biologics and devices, the HHS Secretary, FDA regulators and their counterparts in other countries would have stopped the programs as soon as the evidence of injuries and deaths became available, which occurred within the first few weeks of the fraudulent "clinical trials" launched under Operation Warp Speed but only came to public attention much later, through the efforts of independent data analysts reviewing leaked documents and documents disclosed under FOIA litigation and SEC laws.
Instead, regulators have abandoned all attempts to regulate these products, monitor their use and publish timely, accurate data about injuries and deaths caused by the products. FDA and other putative regulators have refused to even answer the question: “What is the stopping condition?”
FDA and other governments’ drug regulatory agencies have not withdrawn fraudulent "authorizations" or "approvals" of the drugs, devices and protocols, despite millions of documented injuries and deaths experienced by recipients of the products during the initial deployment phase, because the products are not medicines.
The products are regulation-exempt, harmful biochemical products intentionally deployed by actors within the US Government and pharmaceutical/"biodefense" industry.
Further, if the products were intended for medicinal, healing or protective purposes and moving across state and international borders under regulatory frameworks intended to protect patient safety, they would be eligible for independent third-party purchase from manufacturers and drug suppliers, and eligible for independent testing to verify that contents match labels and corroborate or disprove claims about safety and efficacy.
Instead, third party access to and testing of vial contents is prohibited under the terms of the DoD-mediated supply and distribution contracts between purchasing governments, manufacturing corporations and "vaccination" sites, on penalty of federal criminal or civil prosecution.
As stated at the introduction, these developments in American domestic law and international law beg the question:
What legal recourse do victims of intentionally-harmful biochemical products have when national governments violate the terms of international treaties, conventions and federal laws prohibiting chemical and biological warfare, by executing the terms of opposing international treaties, conventions and federal laws dictating development and use of harmful biochemical products during declared public health emergencies?