Is it specifically legislated that the US PREP Act protects medical workers who wilfully administer mandatory vaccination against an individual's wishes, i.e. they do not obtain voluntary informed consent?
The article also notes: "According to WPMI-TV, prior to the clinic the 6-year-old’s parents informed the school that their child was not to be vaccinated. An official at the school allegedly understood and acknowledged the parents’ orders. After the discussion, L.P. was given a nametag with another student’s name on it. The student whose name was on the tag had already received a dose earlier in the day."
So there has been an error, with L.P. being given a nametag with another student's name on it.
The article continues: "L.P. protested and told the adults in charge that “Dad said no.”"
And then... "Despite this, clinic workers administered the dose."
It's the "clinic worker" who is directly responsible here. Who was this? A nurse?
Why would this clinic worker go ahead and vaccinate a child, when the child obviously didn't want the vaccine and had been told "Dad said no".
The article reports:
QUOTE
“Plaintiffs sued various named and unnamed state and school defendants,” the court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that defendants are immune from suit under the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).” Justices decided that all defendants in this case are protected from litigation under this law. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the court’s ruling continues. “Plaintiffs’ arguments about preemption are misplaced, and therefore we need not decide today the extent of the PREP Act’s preemptive effect." “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The parents’ case, the court finally affirmed, cannot proceed on a matter of law.
END OF QUOTE
To summarise, a 'clinic worker' administered a vaccine dose to a child who did not want the vaccine, and whose parent had already refused the vaccine.
This is an astonishing situation. The 'clinic worker' did not have voluntary informed consent to administer the vaccine dose, they did not have valid consent, but went ahead and vaccinated the child anyway.
Again, is it specifically legislated that the US PREP Act protects defendants who wilfully administer mandatory vaccination against an individual's wishes, i.e. they do not obtain voluntary informed consent?
Elizabeth, as far as I know, the PREP act specifically indemnified anyone who is involved in the vaccination campaign for COVID from the nurses and schedulers to the people administering the shots. That is my understanding but it could be wrong? Would the school be included in that protection? I really don’t know. But the courts seem to think so.
Meryl, I'm repeatedly making the point that vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - have a legal and ethical obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination. This cannot be achieved under coercion and mandates.
Despite this clear statement from the Australian Government, mandatory vaccination took place across the Australian population. Something is very wrong here.
Likewise in the US. Medical workers in the US also have an obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination, as I discuss in my latest substack post, see: "How Biden's Mandates Were His Downfall" - A Midwestern Doctor
Elizabeth, for at least 100 years, governments in the US and many other countries have acted outside of the law. The US government - and the Australian for that matter - pass regulation after regulation - none of which is legal.
It is the job of Congress in the US to enact legislation. But unelected bureaucrats have taken on that role and Congress has remained mute.
So is the PREP Act legal? Probably not. But is it used to take away liability for those who are murdering and maiming Americans? Yes, it is.
I don't know what the answer to this is - short of another American Revolution, I don't see things changing any time soon.
This is an excerpt from my submission made in October 2015:
Citizens are entitled to demand the right to give their ‘informed consent’ before administration of these vaccine products to themselves and their children. Citizens are also entitled to question what level of disease risk justifies mass vaccination. These rights are being denied by the No Jab, No Pay Bill.
The No Jab, No Pay Bill will make vaccination compulsory to access financial inducements – this is at odds with the obligation for ‘legally valid consent’ before vaccination see for example Section 2.1.3 of The Australian Immunisation Handbook which acknowledges:
QUOTE
“In general, a parent or legal guardian of a child has the authority to consent to vaccination of that child…” and states “For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:”
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the
implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
END OF QUOTE
As the Australian Federal Government’s vaccination schedule will be effectively compulsory to obtain financial benefits, I suggest this contravenes point 2 above re legally valid consent before vaccination, i.e. “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”
How can a person give ‘legally valid consent’ to a medical intervention, i.e. vaccination, when they are being ‘pressured, coerced and manipulated’ into having this intervention with a financial inducement, and are not being allowed to properly consider “the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options”, as outlined in point 4 above?
We have to demand accountability Meryl, because this is a dire situation...
As you know, the rot really set in with the coercive/incentivised No Jab, No Pay law for children’s vaccination enacted in Australia in January 2016, which got rid of the conscientious objector provision. The medical profession shouldn’t have gone along with it then, they should have said ‘no, we can’t do that, it violates voluntary informed consent’. But they didn’t…
Ahmad Malik, the surgeon in the UK challenging the narrative, caught on to this straight away during our podcast discussion, see:
We start off talking about pet vax, but go into human vaccination, about aluminium adjuvants for instance.
In regard to No Jab, No Pay, here’s a transcript of part of our discussion:
Elizabeth Hart: There were things being put in place to shut down people who were questioning vaccination, that they really wanted it locked in, that people would be compliant to vaccination. So in Australia there used to be, this is before 2016, that parents would get allowances for their children, and it was sort of tied to vaccination. But you could be a conscientious objector. So what they were trying to get rid of was this conscientious objector...
Ahmad Malik: Yes
Elizabeth Hart: And parents would get these tax benefits, but you'd have to get the vaccinations for your children. And then it progressed to get childcare that...governments started bringing in No Jab, No Play laws. But the whole aim of this...
Ahmad Malik: Hold on one sec. That's incentivising, and disincentivising, punitive punishment. That's not informed consent!
Elizabeth Hart: I know. This is where the rot set in! The doctors...
Ahmad Malik: What the frack?!
Elizabeth Hart: The doctors shouldn't have gone along with this...
Ahmad Malik: Hundred percent!
Elizabeth Hart: And it's not just doctors, yeah, they should have said at that time, they should have said "we can't go along with this...it's not informed consent..."
Ahmad Malik: It's bullshit.
Elizabeth Hart: Yeah. But the organisations here, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, these organisations are just terrible.
Ahmad Malik: Well they're the same over here.
Elizabeth Hart: The leadership of these organisations is dire. Well at least the ones in England, I don't think they went along with mandatory vaccination. But here...they're appalling.
Ahmad Malik: Well they weren't really speaking that out against it, honestly. Honestly, don't hold these guys up here too highly. No-one was out on the street marching...
Elizabeth Hart: I wouldn't do that!
Ahmad Malik: They're all scum... Honestly, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but most of these high people, where were they? They weren't on TV crying out this goes against medical ethics...
You looking for Nazis. These are Nazis. Not even experimental anymore. We KNOW this can be deadly but not only doing it but against parental wishes. Two words: Home School. Damn these people.
Absolutely! I think anyone in the US (or Australia for that matter) who still has their children in state schools is playing Russian Roulette with their kid's lives.
And you just KNOW that money is not going into the school system -at least not most of it. Government are the biggest money launderers and grifters on the planet!
Corporate Fascism and $cientism. The mafia industrial complex of drugs and government. Your 'thriving democracy' and 'values'. The US is so democratic you can steal elections and be rewarded, murder people with drugs and become wealthy, murder babies and be called 'pro choice'; and castrate children and be called a liberator.
200 years of this madness of enforced drug injections - all for profits and power. And if you disagree you are a 'threat to our thriving democracy' and other idiocies and propaganda. Satanic evil.
Not a single quackcine has ever worked, or benefitted a single person.
We are in the days of Zechariah 12 13 14 as CHRISTIANS WE SAW THAT THE JEWS WOULD GO THROUGH THE TIME OF JACOBS TROUBLE "THE TRIBULATION" BUT ALMIGHTY GOD WILL SAVE HIS
ANCIENT COVENANT PEOPLE WHO ARE THE APPLE 9F HIS EYE GOD WILL DESTROY THE NATIONS THAT COME AGAINST ISRAEL I HAVE LIVED BIBLE PROPHECY I CAN TAKE YOU TO SCRIPTURE AFTER SCRIPTURE THAT HAS AND IS BEING FULFILLED WE ARE LIVING IN THE TIMES OF YESHUA THE JEWISH MESSIAH RETURNING FOR HIS PEOPLE AND ALSO AS JUDGE THE ENEMY OF GOD SATAN HAS A RETIREMENT PLAN IN THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE FOR EVER AND EVER PRAY FOR THE PEACE IN JERUSALEM
Hazard needs to be jailed for life for herding some 25thousand children into a ground vaccinating the lot I know one child died fairly quickly HOW MANY MORE I PRAY REGULARLY FOR DIVINE JUSTICE WHICH BIBLICALLY WILL COME THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL BE A TERRIFYING TIME FOR THE UNSAVED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS
That's right! This life is temporary, and every one of us will die. More important is the next life which lasts forever; the second death also lasts forever. Having faith in Jesus Christ saves us from the eternal second death.
So a child has a known anaphalactic reaction to vaccines, but given this ruling it's almost certain heartless and reckless school districts would ignore this and administer anyway....
I agree with you 100%. And the best answer at the present time is for all parents who are awake and conscious to pull their children out of school and do whatever is necessary to educate them at home or in a community setting. The 'education' system will die very quickly without our participation.
I used to as analyze legislation for a living. Written legislation can be very difficult to interpret. When ambiguity exists, the reader must consider intent of the law. I believe the intent of the PREP Act is to hold harmless only vaccine manufacturers. These unfortunate parents probably needed a different type of attorney. I wouldn't be surprised if this went to the Supreme Court. Congress needs to make a legislative clarification immediately.
I cannot analyze legislation - my mind doesn't function when reading legalize. Give me medical research any day! LOL But they used the PREP act to indemnify hospitals, doctors, nurses, all other medical staff and just about everyone else. The best way forward is to overturn that Act, the 1986 VICP Act and also prove fraud so that Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and the rest of the cartel is totally destroyed, never to rise again.
It is looking more & more like Katherine Watt (bailiwicknews) is right about the Prep Act & other laws being implemented to protect those that are harming humanity under the guise of public health emergencies. A legal kill box.
You're right. After reading the cases Roc showed us from Lexology, I was totally wrong about the PREP Act although I had read it recently. Case law alone can be quite powerful, and there are already precedents dismissing claims based on parental consent. I'm very disheartened.
Read these "judgements" & weep. The prep act was bedded down years ago & tested by various legal joustings over the years to shore up any legal loop holes BEFORE the big Convid farce. The only potential out is wilfull misconduct, which is a legal trap/joke to extend the costs of the legal fraternity who, in the main, are on the gravy train. Just read part of the prep act & it will make your skin crawl. Make no mistake this type of evil has been around for years & these "acts" are designed to keep pushing us into the pen. Any admission that these poisons are an gene therapy will destroy their prep act. Informed consent MUST be the priority & Trump's team better read up. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f13bfd83-1f21-481b-a53f-adae50e6b23e
Thank you Roc for this. I was completely wrong in my interpretation and had no idea there was already so much case law regarding PREP Act preemption and even who a covered person is under the Act. And yes, I am weeping for so many who have been harmed and have no recourse. The statements in these cases such as in Politella v. Windham Southeast School Dist., "Clams that the plaintiff’s child was vaccinated without parental consent are related to and dependent on the vaccination and within the scope of PREP Act preemption" make me very angry. Folks in the US have no idea informed consent legally means nothing.
I wish I could say my pleasure but that doesn't sound right, does it L4A? The prep act is NOT a law, imo. This is why the "judiciary" will not act on the clear evidence that these poisons ARE NOT vaccines (if any are) but gene altering therapies, therefore the prep act is null & void.
I agree, Roc. I know it probably didn't start there, but September 11th with the Homeland Security Dept and all that entailed was the beginning of the end for freedom.
As Ben Franklin said - those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. We are the proof of that quote.
Benedict Arnold has been usurped. These creatures are tarring EVERY American with their disgusting acts. Only the true thinker's know it's NOT the American people. You are absolutely correct about YOUR country Meryl, great place, great people but the "leadership" is repulsive.
Just get rid of all who are responsible for vaccine, rather than home school.
Right laws to bypass our rights and think we are going to be ok with that ? That is the very definition of tyranny
So could the recent chevron ruling be used to get rid of the prep act?
Is it specifically legislated that the US PREP Act protects medical workers who wilfully administer mandatory vaccination against an individual's wishes, i.e. they do not obtain voluntary informed consent?
The article about the case states: "A school district cannot be sued for administering a COVID-19 vaccine to a young child despite the parents’ explicit instructions against it." https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/state-supreme-court-gives-big-win-school-administered
The article also notes: "According to WPMI-TV, prior to the clinic the 6-year-old’s parents informed the school that their child was not to be vaccinated. An official at the school allegedly understood and acknowledged the parents’ orders. After the discussion, L.P. was given a nametag with another student’s name on it. The student whose name was on the tag had already received a dose earlier in the day."
So there has been an error, with L.P. being given a nametag with another student's name on it.
The article continues: "L.P. protested and told the adults in charge that “Dad said no.”"
And then... "Despite this, clinic workers administered the dose."
It's the "clinic worker" who is directly responsible here. Who was this? A nurse?
Why would this clinic worker go ahead and vaccinate a child, when the child obviously didn't want the vaccine and had been told "Dad said no".
The article reports:
QUOTE
“Plaintiffs sued various named and unnamed state and school defendants,” the court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that defendants are immune from suit under the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).” Justices decided that all defendants in this case are protected from litigation under this law. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the court’s ruling continues. “Plaintiffs’ arguments about preemption are misplaced, and therefore we need not decide today the extent of the PREP Act’s preemptive effect." “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The parents’ case, the court finally affirmed, cannot proceed on a matter of law.
END OF QUOTE
To summarise, a 'clinic worker' administered a vaccine dose to a child who did not want the vaccine, and whose parent had already refused the vaccine.
This is an astonishing situation. The 'clinic worker' did not have voluntary informed consent to administer the vaccine dose, they did not have valid consent, but went ahead and vaccinated the child anyway.
Again, is it specifically legislated that the US PREP Act protects defendants who wilfully administer mandatory vaccination against an individual's wishes, i.e. they do not obtain voluntary informed consent?
Elizabeth, as far as I know, the PREP act specifically indemnified anyone who is involved in the vaccination campaign for COVID from the nurses and schedulers to the people administering the shots. That is my understanding but it could be wrong? Would the school be included in that protection? I really don’t know. But the courts seem to think so.
Meryl, I'm repeatedly making the point that vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - have a legal and ethical obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination. This cannot be achieved under coercion and mandates.
As you know, in Australia, we have confirmation from the Australian Government that: "Informed consent should be obtained from every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations." https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
Despite this clear statement from the Australian Government, mandatory vaccination took place across the Australian population. Something is very wrong here.
Likewise in the US. Medical workers in the US also have an obligation to obtain voluntary informed consent for vaccination, as I discuss in my latest substack post, see: "How Biden's Mandates Were His Downfall" - A Midwestern Doctor
Actually... Collaborating with mandates was the downfall of the entire medical profession... https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/how-bidens-mandates-were-his-downfall
I do not see how the US PREP Act can legitimately override this obligation.
Elizabeth, for at least 100 years, governments in the US and many other countries have acted outside of the law. The US government - and the Australian for that matter - pass regulation after regulation - none of which is legal.
It is the job of Congress in the US to enact legislation. But unelected bureaucrats have taken on that role and Congress has remained mute.
So is the PREP Act legal? Probably not. But is it used to take away liability for those who are murdering and maiming Americans? Yes, it is.
I don't know what the answer to this is - short of another American Revolution, I don't see things changing any time soon.
Meryl, I focussed on informed consent in my Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Re: Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=18970842-0622-49d1-a6b7-f7b1d2e9a7f7&subId=405305
This is an excerpt from my submission made in October 2015:
Citizens are entitled to demand the right to give their ‘informed consent’ before administration of these vaccine products to themselves and their children. Citizens are also entitled to question what level of disease risk justifies mass vaccination. These rights are being denied by the No Jab, No Pay Bill.
The No Jab, No Pay Bill will make vaccination compulsory to access financial inducements – this is at odds with the obligation for ‘legally valid consent’ before vaccination see for example Section 2.1.3 of The Australian Immunisation Handbook which acknowledges:
QUOTE
“In general, a parent or legal guardian of a child has the authority to consent to vaccination of that child…” and states “For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:”
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the
implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
END OF QUOTE
As the Australian Federal Government’s vaccination schedule will be effectively compulsory to obtain financial benefits, I suggest this contravenes point 2 above re legally valid consent before vaccination, i.e. “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”
How can a person give ‘legally valid consent’ to a medical intervention, i.e. vaccination, when they are being ‘pressured, coerced and manipulated’ into having this intervention with a financial inducement, and are not being allowed to properly consider “the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options”, as outlined in point 4 above?
We have to demand accountability Meryl, because this is a dire situation...
As you know, the rot really set in with the coercive/incentivised No Jab, No Pay law for children’s vaccination enacted in Australia in January 2016, which got rid of the conscientious objector provision. The medical profession shouldn’t have gone along with it then, they should have said ‘no, we can’t do that, it violates voluntary informed consent’. But they didn’t…
Ahmad Malik, the surgeon in the UK challenging the narrative, caught on to this straight away during our podcast discussion, see:
https://docmalik.com/elizabeth-hart-talks-about-over-vaccination-of-pets-and-kids/
We start off talking about pet vax, but go into human vaccination, about aluminium adjuvants for instance.
In regard to No Jab, No Pay, here’s a transcript of part of our discussion:
Elizabeth Hart: There were things being put in place to shut down people who were questioning vaccination, that they really wanted it locked in, that people would be compliant to vaccination. So in Australia there used to be, this is before 2016, that parents would get allowances for their children, and it was sort of tied to vaccination. But you could be a conscientious objector. So what they were trying to get rid of was this conscientious objector...
Ahmad Malik: Yes
Elizabeth Hart: And parents would get these tax benefits, but you'd have to get the vaccinations for your children. And then it progressed to get childcare that...governments started bringing in No Jab, No Play laws. But the whole aim of this...
Ahmad Malik: Hold on one sec. That's incentivising, and disincentivising, punitive punishment. That's not informed consent!
Elizabeth Hart: I know. This is where the rot set in! The doctors...
Ahmad Malik: What the frack?!
Elizabeth Hart: The doctors shouldn't have gone along with this...
Ahmad Malik: Hundred percent!
Elizabeth Hart: And it's not just doctors, yeah, they should have said at that time, they should have said "we can't go along with this...it's not informed consent..."
Ahmad Malik: It's bullshit.
Elizabeth Hart: Yeah. But the organisations here, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, these organisations are just terrible.
Ahmad Malik: Well they're the same over here.
Elizabeth Hart: The leadership of these organisations is dire. Well at least the ones in England, I don't think they went along with mandatory vaccination. But here...they're appalling.
Ahmad Malik: Well they weren't really speaking that out against it, honestly. Honestly, don't hold these guys up here too highly. No-one was out on the street marching...
Elizabeth Hart: I wouldn't do that!
Ahmad Malik: They're all scum... Honestly, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but most of these high people, where were they? They weren't on TV crying out this goes against medical ethics...
You looking for Nazis. These are Nazis. Not even experimental anymore. We KNOW this can be deadly but not only doing it but against parental wishes. Two words: Home School. Damn these people.
Absolutely! I think anyone in the US (or Australia for that matter) who still has their children in state schools is playing Russian Roulette with their kid's lives.
Received a property tax statement today; 49.5% of total goes to "education." Whether you have, send or homeschool the children, .gov gets your money.
And you just KNOW that money is not going into the school system -at least not most of it. Government are the biggest money launderers and grifters on the planet!
Everyone mandating any injection must be tried and hanged for crimes against humanity ASAP.
Nuremberg 2.0
I'd be be tempted to burn the school down if I lived in that part of the world! Mongrels!
Thanks Meryl, this is certainly shocking and a complete undermining of rights of parents.
Corporate Fascism and $cientism. The mafia industrial complex of drugs and government. Your 'thriving democracy' and 'values'. The US is so democratic you can steal elections and be rewarded, murder people with drugs and become wealthy, murder babies and be called 'pro choice'; and castrate children and be called a liberator.
200 years of this madness of enforced drug injections - all for profits and power. And if you disagree you are a 'threat to our thriving democracy' and other idiocies and propaganda. Satanic evil.
Not a single quackcine has ever worked, or benefitted a single person.
