It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced, or Coerced Vaccines/Passports Are They Illegal or Legal? – US Federal Code of Regulations

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:37 PM
link   
US Federal Code of Regulations sections may empower everyone that wishes to not be a guinea pig by coercion, and propaganda scare tactics.



If I’m reading this correctly, it says we are protected.

Part 50 – Protection of Human Subjects

Regardless of the “Prep Act” granting drug companies full immunity, and recently employed fascist techniques to get people to take vaccines for covid, anyone using means of coercion is violating the Federal Code of Regulations.


Here’s the meat of the first section:
1st Section

“ Subpart B—Informed Consent of Human Subjects

SOURCE: 46 FR 8951, Jan. 27, 1981, unless otherwise noted.

Back to Top

§50.20 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided in §§50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence."

Unfortunately, if you are in the Military you’re screwed, since they own you, and there is a special section stating this, and your rights are waved 100%.

Adequate and well-controlled studies. 2nd Section

"(d) For an investigation to be considered adequate for approval of a new drug, it is required that the test drug be standardized as to identity, strength, quality, purity, and dosage form to give significance to the results of the investigation.

(e) Uncontrolled studies or partially controlled studies are not acceptable as the sole basis for the approval of claims of effectiveness. Such studies carefully conducted and documented, may provide corroborative support of well-controlled studies regarding efficacy and may yield valuable data regarding safety of the test drug. Such studies will be considered on their merits in the light of the principles listed here, with the exception of the requirement for the comparison of the treated subjects with controls. Isolated case reports, random experience, and reports lacking the details which permit scientific evaluation will not be considered."

These words, and the U.S. constitution give us hope in a battle for our rights, no matter what the Karen’s, Ken’s, MSM, companies, government agency and/or some BSer is trying to scare us with.

Passports for vaccines appear to be 100% illegal, unconstitutional and against our own Federal Code of Regulations.

If anyone finds anything else feel free to post it.

edit on 3-4-2021 by Realtruth because: Proper links adjusted



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:44 PM
link   
What are you referring to when you say "passports?" Requiring a vaccine to go grocery shopping? I have strong doubts anything like that will materialize even though some advocate for it. I don't advocate it. Because grocery shopping is "essential" and masking along with social distancing suffice in that context. For that very reason I can't see it coming to reality.

Now, when it comes to other things, like bar hopping, it makes a bit more sense. But I still can't see how it would work. There would first have to be a "passport" and no one seems to figure out how that would work.


edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
What are you referring to when you say "passports?" Requiring a vaccine to go grocery shopping? I have strong doubts anything like that will materialize even though some advocate for it. I don't. Because grocery shopping is "essential" and masking along with social distancing suffice in that context.

For that very reason I can't see it coming to reality.


Hmm mostly travel, school, work related, and similar. It appears some countries are using coercion in these areas to force vaccination. Now while I'm not anti-vax, I am about people having their rights infringed upon.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

One would have to consider those "rights" carefully, and where they may end when it comes to the rights of others. What some may consider a right, others may consider a privilege.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Realtruth

One would have to consider those "rights" carefully, and where they may end when it comes to the rights of others. What some may consider a right, others may consider a privilege.


Completely agree.

I believe this type of issue will make it all the way to the Supreme Court, if it's going to be weight and measured properly. Being able to discern rights, privileges and infringements are a double-edged sword these days.

Only time will tell.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:53 PM
link   

I believe this type of issue will make it all the way to the Supreme Court,



It's already been there once.


The authority for the state being able to compel vaccination—the affirmation of that authority—goes all the way back to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1905 called Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That case arose in the midst of an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1902. Cambridge introduced an ordinance requiring all adults be vaccinated or revaccinated against smallpox. If they didn’t [get vaccinated], they would have to pay a fine of $5.


In response to the argument about this individual liberty interest, the court said that sometimes individual interests might have to yield to state laws that endeavour to protect the health of everybody—the “common good.” The court said: “The rights of the individual may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand.”

www.jhsph.edu...

So it seems that states can do so.

edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Here come the rationing stamps by booklet and electronic r.f.i.d. 😮

😮

😮

😮



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Realtruth

One would have to consider those "rights" carefully, and where they may end when it comes to the rights of others. What some may consider a right, others may consider a privilege.



I believe this type of issue will make it all the way to the Supreme Court, if it's going to be weight and measured properly.


Suppose Dems decide to add several more activist judges to the SC?



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

It's already been there once.


The authority for the state being able to compel vaccination—the affirmation of that authority—goes all the way back to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1905 called Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That case arose in the midst of an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1902. Cambridge introduced an ordinance requiring all adults be vaccinated or revaccinated against smallpox. If they didn’t [get vaccinated], they would have to pay a fine of $5.


In response to the argument about this individual liberty interest, the court said that sometimes individual interests might have to yield to state laws that endeavour to protect the health of everybody—the “common good.” The court said: “The rights of the individual may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand.”

www.jhsph.edu...

So it seems that states can do so.



I'm aware of that case law, but I feel this is a bit different since people's abilities to work, go to school, travel will be infringed upon due to a vaccine that negated decades of scientific protocols, and proper testing.

It's actually in the Federal Code of Regulation I linked to.

Can they claim reasonable scientific efficacy in 1 year?
edit on 3-4-2021 by Realtruth because: typo



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

This is a watershed moment.

What freedoms do we actually have?



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Realtruth

This is a watershed moment.

What freedoms do we actually have?


Pretty soon the only freedom left will be the freedom to discuss the freedoms we don't have anymore 😵‍💫



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Yeah. It is different from a $5 fine. But the principle is that the state can pass such a law.




Can they claim reasonable scientific efficacy in 1 year?


The clinical trials did so. And data continues to accumulate which shows those numbers to work in the real world.

More important perhaps, real world data also accumulates which shows that the vaccines reduce transmission of the disease. Something not examined in the trials.
edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Realtruth

This is a watershed moment.

What freedoms do we actually have?


Pretty soon the only freedom left will be the freedom to discuss the freedoms we don't have anymore 😵‍💫


THAT'S bound to hurt your Social Credit Score.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


The clinical trials did so. And data continues to accumulate which shows those numbers to work in the real world.

More important perhaps, real world data also accumulates which shows that the vaccines reduce transmission of the disease. Something not examined in the trials.


I've been reading them trust me, I'm just a bit apprehensive getting one myself, but this is based on prior knowledge of vaccine production via a career I was in for 20+ years. Will I get one, most likely yes, but I do not like the coercion tactics, or even hinting to them one bit.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

There are very many who see it the way you do. And, as I said, I can't see it happening in the way you describe. Because of a lack of support as well there being any way of actually implementing it.

I don't like the idea. And if it means I have to get a smart phone, forget it!

But I do think that getting vaccinated is a good idea for most. First shot a couple of weeks ago.

edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This topic appears to be studied immensely and taken the path around the constitution falling intentionally under private corporations.
It gains even more suspicion when it appears the gov is behind these highly subsidized and allowed super monopolies.

Just look at Amazon. The cia cloud, subsidized super gatekeepers of goods, Alexa and AWS data collection through all apps.
Or how about Facebook. The super corp with massive server farms across the country, was started the DAY congress shutdown the facebook-like darpa program called Lifelog.

We are getting backdoored by govs larping as corporations.
The congress brow beating non punishment is painfull to watch.

"You don't advocate controlling private biz do you, racist?"



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:22 PM
link   

In response to the argument about this individual liberty interest, the court said that sometimes individual interests might have to yield to state laws that endeavour to protect the health of everybody—the “common good.” The court said: “The rights of the individual may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand.”


www.jhsph.edu...


originally posted by: Phage

So it seems that states can do so.


‘Endeavour to protect the health of everyone’ seems to place the onus on the state to demonstrate that everyone is in need of protection.
Surely the traditional response to viruses of this family, keep the fluids up and monitor for complications, should weigh against using the same response taken to protect against small pox.
I mean out of 1596 cases 300 peeps karked it in Massachusetts in 1902. (Might be over a three year period between 1900 and 1903[???])
Seems logical that that indicates a public health issue.
Traditionally corona viruses are handled differently and the ongoing concerns for public safety around this strain is a continuation of very early predictions of higher then average mortality, which hasn’t eventuated.
I would contend that the majority of people don’t need protection, so an endeavour to protect the health of everyone is N/A.
There is neither pressure of great danger nor an appeal to the common good.

edit on 3-4-2021 by Dalamax because: Quotes

edit on 3-4-2021 by Dalamax because: Posting sense

edit on 3-4-2021 by Dalamax because: Fini

edit on 3-4-2021 by Dalamax because: Grammar nazi



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Dalamax


‘Endeavour to protect the health of everyone’
That's a paraphrase of the decision. The actual statement was "the safety of the general public." The general public is not quite the same as everyone.


I would contend that the majority of people don’t need protection, so an endeavour to protect the health of everyone is N/A.
A reasonable argument. But death is not the only adverse consequence of becoming infected. The public health system is part of the safety of the general public. Assuring that it is not overstressed is to the benefit of anyone who may require it, because of COVID or not.


edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

The very idea of injecting anything into someone's body without their consent is despicable.

The very idea of forcing synthetic substances into someone's body is despicable.

The very idea of injecting anything into someone's body that we KNOW will have adverse consequences for many is despicable.

The very idea of forcing anyone to have any medical treatment for the benefit of others is despicable.

The very idea that we can force manmade synthetic substances over our body's natural defenses and immunities is despicable.

The very idea that a medical establishment refuses to encourage, educate and empower people to make the most of nature and nature's bounty to nurse and nurture our bodies for lifelong benefits is despicable.

The very idea of denying people their absolute natural right to make a living for themselves and their family is despicable.

All of the above is unconscionable and unacceptable. This should not even be an option.
edit on 3-4-2021 by Boadicea because: clarity: added "to nurse and nurture our bodies"



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The idea that someone will put others at risk just because they don't want to wear a mask is also despicable.
True or false?

edit on 4/3/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join