2 Comments
founding

Thank you so much Dr. Kheriaty and Ms. Lerman for posting this series.

* Thank you, to Ms. Lerman for pointing out in her second legal note that there is no objective legal standard for the Secretary HHS to follow as he weighs benefits against risks, or decides what evidence of benefit or risk to consider. Nothing is on the table except what he puts there.

It reads like the legal standard is an evaluation vested in one person, and not the FDA, because the FDA could supply any data the Secretary wants to see, and no data the Secretary doesn't want to see, and then he decides. He's the decider, and his deciding... makes it legal.

* I had forgotten that the EUA for covid mRNA shots was based solely on preventing covid. So, there is nothing in 360bbb that forces monitoring to see if a stopping condition is reached, to force the Secretary to re-evaluate his evaluation? The Secretary opens the barn door, the horse leaves, the Secretary leaves?

It reads like there is to be review prior to countermeasure approval, all at the discretion of the Secretary to put on a good show and pay a lot of people money, but no review specified after countermeasure approval. Always an A for Effort?

* Regarding the legal question of what exactly is the "required information" to share with doctors and patients, I am put in mind of all those neatly folded blank sheets of paper included with every vial of mRNA delivered to civilian pharmacies. The required information was delivered as specified in the law?

* As you say, clearly the American public was put on a wartime footing in which the entire country was a field of battle, every single body was a field of battle according to the laws of public health. There can be no civilians in a war with a virus, natural or unnatural or unreal, therefore therefore there are no civilian casualties to minimize. Every one of us is a purely material body in the eyes of the state.

Expand full comment

Describing COVID as an "agent" also requires that it was a tool of an actor. This would contradict the zoonotic origin theory unless one believes that an animal set out to attack humans. Recent whale attacks on boats notwithstanding, most animals don't have it in for us. It does seem that our all too clever government officials might.

Expand full comment