Has Informed Consent Now Ceased To Exist In The US?
The pandemic exposed deep fissures in America’s legal framework for protecting individual rights in biomedical research
Hospitals and governments imposed “jab or job” mandates for unlicensed COVID shots, violating long-standing federal protections.
These mandates, exemplified by cases against Houston Methodist and Shriners Hospital, highlight a troubling judicial trend: courts ignoring contractual obligations and statutory safeguards, thereby undermining informed consent and setting dangerous precedents for future medical coercion.
At the heart of these disputes lies the Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA) agreement, rooted in the 1974 National Research Act following the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
This law, codified in 42 U.S.C. § 289, mandates that entities receiving federal funds for unlicensed treatments – such as EUA-authorized COVID shots – must obtain “legally effective informed consent.”
Hospitals like Shriners and Houston Methodist signed FWAs and contracts with states to administer these vaccines voluntarily, without coercion or punishment. Yet, they mandated injections for employees, contractors, and volunteers, framing refusal as grounds for termination.
Plaintiffs argued this breached contracts and the 14th Amendment, as private entities acted as state delegates under Supreme Court precedent like West v. Atkins.
Courts, however, dismissed these claims through procedural sleight-of-hand. District judges, including Jeffrey Brown in Texas, refused to accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true – a violation of motion-to-dismiss standards – and concealed the contracts.
Appellate circuits, such as the Fifth and Ninth, exacerbated this by ruling that hospitals’ conduct was “not unlawful,” inventing terms like “clinically identical” to equate EUA products with licensed ones, and ignoring federal preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and PREP Act.
These statutes explicitly prohibit states or subdivisions from conflicting with federal requirements, including the option to refuse EUA products without penalty.
Shockingly, no defendant claimed authority to mandate unlicensed drugs; courts ruled sua sponte (which means “on its own motion” – Ed), creating precedents allowing governors and CEOs to override the HHS Secretary’s exclusive domain.
The Supreme Court has denied certiorari (a legal order from a higher court to a lower court to review a case’s record – Ed) in multiple petitions, including those from Houston Methodist and Shriner’s Hospital, perpetuating this judicial overreach.
Thirty-one federal judges across circuits have evaded questions of preemption, effectively waiving Americans’ due process rights and bodily integrity.
This extends beyond COVID: by classifying vaccine programs as federally funded research – requiring monitoring of adverse reactions without consent – courts enable coercion in any investigational treatment, eroding protections against inducements like free incentives or threats.
The implications are profound. Precedents now permit states to vitiate the FDCA, aligning with initiatives like Illinois’ law prioritizing WHO recommendations over FDA approvals.
This “religion of vaccines” transcends politics, with patterns of Obama-Biden appointees dominating dismissals and suspicious case assignments suggesting coordinated efforts.
While religious discrimination suits under Title VII have yielded multimillion-dollar settlements, EUA-specific claims remain winless, with statutes of limitations expiring.
To restore liberty, legislative reforms are urgent: explicit civil rights actions for coercion in unlicensed treatments and enforcement of informed consent.
Without intervention, the next pandemic could strip Americans of autonomy, turning citizens into unwitting lab subjects.
These protections – enshrined since Tuskegee – were always ours; courts must honor them to prevent history’s repetition.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Hamilton Fraser
very old white guy
| #
A flat out refusal to comply works, if you have to enforce your refusal to comply then make sure you are armed. No government has the right to experiment on me or anyone else.
Reply