"Τhe Nuremberg Code, as well as federal law, provide that no human being can be forced to participate in a medical experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject."
That is going to come back and bite so many people in the behind.
If you read the article, the judge denied a preliminary injunction to prevent the DOD from continuing to mandate the vax…
And the first hearing in the case is Sept, 2022 - 9 months from now, giving the DOD plenty of time to finish vaxxing the military and kicking out those who won’t comply.
So he acknowledged that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated, but he’s done nothing to protect the servicemembers.
Yes, I was disappointed after reading the headline vs the ruling. But it sounds like the judge said the parties should do an evidentiary finding review to get all those facts on the table.
I think the plaintiff suit overstepped
This begs the question: Why approve a vaccine that is not actually available on the jurisdiction where it has been approved, and why is it not available, but various vaccines under EUA's are?
No one wants to actually go enforce an actual Vax mandate in a country with 400 million guns floating around in the population. I've learned just by reading anons' comments and work, those that are against taking the shot themselves have their reasons, and they really mean it.
Is there any other sources for this? I just tried finding it again, but that childrens health site is the only place I could find it. Even RFK's tweet points to that same article.
"Τhe Nuremberg Code, as well as federal law, provide that no human being can be forced to participate in a medical experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject."
That is going to come back and bite so many people in the behind.
Under law, everyone has ‘right to refuse’ EUA product.
Under a PROPER rule of law, people have the right to refuse ANY product.
Freedom
Under law, everyone has ‘right to refuse’ EUA product.
This is huge because now we have a precedent to point to when combating mandates.
Not sure this is as good as we think..
If you read the article, the judge denied a preliminary injunction to prevent the DOD from continuing to mandate the vax…
And the first hearing in the case is Sept, 2022 - 9 months from now, giving the DOD plenty of time to finish vaxxing the military and kicking out those who won’t comply.
So he acknowledged that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated, but he’s done nothing to protect the servicemembers.
Yes, I was disappointed after reading the headline vs the ruling. But it sounds like the judge said the parties should do an evidentiary finding review to get all those facts on the table. I think the plaintiff suit overstepped
This begs the question: Why approve a vaccine that is not actually available on the jurisdiction where it has been approved, and why is it not available, but various vaccines under EUA's are?
Because you want to tell people it's approved without changing the legal landscape provided by EUAs.
No one wants to actually go enforce an actual Vax mandate in a country with 400 million guns floating around in the population. I've learned just by reading anons' comments and work, those that are against taking the shot themselves have their reasons, and they really mean it.
Is there any other sources for this? I just tried finding it again, but that childrens health site is the only place I could find it. Even RFK's tweet points to that same article.
Thank you!