I read the entire paper and noted some very careful language, so this is a good start in illuminating the many problems that these inoculations have wrought upon an unsuspecting public. There is one issue not even discussed and this is what the requirements for the legal definition of issuing an EUA are. An EUA can technologically only b…
I read the entire paper and noted some very careful language, so this is a good start in illuminating the many problems that these inoculations have wrought upon an unsuspecting public. There is one issue not even discussed and this is what the requirements for the legal definition of issuing an EUA are. An EUA can technologically only be issued as a military countermeasure for a biological warfare agent. In the legal definition of an EUA use of the substance as a countermeasure there must be no other therapeutic available. There were numerous identified and proven safe and very effective in prevention and cure. Legally for an EUA there is no requirement for any clinical trial, for post marketing surveillance, and absolute and total protection against liability for any harm done. Under EUA the CDC, the FDA have no regulatory authority; they cannot recall harmful countermeasures and therefore cannot function as regulatory agencies. The entire countermeasure operation is the purview of HHS and DOD. This of course is another paper which must address this issue as well as the entire legal and regulatory statutes that prevent regulatory oversight while fostering the abuses of power of HHS and DOD.
Yes, they are technically inoculations it just happens that they inoculate one with a toxic substance at best and a bio weapon at worst. I tend to think of them as the latter.
I read the entire paper and noted some very careful language, so this is a good start in illuminating the many problems that these inoculations have wrought upon an unsuspecting public. There is one issue not even discussed and this is what the requirements for the legal definition of issuing an EUA are. An EUA can technologically only be issued as a military countermeasure for a biological warfare agent. In the legal definition of an EUA use of the substance as a countermeasure there must be no other therapeutic available. There were numerous identified and proven safe and very effective in prevention and cure. Legally for an EUA there is no requirement for any clinical trial, for post marketing surveillance, and absolute and total protection against liability for any harm done. Under EUA the CDC, the FDA have no regulatory authority; they cannot recall harmful countermeasures and therefore cannot function as regulatory agencies. The entire countermeasure operation is the purview of HHS and DOD. This of course is another paper which must address this issue as well as the entire legal and regulatory statutes that prevent regulatory oversight while fostering the abuses of power of HHS and DOD.
You still call them inoculations?????
Yes, they are technically inoculations it just happens that they inoculate one with a toxic substance at best and a bio weapon at worst. I tend to think of them as the latter.