part 1/2
I have been hearing lots of chatter re: the vaxx and whether or not a person
can be required to take it. Most of this talk revolves around the Nuremberg
Code. However a quick check on the Nuremberg Code reveals that it is not
codified in US law and so has no statutory standing for this anon.
Sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#Importance
There was a post I saw a while back that cited a statute but it was only
binding on the Secretary of Defense and so was not applicable, unless and
until martial law is formally and publically announced. Sorry but I didn't keep
a link to it.
However…
Greg hunter on a recent video mentioned that CAF has produced some forms for
use with employers and schools that are requiring COVID vaxx.
Sauce: https://usawatchdog.com/more-2020-election-audits-forced-vaccinations-mega-
drought-update/
which links to: https://pandemic.solari.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
Form_Employees_Whose_Employers_Are_Requiring_Covid-19_Injections.pdf
That form (backed up by footnotes) makes the following statements:
>6) The FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances… [t]hat they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product….”
and:
>7) With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Title 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) reiterates that individuals 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, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
Looking at the footnotes leads to the FDA's "Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities"
Sauce: https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download
Section E.1.b (page 28) states:
>Although informed consent as generally required under FDA regulations is not required for administration or use of an EUA product, section 564 does provide EUA conditions to ensure that recipients are informed about the MCM they receive under an EUA. For an unapproved product (section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)) and for an unapproved use of an approved product (section 564(e)(2)(A)), the statute requires that FDA ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable
given the applicable circumstances:
and third bullet:
>That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and of any consequences of refusing administration of the product
A note here about code section numbers: The section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii) cited above is from the FD&C act which is codified as USC Title 21 Sec. 360bbb-3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, which is the code section cited in the CAF document. So both cites are referring to the same code section.
Sauce: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-
fdc-act/fdc-act-chapter-v-drugs-and-devices#Part_E
The relevant portion of Title 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) says:
>With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or appropriate to protect the
public health, including the following:
Sauce: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 (scroll down to e.1.A)
So while it looks like it is mandatory the weasel wording of "as the Secretary
finds necessary or appropriate" really in my view (I am not a lawfag) makes it
discretionary. So we have to go look at the EUA for the vaxx to see what was
required.
(see part 2/2)