Free Speach and Emergency Uses Authorization.

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   3 posts
  • Thu, Aug 19, 2021 - 05:17pm

    #1
    wilnav

    wilnav

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 19 2021

    Posts: 12

    count placeholder2

    Free Speach and Emergency Uses Authorization.

 

From my vantage point there are two logic trails converging for fraud concerning Covid 19. One is the logic laid out by Dr. David E. Marting [1] [2]. The other by Bret Weinstein PhD in collaboration with Dr. Pierre Kory MD [3]. There is no basis for the Emergency Use Authorization for the various vaccines or new research into an oral drug/molecule (to the tune of $3 billion +) to mitigate vaccine failures. All the efforts by the government to obscure and withhold information from Vaers as well as the censorship by the major media outlets in North America, Europe, the so-called free world are designed to confuse people and obstruct justice.

Why does the government ban constitutionally sanctioned free speech? When “George Mason University reversed its decision denying law professor Todd Zywicki a medical exemption from the university’s COVID vaccine mandate… [4] a win for those who have acquired innate immunity to sars/covid? In both these examples truth and the freedom of natural human biological functions to be respected have not been served. They continue to be subverted.

Had the lawsuit against George Mason University gone to trial the scientific facts of the matter would have been presented. A jury would have examined the facts and found that innate immunity is viable and perhaps superior to maxxicne acquired symptom mitigation(?). At the very least there would be no reason to deny Todd Zywicki’s his tenure and position. The avoidance of trial by George Mason University avoids the exposure of a nest of lies.

The reason for not prosecuting Dr. David E Martin is similar. To charge David for slander, liable, defamation of character would allow the legal defense team to present the arguments and facts that are the foundation of his accusations to be fully aired in a court of law. Thus the citizens of the US would have opportunity to hear the facts and come to their own conclusions.

Bret Weinstein and Dr Kory have been heavily censored. Since there is no reason for Emergency Use Authorization, one sees the reason for combine government and private sector (pharma, Google, Facebook et al) censorship. In a word PROFIT as Brett and Dr. David Martin explained. Because the airing of fact and criminal activity is what this censorship is designed to prevent, the government refuses to charge those who in it’s view challenge the narrative. Silencing them is both cheaper and prevents the dissemination of knowledge they desperatly want to hide.

A dawning realization that there is no medical or pharmacological reason for Emergency Uses Authorization is emerging. Both David Martin and Bret Weinstein have come to much the same conclusion. The need for free and open dialog about the origins and application of Emergency Uses Authorization is obvious for this reason. It is also apparent why censorship has been applied. The legal system via trial in a court of law would provide and open forum for these facts to be fielded. To that end we citizens need to do our part to unite these threads thus ending this expensive farce.

[1] https://truthcomestolight.com/dr-david-martin-w-dr-reiner-fuellmich-this-my-friends-is-the-definition-of-criminal-conspiracythis-is-not-a-theory-this-is-evidence/

[2] https://www.wethepeople.buzz/2020/10/27/covid-19-anti-trust-argument/

[3] https://www.bitchute.com/video/QXlctAHZqsqB/

[4] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/george-mason-university-lawsuit-covid-vaccine-medical-exemption/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9b76da90-aabd-4598-80de-ccbd1f8b50e6

 

  • Thu, Aug 19, 2021 - 08:21pm

    #2
    Hohhot

    Hohhot

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 12 2020

    Posts: 349

    count placeholder2

    Why they want to jab 12yos now before EUA goes

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injection

If Covid-19 injections lose their EUA status and receive full FDA approval, they would no longer enjoy the liability protection conferred by the PREP Act. However, if the FDA extends full approval to children under age 18—as is widely anticipated13—and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends Covid-19 injections for “routine administration” to children (or pregnant women), 14manufacturers and health care providers will be protected from liability for Covid-vaccine-related injuries and deaths under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).15 From that point on, the only avenue available for compensation would be the notoriously stingy and difficult-to-navigate National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (NVICP).16

https://pandemic.solari.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Solari-Employer-Form-revised4_28July_2021.pdf

 

  • Thu, Aug 19, 2021 - 08:28pm

    #3
    Hohhot

    Hohhot

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 12 2020

    Posts: 349

    count placeholder1

    The FDA doesn’t have sole control over Emergency Uses Authorization.

Would have been interesting to have a law professor go to court as this might have emerged. This is from the FDA’s website:

About Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs)
The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority allows FDA to help strengthen the nation’s public health protections against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats including infectious diseases, by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures (MCMs) needed during public health emergencies.

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. The HHS declaration to support such use must be based on one of four types of determinations of threats or potential threats by the Secretary of HHS, Homeland Security, or Defense.

Please note: a determination under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act that a public health emergency exists, such as the one issued on January 31, 2020, does not enable FDA to issue EUAs. On February 4, 2020, the HHS Secretary determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes COVID-19. Subsequent HHS declarations supporting use of EUAs and based on this determination are described in the blue boxes below.

Information on terminated and revoked EUAs can be found in archived information.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization

 

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

Login or Register to post comments