Robert Barnes: FDA Approval of COVID-19 Vaccine Is A Scam

Banned Video ^ | 08/26/21

[Enlightened1]

Attorney Robert Barnes says the FDA approval is not what the public thinks. This is because once the FDA approves a vaccine it has to by law revoke all the Emergency Use Authorizations (aka EUAs) of all the other vaccines. They did not reverse and revoke Pfizer's EUA, