The 1974 Research Act was created in entirety from the Belmont report, and put into place to prevent the Government, it agencies or representatives, military and private companies, from violating an individual's freedom: by forcing, tricking or coercing persons for research, testing and administration of unknown injections/materials, and experimental procedures. This law was enacted after OVER 100 YEARS track record of precedence including, and not limited to, the following - and ONGOING:
Demonstrated lack of Respect for Persons and their protections in violation of 1974 law. 1- Autonomous agents, individuals capable of deliberation about personal goals and of acting under the direction of such deliberation. The Government and companies have to give weight to autonomous persons' considered opinions and choices, and cannot obstruct their actions and judgments, nor deny individual freedom to act on considered judgments, and cannot withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment. Necessary information includes - but not limited to - all medical opinions by established, industry experts, health status, the necessary assessments, labs, with close monitoring of physical lab and test follow ups of each and every autonomous persons as part of clinical research and testing, along with full documentation of testing, efficacy, use of chimera for research and testing, any and all conceivable side effects, and interactions of conditions.
 2- persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to ADDED protections. Violators to the law have been marketing to the most vulnerable, including the immature and the incapacitated who were in need of extra, added protections, even to the point of excluding them from any injections or procedures which may harm them; violating added safety precautions for children, elderly, or those with diminished capacity. Informed consent - must include full disclosure of ALL contents to be injected, any and ALL possible side effects (which can be several pages long), how those persons are individually to be closely monitored, safety guidelines, and above all the right to say no before or at any time, and full reporting of all individuals regarding their safety monitoring/labs/assessments, and any and all side effects. By promoting COVID shots all still under clinical trial/research, and coercing with careers/jobs, inability to travel, etc. in order to take the shots, this law is being violated through: lack of informed consent, lack of protections of autonomous persons, and/or illegally acting as IRB safety board members marketing to those not autonomous and capable of self-determination, with higher standards of protection to be invoked, and assuming the role for their safety. The maxim "do no harm" has long been a fundamental principle of medical ethics. Claude Bernard extended it to the realm of research, saying that one should not injure one person regardless of the benefits that might come to others. An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given. This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Undue influence also includes offers of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable as in the case of targeting children, persons with limited capacity, and elderly with elements of mental defect, or instilling fear. Short term morbidity and mortality cases from the shots are well reported and known, such as death, myocarditis along with spontaneous cardiac arrest with no warning, debilitating neurological conditions, etc. And, there is no means yet to determine mid and long term effects because Phase I trials have not been competed, let alone Phase II and III - which is vital information in order to determine informed consent. Injustice has been performed with companies and government representatives, by involving vulnerable subjects, including the young, those unable to fully comprehend with all necessary information, and scaring parents with compromised capacity for free consent. In addition to lack of individual, tightly scheduled, continual monitoring and follow ups, autopsies of all persons involved in this trial participation should be conducted for reporting by the pharmaceuticals companies for any and all persons who received the shots, as well as labs determining efficacy and detriments (as examples, antigen creation, D-dimer, Pulse Cardiac and Troponin Tests) for all those who were coerced or unduly influenced to participate in research. This law was created to protect people from government abuse through experimentation. The government cannot arbitrarily dismiss components, create resolutions or stipulations to supersede the law, as to invalidate its protection of individuals from them, including, but not limited to Health and Human Services (HHS) Center for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institute for Health (NIH), etc. and pharmaceutical companies, etc. Persons have been illegally acting as members of, or bypassing, IRB safety review and monitoring of each and every person receiving injections, with open undue influence and coercion, to participate in Covid injections. Coercion has been especially directed to the diminished autonomous, children and elderly, through TV ads, library recordings, verbal encouragement, schools or other public venues acting as government agents, and/or clinical researcher recruiting participants, and/or illegally as untrained IRB member who is not following up to ensure safety of the people they recruited, coerced or used undue influence. Overall lack of informed consent has become too often common practice across the healthcare industry, including people being given consent forms hours or minutes prior to surgery; no alternative treatments or lifestyle-nutrition changes prior to medications begin prescribed, and undue influence to intubate or perform surgery on patients in lieu of alternative treatments.
