• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Doctor Exposes Truth on Mass Vaccination

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Uncover more shocking truth of ‘vaccine’ mandates with Dr. Peter McCullough, internist, cardiologist, and professor of medicine. Dr McCullough has reviewed 123 medical manuscripts, published chapters in 33 medical textbooks, lectured in 371 national and international medical forums, received 109 grants for cardiovascular research and published 857 medical abstracts and peer-reviewed manuscripts. Each week on Freedom Alive™, we will alert you to new government overreaches and update you on existing legal battles. We will tell you about the victories people of faith are winning and how you, too, can fight back and get involved to keep your freedom alive!


Doctor Exposes Truth on Mass Vaccination (Part 2/2) - Freedom Alive™ Ep19
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
national nonprofit litigation, education and public policy organization advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and family. We have engaged in extensive litigation regarding civil rights violations ostensibly justified by “COVID-19.” We have had great success on behalf of our many clients at circuit courts of appeal and at the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, No. 20A137, 2021 WL 406257 (U.S. Feb. 5, 2021); Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, Gov. of CA, No. 20A94, 2020 WL 7061630 (U.S. Dec. 3, 2020); Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020); Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2020). The existence of COVID-19 does not justify the numerous violations of fundamental individual, economic and religious liberties. These include the rights of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, and the right to accept or reject the various COVID vaccines based on religious belief or other grounds.
COVID Vaccines Cannot Be Mandatory Under Emergency Use Authorization
On the issue of the COVID vaccines: all of such have been released under an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) and employers (religious and non-religious alike) may not condition continued employment on taking an EUA-authorized COVID vaccine.
The COVID vaccines are in a special category and cannot be treated like FDA licensed vaccines. None of the COVID vaccines are FDA licensed; nor have they received full FDA approval. Rather, their approval is under the special provision noted above as EUA. This means that there is not enough data (which includes duration of testing) for the FDA to render a final approval. More importantly, no one, including private employers, may coerce individuals (by threatening their employment or otherwise) to take an EUA vaccine. Federal law requires full and informed, voluntary consent.
All employees – whether employed by religious organizations, or not – are protected against mandated COVID-19 vaccines, under 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3, which provides that EUA products (like all of these vaccines) require (as a condition of emergency approval) that people have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” “FDA has an obligation to ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed... that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine.”1 (emphasis added). There is no exception in the statute for “private employers” as opposed to government; or for religious or non-religious employers. All EUA vaccines are optional.
1 https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and


https://www.lcaction.org/Site Images/Resources/Memo-reCOVIDVaccinationMandate-May2021.pdf
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Abstract
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”[1] For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of
this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19. More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis. The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments. These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate. Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions. Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review? Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity? Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why?
continued on next page
Keywords
COVID-19 , SARS-COV-2 , comorbidity, fatality, impact, regulation
https://jdfor2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf
 
Top