Clinical trial documents are just props in a theatrical production; clinical investigators are fooled performers and in the fooled audience; playwright and director is DOD.
If Brook's case is based on the erroneous assumption that she was working on a real clinical trial, but it wasn't a real clinical trial, and by your citations, it didn't have to be a real clinical trial, I don't understand how her lawsuit could possibly prevail.
(Channeling Han Solo) I've got a very bad feeling about this.
How diabolical, to write in the law that real actual experimental clinical trials for a novel medical product hastily approved for emergency use, whose safety has never even been investigated scientifically, are legally framed when under EUA as not real actual experimental clinical trials, therefore not experimental, and not for determining safety and efficacy, but can be offered to the public as already proven safe and effective, in ethics-approved experimental clinical trials, bragged about as being safe and efficacious without any actual clinical trial data, then MANDATED!!! and (I am guessing) no one is subsequently liable for violating medical informed consent rules or ethical standards of scientific research. No one is liable for knowingly conducting real actual experimental clinical trials on real live Americans, some who died and many who were maimed, using EUA products, when the law says there are no such trials under EUA. And now we have these products on the childhood schedule. Forget about anyone being held accountable for committing plain old aggravated assault and mass murder by faking clinical trials. Beam. Me. Up. Scotty.
Thanks for the clarification regarding Brook Jackson's case. Your mind is finely tuned and mentally discerning like a Ninja warrior. I wonder if her lawyers understand what you are talking about.
If Brook's case is based on the erroneous assumption that she was working on a real clinical trial, but it wasn't a real clinical trial, and by your citations, it didn't have to be a real clinical trial, I don't understand how her lawsuit could possibly prevail.
(Channeling Han Solo) I've got a very bad feeling about this.
How diabolical, to write in the law that real actual experimental clinical trials for a novel medical product hastily approved for emergency use, whose safety has never even been investigated scientifically, are legally framed when under EUA as not real actual experimental clinical trials, therefore not experimental, and not for determining safety and efficacy, but can be offered to the public as already proven safe and effective, in ethics-approved experimental clinical trials, bragged about as being safe and efficacious without any actual clinical trial data, then MANDATED!!! and (I am guessing) no one is subsequently liable for violating medical informed consent rules or ethical standards of scientific research. No one is liable for knowingly conducting real actual experimental clinical trials on real live Americans, some who died and many who were maimed, using EUA products, when the law says there are no such trials under EUA. And now we have these products on the childhood schedule. Forget about anyone being held accountable for committing plain old aggravated assault and mass murder by faking clinical trials. Beam. Me. Up. Scotty.
You’re the only one who brings up Brooke Jackson/Ventavia
Thanks for the clarification regarding Brook Jackson's case. Your mind is finely tuned and mentally discerning like a Ninja warrior. I wonder if her lawyers understand what you are talking about.
File an extension.
A article written by Ron Suskind published June 12, 2020
NYT Sunday Opinion
Doctors Are Covid's First Historians
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/12/opinion/coronavirus-doctors.html