We are in the days of Zechariah 12 13 14 as CHRISTIANS WE SAW THAT THE JEWS WOULD GO THROUGH THE TIME OF JACOBS TROUBLE "THE TRIBULATION" BUT ALMIGHTY GOD WILL SAVE HIS
ANCIENT COVENANT PEOPLE WHO ARE THE APPLE 9F HIS EYE GOD WILL DESTROY THE NATIONS THAT COME AGAINST ISRAEL I HAVE LIVED BIBLE PROPHECY I CAN TAKE YOU TO SCRIPTURE AFTER SCRIPTURE THAT HAS AND IS BEING FULFILLED WE ARE LIVING IN THE TIMES OF YESHUA THE JEWISH MESSIAH RETURNING FOR HIS PEOPLE AND ALSO AS JUDGE THE ENEMY OF GOD SATAN HAS A RETIREMENT PLAN IN THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE FOR EVER AND EVER PRAY FOR THE PEACE IN JERUSALEM
Hazard needs to be jailed for life for herding some 25thousand children into a ground vaccinating the lot I know one child died fairly quickly HOW MANY MORE I PRAY REGULARLY FOR DIVINE JUSTICE WHICH BIBLICALLY WILL COME THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL BE A TERRIFYING TIME FOR THE UNSAVED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS
We may lose our life but not our eternal life 💕💕
That's right! This life is temporary, and every one of us will die. More important is the next life which lasts forever; the second death also lasts forever. Having faith in Jesus Christ saves us from the eternal second death.
So a child has a known anaphalactic reaction to vaccines, but given this ruling it's almost certain heartless and reckless school districts would ignore this and administer anyway....
There is everything wrong with this ruling....
I agree with you 100%. And the best answer at the present time is for all parents who are awake and conscious to pull their children out of school and do whatever is necessary to educate them at home or in a community setting. The 'education' system will die very quickly without our participation.
I used to as analyze legislation for a living. Written legislation can be very difficult to interpret. When ambiguity exists, the reader must consider intent of the law. I believe the intent of the PREP Act is to hold harmless only vaccine manufacturers. These unfortunate parents probably needed a different type of attorney. I wouldn't be surprised if this went to the Supreme Court. Congress needs to make a legislative clarification immediately.
I cannot analyze legislation - my mind doesn't function when reading legalize. Give me medical research any day! LOL But they used the PREP act to indemnify hospitals, doctors, nurses, all other medical staff and just about everyone else. The best way forward is to overturn that Act, the 1986 VICP Act and also prove fraud so that Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and the rest of the cartel is totally destroyed, never to rise again.
It is looking more & more like Katherine Watt (bailiwicknews) is right about the Prep Act & other laws being implemented to protect those that are harming humanity under the guise of public health emergencies. A legal kill box.
You're right. After reading the cases Roc showed us from Lexology, I was totally wrong about the PREP Act although I had read it recently. Case law alone can be quite powerful, and there are already precedents dismissing claims based on parental consent. I'm very disheartened.
Read these "judgements" & weep. The prep act was bedded down years ago & tested by various legal joustings over the years to shore up any legal loop holes BEFORE the big Convid farce. The only potential out is wilfull misconduct, which is a legal trap/joke to extend the costs of the legal fraternity who, in the main, are on the gravy train. Just read part of the prep act & it will make your skin crawl. Make no mistake this type of evil has been around for years & these "acts" are designed to keep pushing us into the pen. Any admission that these poisons are an gene therapy will destroy their prep act. Informed consent MUST be the priority & Trump's team better read up. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f13bfd83-1f21-481b-a53f-adae50e6b23e
Thank you Roc for this. I was completely wrong in my interpretation and had no idea there was already so much case law regarding PREP Act preemption and even who a covered person is under the Act. And yes, I am weeping for so many who have been harmed and have no recourse. The statements in these cases such as in Politella v. Windham Southeast School Dist., "Clams that the plaintiff’s child was vaccinated without parental consent are related to and dependent on the vaccination and within the scope of PREP Act preemption" make me very angry. Folks in the US have no idea informed consent legally means nothing.
I wish I could say my pleasure but that doesn't sound right, does it L4A? The prep act is NOT a law, imo. This is why the "judiciary" will not act on the clear evidence that these poisons ARE NOT vaccines (if any are) but gene altering therapies, therefore the prep act is null & void.
I agree, Roc. I know it probably didn't start there, but September 11th with the Homeland Security Dept and all that entailed was the beginning of the end for freedom.
As Ben Franklin said - those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. We are the proof of that quote.
Benedict Arnold has been usurped. These creatures are tarring EVERY American with their disgusting acts. Only the true thinker's know it's NOT the American people. You are absolutely correct about YOUR country Meryl, great place, great people but the "leadership" is repulsive.