MemberApril 23, 2021 at 10:14 am
“…What right could be more basic, more inherent in human nature, than the
right to choose what substances to put in one’s own body? Whether we’re
talking about alcohol, tobacco, herbal cures, saturated fat, or
marijuana, this is a decision that should be made by the individual, not
the government. If government can tell us what we can put into our own
bodies, what can it not tell us? What limits on government action are
The Supreme Court of the United States could clarify how the nation’s medical institutions are somehow authorized to prevent a person from treating for COVID-19 with an agent that is for veterinary use. Many people have been afraid to tackle this issue, stating that it is unsafe to do so (i..e., ivermectin paste is not without controversy ). Shall we examine the right to, or the power to regulate the use of any and all medications?
The reaction by the ignorant general public and the medical doctors who together, combine in expressing horror at the use of veterinary drugs by those people whose conditions are made worse by delay of treatment of COVID-19 symptoms, is unfounded. This attitude is mostly based on either a feeling of disgust, or criticism of “how backward” a person is perceived or imagined to be. It is not based on any significant different, life-threatening formulation evidence. It is also not educated, this taking a stance of assuming that these people are insane and dangerous to themselves. Did you do a survey, asking people who treated for COVID-19 with veterinary ivermectin, whether or not there were positive results and safety?
Ask the people in Peru or other countries about their use of injections or oral doses. Ask the people in the U.S.A. who live in the country or visited a livestock supply store how it went, when they were disregarding the posted notice next to the ivermectin on the shelves – not for human use…
The NIH and FDA were not in existence when the following Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that A LIMITED POWERS provision existed to keep the federal government in the role of protecting people’s rights. Consider:
by first asking not whether the individual has a right but whether the government has a power, not only do we get the order right but, more importantly, we shift the focus to the government—to the source, if any, of its authority. That puts the burden of proof where it belongs. It is not up to the individual to try to tease a right out of the Constitution, but for the government to show where it gets its authority—to nationalize retirement, for example, or to prohibit the use of marijuana. Ours is a limited government; government can act only under some enumerated power. So we should insist that this authority be shown, failing which the presumption in favor of individual liberty has not been overturned.
In that light, where in the Constitution does the federal government find the power to ban or regulate drugs? In 1920, people understood this; when they wanted to ban alcohol, they passed a constitutional amendment [18th amendment]. You can’t say much good about the prohibitionists, but at least they had enough respect for the Constitution to go through the formal amendment process.
But we have never passed a constitutional amendment granting the federal government any power to ban marijuana, or cocaine or other drugs. The federal government’s contemporary prohibition policy is an illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of a power never granted…”
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.”
“When the United States Constitution was first sent out to the states to
be voted on, people known as the Anti-Federalists argued that there
should also be a Bill of Rights. However, another group known as the
Federalists did not think it was necessary. They worried that putting in
the Bill of Rights gave power to the government by specifically
discussing what the government could not do.
When James Madison introduced the Ninth Amendment to the House of
Representatives, he said that this draft was to prevent increasing the
power of the government and is put in as a cautionary measure.”
“The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to
Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens
of another State;—between Citizens of different States…” -Article 3 Section 2
There are many controversies during this SARS-CoV-2 contagion, one area being whether the FDA and the NIH can stop a person from taking, or a medical doctor from prescribing, anything at all.
There is no amendment in the U.S. Constitution, similar to the 18th Amendment, that gives prohibition powers to the government over the people, about taking drugs, supplements and treatments to prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.
MemberApril 29, 2021 at 1:54 pm
The Controversy: United States of America agencies including Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Centers For Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, the Senate branch of Congress and the Biden Administration are warned that the Federal Government has no powers enumerated to it by the Constitution to stifle research. The Federal government is formed to uphold and protect those rights under the Ninth Amendment , not denying or disparaging those rights.
Private corporations that misconstrue the results of medical research and attempt to deny or disparage those rights are violating the rights of individuals and can be seen as influences that are subject to judiciary action and enforcement that serves to protect and restore these rights.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
This Act may be cited as the <q>COVID–19 Disinformation Research and Reporting Act of 2021</q>
There is no end run, no legal standing, that Congress can do while remaining within the delegated powers they have, and pass S. 913:
To conduct a study on the spread of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation on the internet and social media platforms, and for other purposes.
Congress finds the following:
Disinformation and misinformation have spread alarmingly during the COVID–19 pandemic, hindering the public response efforts of Federal, State, local, and indigenous leaders.
The internet and social media have made it easier to spread fake medical information, such as unproven treatments for COVID–19, or inaccurate information that undermines scientific experts.
The internet and social media have likewise made it easier to spread disinformation and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID–19 vaccines, impacting public acceptance of the vaccines and threatening to prolong the pandemic.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the current understanding of the spread of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation on the internet and social media platforms.
The study shall address—
(1) the roles disinformation and misinformation have played in the public response to COVID–19, including public acceptance of and demand for COVID–19 vaccines;
(2) the sources, both foreign and domestic, of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation, and the mechanisms by which that disinformation and misinformation influence the public debate;
(3) the role social media plays in the dissemination and promotion of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation content and the role social media platforms play in the organization of groups seeking to spread COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation;
(4) the potential financial returns for creators or distributors of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation and the role such financial incentives play in the propagation of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation;
(5) potential strategies to mitigate the dissemination and negative impacts of COVID–19-related disinformation and misinformation (and specifically the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation on social media), including through improved disclosures and addressing information literacy; and
an analysis of—
the limitations of the mitigation strategies described in paragraph (5); and
how the strategies can be implemented without infringing on the constitutional rights and civil liberties of the people of the United States.
MemberApril 29, 2021 at 2:21 pm
Minimum HIPAA patient privacies are in effect
The HIPAA Minimum Necessary Standard Applies
Aside from disclosures by healthcare providers for the purpose of providing treatment, the ‘minimum necessary’ standard applies. Healthcare professionals must make reasonable efforts to ensure that any PHI disclosed is restricted to the minimum necessary information to achieve the purpose for which the information is being disclosed.
When information is requested by a public health authority or official, covered entities can rely on representations from the public health authority or official that the requested information is the minimum necessary amount, when that reliance is reasonable under the circumstances.
Disclosures of Information About COVID-19 by Non-HIPAA Covered Entities
It is worth noting that HIPAA only applies to HIPAA-covered entities, business associates of HIPAA-covered entities, and subcontractors of business associates. There are no restrictions on disclosures of information about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus and COVID-19 by other entities; however, while HIPAA may not apply, other federal and state laws may do.
Log in to reply.