Orientation for new readers. Note re: comment threads.
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 refuse or accept” 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…”
The Immaculate Conception. Painting by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo.
No comments:
Post a Comment