This blog began in 2007, focusing on anthrax vaccine, and later expanded to other public health and political issues. The blog links to media reports, medical literature, official documents and other materials.
Wednesday, July 6, 2022
My interview with the Deep State Consciousness program/ Richard Cox
The Religious Exemption is the incorrect approach.
Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the USC demands that employees are given the "option to accept or refuse administration" of EUA drugs.
Doe #1 v Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (DDC 2003) prohibits the military from requiring experimental drugs.
Griswold v Connecticut (1965) ruled everyone has a Constitutional right to bodily integrity.
US v Stanley (1987) ruled military personnel cannot be forced to take experimental drugs.
Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) ruled you have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if that treatment would save your life.
Washington v Harper (1990) decided "The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty."
US v Charters (4tth Circuit, 1987) decided "The right to be free of unwanted physical invasions has been recognized as an integral part of the individual's constitutional freedoms."
Religious exemptions will fail because the courts do not view this as a religious issue. There is enough precedent to win on the issue the drugs are EUA only. The only drug approved by the FDA, Comirnaty, is not available in the US. And per a memo to the FDA from Pfizer last month, Comirnaty will not be produced for the US.
Conclusion: there is not a vaccine available in the US that is approved and not under an EUA authorization.
They weren't vaccines: U.S.C. 26 §§4132(a)(2) defines a vaccine as "a substance that prevents one or more diseases".
None of these in their documentation say "prevent" they say "reduces symptoms". Hence, no one is vaccinated. FDA and CDC could be tried for the Medical Fraud for both the shots, PCR tests and masks. These shots, PCR tests and masks were forced in violation of U.S.C. 21 §'s 360bbb-3 in conjunction with 50.20.
This is the embodiment of the Nuremberg Code in the U.S. Code.
Great Attorney On Fighting Mandates has a lot of INFO, Stats, from DOD, Medicare, and HHS. Etc.
ReplyDelete'THOUGHTS ON HOW TO FIGHT THEM ON VAX MANDATES'
The Religious Exemption is the incorrect approach.
Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the USC demands that employees are given the "option to accept or refuse administration" of EUA drugs.
Doe #1 v Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (DDC 2003) prohibits the military from requiring experimental drugs.
Griswold v Connecticut (1965) ruled everyone has a Constitutional right to bodily integrity.
US v Stanley (1987) ruled military personnel cannot be forced to take experimental drugs.
Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) ruled you have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if that treatment would save your life.
Washington v Harper (1990) decided "The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty."
US v Charters (4tth Circuit, 1987) decided "The right to be free of unwanted physical invasions has been recognized as an integral part of the individual's constitutional freedoms."
Religious exemptions will fail because the courts do not view this as a religious issue. There is enough precedent to win on the issue the drugs are EUA only. The only drug approved by the FDA, Comirnaty, is not available in the US. And per a memo to the FDA from Pfizer last month, Comirnaty will not be produced for the US.
Conclusion: there is not a vaccine available in the US that is approved and not under an EUA authorization.
It's just a matter of time before the FDA fraudulently removes the EUA, then what?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWould not the Big Pharma owned FDA have already done that by now if they could?
Not ruling it out in the future?
ABA ASSOC COMMENTS ON US SUPREME COURT/JACOBSON CASE!
A BIG WIN FOR THOSE FIGHTING VACCINE MANDATES!
'THE HIGHWIRE WITH DEL BIGTREE: CENTURY-OLD JACOBSON VS. MASSACHUSETTS RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATES' [13 min video]
https://thehighwire.com/videos/century-old-ruling-affects-vax-mandates/
PLUS!
'Judge rules in favor of St. Paul unions over COVID Vaccination mandate'!
https://www.twincities.com/2022/06/02/ramsey-county-judge-rules-in-favor-of-st-paul-unions-over-covid-vaccination-mandate/
Plus:!
"Non FDA approved covid vaccines"?
They weren't vaccines: U.S.C. 26 §§4132(a)(2) defines a vaccine as "a substance that prevents one or more diseases".
None of these in their documentation say "prevent" they say "reduces symptoms". Hence, no one is vaccinated. FDA and CDC could be tried for the Medical Fraud for both the shots, PCR tests and masks.
These shots, PCR tests and masks were forced in violation of U.S.C. 21 §'s 360bbb-3 in conjunction with 50.20.
This is the embodiment of the Nuremberg Code in the U.S. Code.
Great Attorney On Fighting Mandates has a lot of INFO, Stats, from DOD, Medicare, and HHS. Etc.
Attorney Tom Renz
https://renz-law.com/