THE PATRIOT ACT of EMERGENCY HEALTH?

@NassMeryl Episode 673 w/Dr. Meryl Nass https://t.co/Vcw4HECIaW

— Tommy’sPodcast (@tommys_podcast) January 19, 2022

CDC's Powers Act, or more fully, Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, originally drafted by the CDC,

to aid the United States' state legislatures in revising their public health laws to control epidemics and respond to bioterrorism. The CDC's draft was revised by the Center for Law and the Public's Health, a collaboration between Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University. By December 21, 2001, the act was released to state legislatures for review and approval. Critics immediately charged that the MSEHPA failed to protect the general public from abuses arising from the tremendous powers it would grant individual states in an emergency. The MSEHPA provisions also went beyond the scope of addressing bioterrorism while disregarding medical privacy standards.^[1] As of August 1, 2011, forty states have passed various forms of MSEHPA legislation.

This gives governors the power to pass orders that have the weight of law though it's not a law.  And under these emergency orders triggered by the pandemic, the legislature stopped meeting, and the governor took over as the sole ruler.  The governor could tell you when to wear masks when to socially distances, which stores could remain open, Enormous powers.  What happened to the legislators of each state--how did they react to these powers granted by the Health Powers Act?  No one knew the extent of these powers and what society could devolve into.  

Back in March 2020, governors decided that Hydroxychloroquine could be used for acute COVID but not for prevention.  The justification for that order at the time was that doctors were prescribing it for their families and governors wanted to stockpile.  Hydroxychloroquine was an over-the-counter drug in most of the world until the pandemic when countries started to clamp down on it and make it hard to get.  At the end of March, beginning of April, about 30 states put restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine drugs.  Not sure why.  Been in use for over 40 years; I'm gonna guess we know how to use it by now.  No black box warnings on it.  EUA allowed the government to restrict Hydroxychloroquine.  Prior to the pandemic, Hydroxychloroquine wasn't Emergency Use, it was fully licensed to be prescribed and dispensed from pharmacies.  So doctors could no longer use it the way that doctors wanted to use it.  The restriction placed on Hydroxychloroquine was that it could only be used on hospitalized patients.  That, in her opinion, was basically a crime.  Because by the time that you're hospitalized, you tend to have been sick for about 10 to 14 days, and it's too late for the drug to work; you're not growing any virus anymore.  The virus has been in your system, replicated for 10 to 14 days, and now it is gone.  By the time you need to be hospitalized, you're dealing with autoimmune illness, cytokine storm, inflammation that needs to be treated completely differently than by killing viruses.  It needs to be treated with immune suppressants, things to prevent blood-clotting.  So by restricting the drug to hospitalized patients, they knew it was going to be used in a way they knew it was not going to be useful and it would look like it didn't work for this disease.  And doctors didn't know what was going on.  They'd never heard of EUAs before, so they just went along with it.  

This donated stockpile, some of which was made in Pakistan, and some of it was expired.  It was only this batch of Hydroxychloroquine that had a EUA placed on it.  Rick Bright of the Rockefeller Foundation and Janet Woodcock, Director of Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, and acting FDA Commissioner, fooled the public and the pharmacists and the doctors.

I knew about EUAs because I worked with a group that brought a lawsuit against the licensing of the anthrax vaccine.  We got a judge to remove the license, and within weeks the federal government had slapped an EUA use on the anthrax vaccine so it still could be used for soldiers even without a license.  And then they tried to mandate it, and then we went back to court and the judge told them, "You cannot mandate an experimental product."  So that's basically all the case law on mandating of EUAs.  There's no other case that's been brought in the United States, and that's how it sits.  EUAs are experimental products, and there's no question about that because anything that's not a licensed product in U.S. law is defined as experimental.  Whether it's used in an experiment or you're just giving it to people because you think it works and you're not collecting data, it doesn't matter.  It's still by definition experimental.  Now, if it's experimental that means the Nuremberg Code applies.  You can't force people to be experimental subjects and federal law says the same thing.  So, there you have it.  19:31  

19:32  We have these now vaccines for COVID, all the vaccines available in the United States, despite what President Biden or Janet Woodcock would have you believe, and we know that Janet Woodcock is not the most reliable source, she's still the Acting Director of the FDA, she's due to leave the position at any moment--she's had her year as Acting Director; she can't do it any longer by law--they haven't approved another commissioner yet.  What we have now is an FDA under Janet Woodcock that gave a license to one vaccine for COVID, which was the Pfizer vaccine, only for adults, only for the first two doses, not for any boosters.  And then Pfizer, by giving it a license that meant the licensed vaccine would have normal liability.  Pfizer said we're not making it available in the United States until you use up the EUA product, the Emergency Use Authorized product, for which Pfizer has no liability.  You can't sue anybody if you get injured or killed.  So basically, anybody . . . all the vaccines--the Moderna, the J & J, which is also called Janssen, and the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines in the United States that are available, the only ones you can get right now are all Emergency Use Authorized.  Every one of them is experimental, and by law, they cannot be mandated.  The way the Biden Administration pushed out its mandate was by telling the FDA to license one of them, telling the world that a COVID vaccine was now licensed, and under the guise of licensure, even though you cannot get a licensed vaccine in the United States, all these mandates were put into place and again the American public was fooled, just like they were fooled with Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine.  So right now, we are being governed under a system of smoke and mirrors, and the government is the one that is basically breaking the law.  

22:00  Dr. Keith Rose when I had him on, said that the government is pulling a bait and switch.  Technically, the FDA approved Corminaty but it's not available in the United States.  So it is an FDA-approved vaccine, 

24:00  Well, as of right now, the people who are most subject to the mandate as a class are the healthcare workers, since the Supreme Court chose to completely ignore this issue of the legality and Emergency Use and mandates, and the Supreme Court chose to completely bypass the question of whether the vaccine is even effective anymore against Omicron, okay?  So that has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court so don't think that all of your possible ways of getting relief from this terrible situation of mandates have gone by.  They haven't yet.  Still, there are cases that can go up to the Supreme Court on the mandates.  I would say that the best thing is for lots of healthcare workers to get together and bring a lawsuit.  I mean if they've lost their jobs, they deserve to be reinstated and get back pay.  It has happened before, very rarely, but

Written by Lawrence Gostin and giving states enormous power under emergencies and pandemics.  Powers beyond even the recipients of these powers can comprehend.  Check this out.  

The preliminary draft named the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of County and City Health Officials as collaborators without Gostin contacting them. The second draft, dated December 21, 2001, made the revised statement on its title page that the law was a "draft for discussion … to assist" those organizations.^[5]

What was Gostin trying to do, write a new constitution?  How does this happen?  How does a single lawyer moonlighting as a professor draft a law that strips all Americans of constitutional protections? 

The only criticism at the time came from, of all places, the AARP.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed that the draft used sweeping language to the extent that it "could turn governors into dictators" since the MSEHPA gave governors the authority to declare public health emergencies, and afterward force vaccinations on the general public without their informed consent. The deployment of state National Guards could be used to administer the vaccines or substances. Legal liabilities for drug companies which manufactured the vaccines and/or substances were removed.

looks like they've set themselves up for serial emergencies and serial pandemics.  I mean this law is the goose that lays the golden egg, authoritarian speaking, of course.