Cuomo: I’ll Fine Doctors Up To $1 Million If They Vaccinate Someone Who Isn’t Eligible Yet

 

What was promised regarding the distribution of the vaccine is becoming a mess. Fauci insists that half the vaccine has to be held back in order for the second shot to be available. Meanwhile apparently the expiration date is an issue along with keeping the vaccine at an unbelievable cold temperature for one of the vaccines.

But I do know, threatening physicians is not the way to go.  All seniors should be getting this. They are the ones dying.

Hot Air put together an interesting post on the topic. I suggest having at it:

 

Just one third of the total doses distributed to New York has been administered so far. A mere 1.2 percent of the state population has received the jab since mid-December. America is jogging along on vaccinations at a moment when the virus, propelled by its more contagious new variant, is beginning to sprint.

We’re only a few weeks into this and yet the calculus has already begun to shift from making sure that rules of prioritization are strictly followed to getting as many doses into arms as quickly as possible in order to catch up to the virus and slow transmission, prioritization be damned.

In other words, true to the form he displayed last spring, Cuomo is already a step behind. By threatening doctors to stick rigidly to the prioritization scheme, he’s destined to slow down the vaccination process at a moment when it desperately needs to speed up.

This series of tweets started circulating online last night as a counterpoint to Cuomo’s logic. Israel is the smash success of the global vaccination process so far for complicated reasons, but a not so complicated one is that they understand their top goal is to get the greatest possible number vaccinated ASAP. Prioritzation is a secondary concern.

….

In New York those nurses would face a $1 million fine from Darth Cuomo, all because they smartly decided to distribute an expiring vaccine rather than let it go to waste. The vaccinated pizza guy is now one less vector of transmission for the virus, yet Cuomo might revoke someone’s license for making it happen.

 

 

Read more at Hot Air

The government at work. The swamp always claims its victims,

Vaccine payouts for injuries and deaths $4.4 billion by U.S. Government

 

Vaccine makers are IMMUNE from liability!

REMINDER: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s payouts to vaccine-injured total more than $4.4 billion since 1989. Here are petition & compensation data. Will minors get a chance to review before granting “informed consent!?

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html

Covid mRNA vaccines are totally untested in general population. Mainstream scientists & others are asking serious questions about whether they will INCREASE long-term risk of autoimmune disease.The effects on women’s fertility. The discussion is widespread on social media despite censors.

Big Pharma can’t say how long alleged protection of COVID-19 vaccines will last. Can’t tell you about synergistic effects with other vaccines. Can’t tell you about long-term side effects.

 

 

 

Do your own homework. Here are links to the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial protocols. How can you give if you DON’T inform yourselves? modernatx.com/sites/default/

pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C45910

Bonus flashback post not to be missed:

If you want to know how a Biden/Obama administration has in mind regarding Covid, check out what they had in mind in 2014. This was at a time of an Ebola scare:

An executive order signed by President Obama at the end of July also allows for the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.”

The executive order, titled Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, amends executive order 13295, passed by George W. Bush in April 2003, which allows for the, “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.”

The amendment signed by Obama replaces subsection (b) of the original Bush executive order which referred only to SARS.

In addition,  Model state emergency public healthcare act     public health authorities and governors would be given expanded police powers to seize control of communications devices, public and private property, as well as a host of other draconian measures in the event of a public health emergency.

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

The Cures Act – No longer is ‘Informed Consent’ required for some medical experiments

The COVID vaccine arrival as well as Biden’s choice for his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Health and Human Services Department makes it imperative that we give the Cures Act a review. There have been administrative tweaks to the bill but section 3023 remains.

Jan 31, 2020 — The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law on December 13, 2016, is designed to help accelerate medical product development and bring new innovations and advances to patients who need them faster and more efficiently. (Link) 21st Century Cures Act

The Cures Act was passed in the tail end of 2016. Today I focus on Section 3023, 3024 regarding Informed Consent and why you should care. No longer is the Gold Standard of “Informed Consent” required if there are “no more of minimal risks to participants.” And who decides this?

Earlier I posted Trump hogties the EPA, will he stop their illegal human medical experiments? This is why you should care. But let me not get ahead of myself. I include a video.

A year and a half after the original bill left the House of Representatives, the much-discussed and highly anticipated 21st Century Cures Act became law on December 13, 2016. The legislation went through more than a few changes in those seventeen months; it expanded from four sections to twenty-five and from 362 pages to 966. Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations

The Cures Act introduces the possibility of waiving or altering informed consent for some FDA-governed research. This decision could mark a major step in the required harmonization of regulations; the rules around waivers of informed consent are some of the significant differences between FDA and Common Rule requirements.

The law sets two requirements for waiving or altering informed consent:

  1. The research must pose no more than minimal risk to participants; and
  2. Other measures to protect study volunteers must be in place.

The bill does not specify who will confirm decisions about minimal risk or appropriate safeguards, but the requirements seem consistent with determinations that IRBs already make.

From Science Blogs:

Title:The 21st Century Cures Act passes, potentially turning the FDA into a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry. (Well worth the full  read.)

Worse, the bill undermines informed consent, as I discussed before. The provision is still there that would add another category of research for which it is acceptable to forego informed consent. Normally, it is only acceptable to skip informed consent when it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of the subject.

Add to that now that it would be acceptable to forego informed consent when “the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”

As Merrill Goozner put it and I agreed, even if the risk is minimal, why would the authors of this legislation waive a central tenet of international agreements designed to protect the rights of human subjects in clinical trials? I didn’t understand either (and still don’t), particularly since the act doesn’t define “minimal risk” or specify who determines whether a study is minimal risk.

Well worth a good look. Our lives may depend on it. An excellent review of the bill and the ramifications.

This is a B-ville repost done in March of 2017:

The Cures Act – No longer is ‘Informed Consent’ required for some medical experiments

I am not sure I for one want the Biden administration in charge of:

Human research subject protections

The 21st Century Cures Act calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to harmonize differences between the HHS Human Subject Regulations and FDA Human Subject Regulations. In so doing, the Secretary may change rules applying to vulnerable populations in order “to reduce regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays” and “modernize such provisions in the context of multisite and cooperative research projects.” – Wikipedia,

Unfortunately the Quorum links are no longer available.

Other than this all is well in the swamp.

The Cures Act – No longer is ‘Informed Consent’ required for some medical experiments

The Cures Act was passed in the tail end of 2016. Today I focus on Section 3023, 2024 regarding Informed Consent and why you should care. No longer is the Gold Standard of “Informed Consent” required if there are “no more of minimal risks to participants.” And who decides this? Yesterday I posted Trump hogties the EPA, will he stop their illegal human medical experiments? This is why you should care. But let me not get ahead of myself. I include a video.

A year and a half after the original bill left the House of Representatives, the much-discussed and highly anticipated 21st Century Cures Act became law on December 13, 2016. The legislation went through more than a few changes in those seventeen months; it expanded from four sections to twenty-five and from 362 pages to 966. Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations

The Cures Act introduces the possibility of waiving or altering informed consent for some FDA-governed research. This decision could mark a major step in the required harmonization of regulations; the rules around waivers of informed consent are some of the significant differences between FDA and Common Rule requirements.

The law sets two requirements for waiving or altering informed consent:

  1. The research must pose no more than minimal risk to participants; and
  2. Other measures to protect study volunteers must be in place.

The bill does not specify who will confirm decisions about minimal risk or appropriate safeguards, but the requirements seem consistent with determinations that IRBs already make. From Quorum Review

From Science Blogs:

Worse, the bill undermines informed consent, as I discussed before. The provision is still there that would add another category of research for which it is acceptable to forego informed consent. Normally, it is only acceptable to skip informed consent when it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of the subject. Add to that now that it would be acceptable to forego informed consent when “the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.” As Merrill Goozner put it and I agreed, even if the risk is minimal, why would the authors of this legislation waive a central tenet of international agreements designed to protect the rights of human subjects in clinical trials? I didn’t understand either (and still don’t), particularly since the act doesn’t define “minimal risk” or specify who determines whether a study is minimal risk.

%d bloggers like this: