IU mandates emergency use vaccine

Want to make something mandatory for individuals. Just have the FDA make something emergency use only.

New threats to liberties. So sad.

Federal judge upholds Indiana University's Covid-19 vaccination requirements

www.cnn.com...

Wonder if IU medical has any ties to the development and profits from covid vaccinations?

a reply to: neutronflux

This has to be the devil's work.

I have no words.

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm getting really damn tired of these lawsuits that don't go after the proper legal infraction.

Federal law specifically states that any medical treatment approved under an EUA can only be voluntary and it applies to all people in the United States. This attorney should be using that law, not the 14th Amendment that says that STATES cannot make LAWS that deprive people of life, liberty or property...which says notadamnthing about colleges having policies for admittance.

Cite the correct law and reasoning, and these lawsuits might go a little further and possibly actually win. The issue is not forced vaccines, which action has a long-standing history of being legal, it's about the fact that this vaccine is NOT approved by the FDA and therefore cannot be forced on anyone per the law:

STAT News

When the FDA grants emergency use authorization for a vaccine, many questions about the product cannot be answered. Given the open questions, when Congress granted the authority to issue EUAs, it chose to require that every individual should be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether or not to receive an EUA product. The FDA and CDC apparently consider this fundamental requirement of choice important enough that even during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic they reinforced that policy decision when issuing their guidance related to the Covid-19 vaccines.

This means that an organization will likely be at odds with federal law if it requires its employees, students or other members to get a Covid-19 vaccine that is being distributed under emergency use authorization.

State law often prohibits retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in a violation of federal law. Organizations that require Covid-19 vaccination in violation of federal law may face lawsuits under these state laws not only to block the policy but also for damages and attorneys’ fees.

There are direct links to the FDA and other literature that supports this reality in the linked story, so I suggest that people follow the links and read things for themselves.

Something tells me that, if argued in court properly, these schools and employers mandating an EUA vaccine with an "or else" mentality are going to be paying out big time in the coming years.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And that’s the true conspiracy of the USA, make work for lawyers. Like in a bad divorce.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Want to make something mandatory for individuals. Just have the FDA make something emergency use only.

New threats to liberties. So sad.

Federal judge upholds Indiana University's Covid-19 vaccination requirements

www.cnn.com...

Wonder if IU medical has any ties to the development and profits from covid vaccinations?

No idea about their ties, but it lines up with the reports of mRNA vaccines possibly causing prion diseases like Alzheiners.....IU is one of the leaders in Alzheimers studies. They will have plenty of guinea pigs on campus now.

a reply to: neutronflux

Nah, I just see it as a byproduct of having too many narcissistic and impatient politicians who always think that they're right and want to pass things on a whim...the legality of such things be damned. (That's for the next guy to have to worry about)

The inventor of the mRNA shot is being cancelled right now.

That should tell anyone with an IQ above 80 that this shot is not to be trusted.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Somebody is pushing mRNA covid vaccines hard. I saw poster/flyers on the Pharma stores saying there are some places offering only "mRNA" with no appointments required i really dont like the sounds of that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Federal law specifically states that any medical treatment approved under an EUA can only be voluntary and it applies to all people in the United States.

If that's the actual law, then isn't the IU actually breaking the law therefore making this a criminal matter which should have law enforcement involved?

a reply to: myselfaswell

Unfortunately, I believe that they are considering attending college as voluntary so no one is forced to accept the vaccine, just mandatory if you want to attend in-person. My fear is we will start seeing this as business as normal for any 'optional' attendance events i.e. movie theatre, restaurant, even going to see your kid at various school functions.

Well crap. I started a thread about IU mandating the vaccines when the news broke they were mandating it.

I have completely lost faith in the "justice" system. The fix is in.

Texas upholds a Houston hospital's C19 shot as a condition of employment. I am against mandates of this vaccine. Get it or don't, while EUA, it's supposed to be a personal choice. At least a hospital has a veeeeery weak, though still invalid, leg to stand on from a risk of exposure standpoint.

A university mandate being upheld is pure garbage. Can't even plead risk. 18-22 year olds have near zero risk or morbidity and mortality from C19. Hey-Zues Murphy. Wonder if they mandate an annual flu shot? If they aren't, making the C19 injection a condition of enrollment is ever further far fetched.

Early on, IU backed off and said you'll be asked if you've had the injection, but wouldn't verify. Bet this ruling emboldens them to require proof of injection.

For these rulings to be so facially in opposition to FDA law and medical ethics on EUA medications requiring consent, the fix has to be in.

With this injection, I'm starting to believe more and more that it's not paranoia if you really are being conspired against.

And if I do catch the bug, I won't be like one of these people sharing their deathbed vaccine epiphanies. "I made an informed choice to forego the EUA shot. I went with the fantastic odds of surviving the infection if I got it. Big Bucks. Big Bucks. I hit the Whammy. Got beat on the river card. Schieß happens." And the world will never know I said it, because apparently with C19, free will is the enemy.


You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill. --Rush

63% Of Those Who Died Of Delta Variant WERE VAXXED & 47% Of All New Covid-19 Cases ALSO VAXXED!!!

But you shouldn't be concerned.


AGENDA 21/ year 2021 – depopulation/ sustainable development/ humans… (This could form a website in itself! – Ed.)

University is for non critical thinking types regardless. You can get the same education from a variety of internet resources and with less financial burden. Never make the mistake of thinking a college education is superior to homemade education for the dedicated and creative student.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Want to make something mandatory for individuals. Just have the FDA make something emergency use only.

New threats to liberties. So sad.

Federal judge upholds Indiana University's Covid-19 vaccination requirements

www.cnn.com...

Wonder if IU medical has any ties to the development and profits from covid vaccinations?

It's more likely the judge and the university have ties to big pHARMa and there is probably a money trail you can audit with UI, the judge will have a hidden offshore, foundation or IBC. I know how how dirty universities can be and how judges get bought off, bin there, watched it happen, first hand.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: myselfaswell
If that's the actual law, then isn't the IU actually breaking the law therefore making this a criminal matter which should have law enforcement involved?

Yes, but the problem with the law (like many laws) is that it is written in a way that leaves a small room for interpretation as to what certain wording actually means.

I'm paraphrasing, but the law says that anyone administering a EAU treatment must explain to the individual receiving it that (a) the acceptance of the treatment is 100% voluntary and cannot be forced, and (2) that they must explain the possible ramifications if the person opts out of the treatment.

It's the part "b" that is leaving things rather muddy, and some who err on the side of authoritarianism and forced vaccines think that opting out includes the possibility of things like reduced freedoms and not being allowed to partake in certain things that vaccinated individuals will be able to participate in. Those of us on the side of protecting personal choice and liberty can intelligently argue that such phrasing actually means that the person administering the treatment is supposed to be explaining the medical possibilities involved with refusing the treatment, like explaining the potential effects of COVID if it is contracted, the reality that you could spread it to others, etc. I mean, the guidelines are written all about medical stuff, so why would only one tiny phrase include things like social limitations and lockdowns for those refusing the EUA treatment? It doesn't pass the smell test, and it seems to be getting exploited as a means to passive-aggressively force the vaccinations on people.

But this ambiguous phrase in the guidelines has not been challenged in court yet, so people and organizations such as IU can freely interpret it to mean what they want it to, and in this case, they think that it implies that an EUA-only treatment can be mandated in order for people to use their services.

I think that they're wrong, but my thoughts mean diddly squat until this issue is brought to the courts.

originally posted by: davegazi2

Texas upholds a Houston hospital's C19 shot as a condition of employment. I am against mandates of this vaccine. Get it or don't, while EUA, it's supposed to be a personal choice. At least a hospital has a veeeeery weak, though still invalid, leg to stand on from a risk of exposure standpoint.

A university mandate being upheld is pure garbage. Can't even plead risk. 18-22 year olds have near zero risk or morbidity and mortality from C19. Hey-Zues Murphy. Wonder if they mandate an annual flu shot? If they aren't, making the C19 injection a condition of enrollment is ever further far fetched.

The problem, as I argued earlier in the thread, is in HOW they brought the case to the court. Neither are chasing the correct rabbit, and so they are losing in court.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, I see how the fascists would interpret that in their favor, regardless of the idiocy.

I experienced that first hand earlier this year. I went to the doctor to organise a Covid antibody test. While I was in there the dr asked if I was doing this in an attempt to avoid being vaccinated, I said, no not really and was then offered the advice that, you do realise that if you're not vaccinated it's going to make overseas travel impossible in the future. Seriously, a dr suggesting a medical procedure for something other than a medical issue.

I don't use that dr anymore.

P.S. The reason I got the test is because I'm fairly sure I got an early case of CV19. The test came up nagative, I reckon I left the test too long, about 12 months, anyway if I have to I will organise a T cell test.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm getting really damn tired of these lawsuits that don't go after the proper legal infraction.

Personally, I think some lawyers are paid to do this on purpose to create bad case law.

They get an intentional loss (win for the bad guys) because the wrong argument was made, and voila, all subsequent cases are simply dismissed citing the bad case law, without regard to the underlying substantive change of argument.

The same exact thing happens with all seriously important cases (cases regarding money/FRNs and the Federal Reserve being a prime example).

Again, nothing in politics happens by accident.