The Post & Email by Joseph DeMaio 12/16/2021
Hobart asserts in his comment: “Neither the Nuremberg Code nor the Belmont Report is the law, so any perceived or imagined violation of them has no legal consequence.” That assertion merits closer examination.
Both the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and the Belmont Report, while mentioned in the “Pandemic of the Mendacious” post, are discussed in more detail
here.
Both documents, in turn, constitute the conceptual underpinnings of Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Mr. Hobart’s asserted fact that the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report have not been “codified” in the United States does not mean that their principles and ethical protocols, as incorporated and articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), import “no legal consequence” for their violation. Indeed, just the opposite is true.
----
Accordingly, turning to the principles underpinning the final rules here at issue regarding Mr. Hobart’s comment, the Belmont Report categorically states: “An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given. This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance.” (Emphasis added). The Goofball’s edict to OSHA to threaten employers of more than 100 employees to “get jabbed” or “get fired” seems suspect.
In this regard, 45 CFR, Part 46, § 46.101(a) mandates its application to “all research involving human subjects conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by any Federal department or agency that takes appropriate administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research.” (Emphasis added) Moreover, 45 CFR, Part 46, § 46.101(c) states: “Department or agency heads retain final judgment as to whether a particular activity is covered by this policy and this judgment shall be exercised consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report.” (Emphasis added). Again, the Goofball’s OSHA edict is now intubated.
Finally, 45 CFR, Part 46, § 46.116 (a)(1) mandates that “
efore involving a human subject in research covered by this policy, an investigator shall obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative.” (Emphasis added) Subparagraph (a)(2) of the regulation then requires that “[a]n investigator shall seek informed consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the legally authorized representative sufficient opportunity to discuss and consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.” (Emphasis added) The term “investigator” is not separately defined in the rules, but instead is loosely characterized as a person conducting the “research on human subjects.”
Collectively, these restrictive CFR mandates – having the “force and effect of law” as “legislative rules” under controlling U.S. Supreme Court decisions – are violated by concealment of applicability or any coerced requirement that an unwilling human subject submit to being vaccinated with an experimental fluid or risk punitive sanctions, whether in the form of loss of vested benefits, loss of employment or consequential quarantine. That is the plain language and plain import of the regulations. Arguments to the contrary are fatuous…, and misinformed.
More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/12/16/no-legal-consequence/
