Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies

San Francisco CA

Description

A few days ago someone up in Humboldt posted the most interesting snippet to the Politics section. It was taken down rather quickly but not before I read it and corresponded with its author, whom asserted that there was applicable Federal law, related to vaccinations, which was being ignored by everyone. Here in these United States we are supposedly under the rule of law, and not personalities, and we spend a lot of time and effort trying to keep it that way. With this in mind I share the following information with my fellow citizens, to promote discussion: 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies (e) Conditions of authorization > (1) Unapproved product > > (A) Required conditions > > > (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed— (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, 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. Don't believe me? Here's the URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 Here, let's put that into English: Part 21 of U.S. Code, Section § 360bbb–3, is titled "Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies", so we assume that it must apply to authorization of medical products for use in emergencies, like COVID-19. It says that conditions of authorization, with respect to unapproved products, have required conditions, specifically, that "appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed, of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, 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." Let me repeat that. It is required under Federal law that appropriate conditions be designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered - that's YOU, and ME - are informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, 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. • Have you been informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product? I have not. • Have you been informed of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product? Yes, I have, albeit, unofficially - the consequences, apparently, are scapegoating, for the malice and incompetence of our overseers. Am I wrong? • Have you been informed of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks? No, I have not. My every effort has been tampered with, as has my every effort to share what I knew about killing viruses with ultraviolet light, and ozone. What's most interesting has been the silence of the legal professionals. Apparently graduation from law school and decades of legal practice is not an actual basis for practicing law or defending the public interest. We non-lawyers are on our own. Here we see the utter failure of the entire legal community to research the matter, discuss it publicly, and resist oppression. Y'all are greedy, bottom-feeding cowards. You don't lift a finger without a clear promise of reward. You are part of the problem. You're not enforcing the law. You are predators. You are a threat to the commonweal. We should strip you all of the privilege of practicing law, and make you wash dishes and sweep floors. I'm not kidding. Again, I cannot take credit for doing this research. I'm just sharing what I have learned. Obviously, I am not a professional lawyer, licensed by the State Bar of California.