On 'mandates,' and the irrelevance of informed consent principles in the EUA countermeasures use context.
On 'mandates,' and the irrelevance of informed consent principles in the EUA countermeasures use context.
Orientation for new readers. Note re: comment threads.1
Question posted at Rumble video - Nov. 25, 2023 - FDA flooded the market with illegal drugs. (42 min, Sasha Latypova, Willem Engel.)
So it's sounding like there was no real legal authority to mandate an EUA product (countermeasure) but there was also not a specific law prohibiting it? Or that's what Comirnaty was for right?
My reply:
My current understanding is that bribery and coercion are legal under PREP Act, and the “mandates” were mechanisms to do those crimes and to cover up that those were the acts being committed.
For example, it was and is legal for federal and state governments to link payouts to schools and businesses, to reaching target percentages of vaxx uptake among their student and employee populations, and it was and is legal for schools and businesses to link access to education and jobs to individual vaxx uptake.
Same for linking hospital and nursing home payouts to use of Remdesivir/ventilators and uptake of vaxxes. And for government employers (DoD, for example).
Part of this is the substitution of “option to accept or refuse” for “informed consent” in a context in which informed consent is an incoherent principle, because no true information about the contents or effects of the product exists to be provided to targets; because the authorized consequences of refusal include firing and expulsion from school; and because targets are military targets whose consent is irrelevant, not clinical trial subjects (because no clinical trials are happening) and not patients (because no doctor-patient, diagnosis-treatment relationship exists).
I also think PREP Act and related laws legalize federal government to threaten federal contractor businesses and funding recipients (hospitals, nursing homes) that failure to reach vaxx uptake targets will result in loss of contracts and funding.
And PREP Act sets up conditions so that the only acts by ‘covered persons,’ ‘program planners’ and ‘qualified planners’ that don’t enjoy full civil and criminal liability protection, are acts of resistance.
Bribery, coercion, assault and murder do have full liability exemption.
Refusal to commit bribery, to coerce other people, to assault other people and to kill them, will strip the PREP Act protections and expose the refusers to civil and criminal prosecution. [See, for example, USA v. Kirk Moore.]
As for Comirnaty, Comirnaty’s fake FDA “approval” wasn’t needed for PREP Act coverage nor for the operation of the bribery-coercion funding system. Comirnaty was and is just another layer of the performance art. Possibly if the vaxx rates had gone high enough without the Comirnaty FDA charade, they wouldn’t have bothered with it. But because vaxx rates were not going high enough in Spring/Summer 2021, they decided to add another layer of fraud, to deceive/persuade hold-outs, including institutional hold-outs that weren’t bribing and coercing students and employees hard enough, and individuals.
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
June 14, 2022 - April 4, 2003 - Rep. Henry Waxman questioning FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan about informed consent waivers authorized through Project Bioshield Act. “…The statutes include language that HHS Secretary may set conditions on EUAs that recipients be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,” which appears to protect a meaningful option to refuse, thus upholding the principle of informed consent as framed by the Nuremberg Code. However, the Department of Justice and at least one federal judge have interpreted the “consequences of refusal” to mean that recipients may be told by the person demanding that they accept the product, that if they refuse, they will be disciplined, fired or lose their place at school, thus legalizing coercive medical treatment in violation of the Nuremberg Code…”
July 4, 2022 - Possibilities for proving intent. The work product of attorneys Susan E. Sherman, Wen W. Shen, Dawn Johnsen and the July 6, 2021 Department of Justice legal opinion. “…Dismantling informed consent was the start of the cover-up for the government’s Covid-19 crimes, and the dismantling process predated Covid-19, providing evidence of intent...The primary document is the July 6, 2021 slip opinion written by Deputy Attorney General Dawn Johnsen, which defines the legal question as: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization…”
Jan. 2, 2023 - Bioweapon prototype deployments, informed consent, targeted enemies, state of war, doctrine of necessity.
Jan. 31, 2023 - August 2020 - Elizabeth Sadove presentation to FDA-CDC: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. “…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. 18, 2023 - Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital. Court decisions supporting the conclusion that vaxx recipients are military targets, enemy combatants, chattel slaves or similar legal status in which consent is moot. “…[Quoting court ruling] The hospital's employees are not participants in a human trial. They are licensed doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and staff members. The hospital has not applied to test the COVID-19 vaccines on its employees, it has not been approved by an institutional review board, and it has not been certified to proceed with clinical trials…The Nuremberg Code does not apply because Methodist is a private employer, not a government….Bridges has not been coerced. Bridges says that she is being forced to be injected with a vaccine or be fired. This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer. Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else…”
I’ve been closing the comment threads on Bailiwick posts, because they became more distracting than useful. The time/opportunity costs (to find and respond to thoughtful, substantive comments and questions among the other sorts of comments) outweighs the benefits. They’re not behind a paywall. They’re just closed. I don’t plan to reopen them.