Lawsuits for unconstitutional |
|||||||||||||||||
| Governor Inslee and PeaceHealth hospital sued for requiring nurses to inject experimental drugs into their bodies without their free will and voluntary consent. It's like a real-life episode of Jekyll and Hyde. Read the lawsuit here: https://coloradomedicalfreedom.com/wp-content/upl The National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the Ohio Board of Medicine are requiring students to hand over their private identifiable biometric scans as a condition to take the nursing test. Notice the deflection in the message. They present facts as if they are lawful, meant to place fear in the hearts of nurses. But, they never say it's a lawful requirement, only why do you not want to give your scan. One does not have to answer this question. | Dr. David Martin: under 21 Code of Federal Regulations § 50.23 and 24 – Exception from General Requirements, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. |
Brian Ward - Twitter Oct 25, 2023
Legal Fact: Any state that penalized citizens or denied unemployment benefits to an individual terminated for the sole reason of refusing to inject an unlicensed investigational drug into their body violated the individual's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process rights. The U.S. Congress conferred legal authority onto an individual to either accept or refuse an EUA product. Both options were enacted by a valid act of Congress and must be equally protected. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution denied that state authority from interfering in the chosen option. The state established what courts call an Unconstitutional Condition. SCOTUS said: "But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." Governors and state agency directors violated their oath of office & the Constitution the moment they required COVID-19 EUA participation and or penalized an individual's federally protected option. They deprived citizens of their interest in liberty and property and, unfortunately for some, their very lives, all without due process. They did so by applying the law unequally demoting those who refused to that of a second-class citizen.
Legal Fact: Any state that penalized citizens or denied unemployment benefits to an individual terminated for the sole reason of refusing to inject an unlicensed investigational drug into their body violated the individual's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process rights. The U.S. Congress conferred legal authority onto an individual to either accept or refuse an EUA product. Both options were enacted by a valid act of Congress and must be equally protected. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution denied that state authority from interfering in the chosen option. The state established what courts call an Unconstitutional Condition. SCOTUS said: "But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." Governors and state agency directors violated their oath of office & the Constitution the moment they required COVID-19 EUA participation and or penalized an individual's federally protected option. They deprived citizens of their interest in liberty and property and, unfortunately for some, their very lives, all without due process. They did so by applying the law unequally demoting those who refused to that of a second-class citizen.
Legal Fact: 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3 and the PREP Act expressly restrict public and private employers from conditioning access to employment and other benefits upon a person injecting an FDA-classified experimental drug (Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine) into their body. The CDC stated, "Coverage under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act extends to Organization if it complies with the PREP Act and the PREP Act Declaration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services." "IF IT COMPLIES" is the key phrase here. When a governor issued a proclamation that directly violated the federal statute, the governor did not comply and fraudulently amended the federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause. The PREP Act and 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3 provide a legal right to individuals considering participation in the product/activity. That legal right is the option to accept or refuse. Therefore, the immunities provided to persons participating in activities under the PREP Act extend only so far as they do not force persons to participate in the product/activity. Governors, employers, hospitals, all FORCED (under threat of a penalty) individuals to participate in violation of federal law. Force does not have to mean physical force. It can be the force of law, rule, or other means having the same negative effect as physical force. The courts have said that force means to prevent a person or cause a person to participate in an activity outside of their free will and voluntary consent. Significant lawsuits inbound!
12:45 PM · Aug 29, 2023
12:45 PM · Aug 29, 2023
Brian Ward Aug 2022
BREAKING: LA Superior Court requiring LAPD to reinstate an officer terminated for refusing the vax mandate. Full back pay too! This is under a Writ of Mandamus, which is rare.
BREAKING: LA Superior Court requiring LAPD to reinstate an officer terminated for refusing the vax mandate. Full back pay too! This is under a Writ of Mandamus, which is rare.
Legal Fact: "Nothing in this section (EUA Law) provides the [HHS ] Secretary any authority to require any person to carry out any activity that becomes lawful pursuant to an authorization under this section, and no person is required to inform the Secretary that the person will not be carrying out such activity." - The Secretary may grant access to an unlicensed drug (Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine) during an emergency but he can not mandate that anyone manufacture, distribute, store, administer, or receive the product. His authority is non-transferable, nor may he delegate it to another person. Therefore, by what authority are universities and private employers mandating that which Congress prohibits? EUA drugs are "controlled" drugs by Congress, and no person may participate in them outside of the conditions established by Congress. Moreover, Congress expressly prohibits private employers from interfering with your choice of accepting or refusing participation in the product. It was illegal - It is illegal - and it is being remedied in court. We will not allow this September to be a repeat of years past.
2:18 PM · Aug 21, 2023
2:18 PM · Aug 21, 2023
Legal Fact: 100% of all hospitals and nearly all universities signed a FEDERAL agreement to abide by the ethical principles of the Belmont Report, though few know it, ANYTIME they involve a human with an investigational medical product such as any available COVID-19 drug. The report is only 10 pages long, but it holds in part: (1) Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection. The principle of respect for persons thus divides into two separate moral requirements: the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy, (2) To show lack of respect for an autonomous agent is to repudiate that person's considered judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act on those considered judgments, or to withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment, (3) Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. BONUS ROUND - All US States and Territories signed this agreement pre-pandemic too. Yup, no one knows this either, including state attorneys general. Lastly, unlike the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report has the force of law via federal statute and contract.
Last edited9:28 PM · Aug 2, 2023
Last edited9:28 PM · Aug 2, 2023
Brian Ward via Twitter
The VERY first EUA issued was in 2005 for the Anthrax investigational drug for service members and civilian employees of the DoD. The EUA stated: A. Individuals (service members and civilians) who refuse anthrax vaccination will not be punished. (Emphasis added) B. Refusal may not be grounds for any disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. C. Refusal may not be grounds for any adverse personnel action. Nor would either military or civilian personnel be considered non-deployable or processed for separation based on refusal of anthrax vaccination. D. There may be no penalty or loss of entitlement for refusing anthrax vaccination, E. This information shall read in the trifold brochure provided to potential vaccine recipients as follows: You may refuse anthrax vaccination under the EUA, and you will not be punished. No disciplinary action or adverse personnel action will be taken. You will not be processed for separation, and you will still be deployable. There will be no penalty or loss of entitlement for refusing anthrax vaccination. Nothing in law has changed to negate the authority of DoD members to refuse EUA COVID-19 drugs except the 6 civilian appointees engaged in willful misconduct against our Armed Forces.
11:51 PM · Sep 3, 2023
The VERY first EUA issued was in 2005 for the Anthrax investigational drug for service members and civilian employees of the DoD. The EUA stated: A. Individuals (service members and civilians) who refuse anthrax vaccination will not be punished. (Emphasis added) B. Refusal may not be grounds for any disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. C. Refusal may not be grounds for any adverse personnel action. Nor would either military or civilian personnel be considered non-deployable or processed for separation based on refusal of anthrax vaccination. D. There may be no penalty or loss of entitlement for refusing anthrax vaccination, E. This information shall read in the trifold brochure provided to potential vaccine recipients as follows: You may refuse anthrax vaccination under the EUA, and you will not be punished. No disciplinary action or adverse personnel action will be taken. You will not be processed for separation, and you will still be deployable. There will be no penalty or loss of entitlement for refusing anthrax vaccination. Nothing in law has changed to negate the authority of DoD members to refuse EUA COVID-19 drugs except the 6 civilian appointees engaged in willful misconduct against our Armed Forces.
11:51 PM · Sep 3, 2023
1 Comment