Thank you, Dr. Malone and Mr. Allison for this post. Here is what "Informed Consent" in the CDC FDA context means to me.
* You have been informed of the misleading, ever-changing story by FDA regarding these "Vaccines", for example, "you won't get sick" is no longer a thing.
* You have been informed of the CDC change to the definition of…
Thank you, Dr. Malone and Mr. Allison for this post. Here is what "Informed Consent" in the CDC FDA context means to me.
* You have been informed of the misleading, ever-changing story by FDA regarding these "Vaccines", for example, "you won't get sick" is no longer a thing.
* You have been informed of the CDC change to the definition of "vaccine". The CDC has assumed the power to change definitions to match their narrative, (not to mention changing narratives as needed)
* You are informed there is no follow-up by CDC or FDA of the harm signals in VAERS
* You are informed of the legal request by FDA/Pfizer to withhold from the public relevant documents for 75 years.
* You are informed you are really not informed, so there's that!
However, what seems to me the crux of the legal position is: "Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept OR REFUSE administration of these vaccines,"
If the law states "you have the right to refuse", what possible justification was there for POTUS to impose a mandate, that entirely nullifies that right? Isn't that illegal? Can presidents be accused of acting illegally? The rationale was it was "an emergency" but
the grounds for claiming an "emergency" were very quickly revealed to be utterly spurious given the 98% survival rate, so why are people not attacking Biden with the same vehemence as Fauci? Fauci advised but Biden authorized?
Thank you, Dr. Malone and Mr. Allison for this post. Here is what "Informed Consent" in the CDC FDA context means to me.
* You have been informed of the misleading, ever-changing story by FDA regarding these "Vaccines", for example, "you won't get sick" is no longer a thing.
* You have been informed of the CDC change to the definition of "vaccine". The CDC has assumed the power to change definitions to match their narrative, (not to mention changing narratives as needed)
* You are informed there is no follow-up by CDC or FDA of the harm signals in VAERS
* You are informed of the legal request by FDA/Pfizer to withhold from the public relevant documents for 75 years.
* You are informed you are really not informed, so there's that!
In a nutshell!!!
However, what seems to me the crux of the legal position is: "Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept OR REFUSE administration of these vaccines,"
If the law states "you have the right to refuse", what possible justification was there for POTUS to impose a mandate, that entirely nullifies that right? Isn't that illegal? Can presidents be accused of acting illegally? The rationale was it was "an emergency" but
the grounds for claiming an "emergency" were very quickly revealed to be utterly spurious given the 98% survival rate, so why are people not attacking Biden with the same vehemence as Fauci? Fauci advised but Biden authorized?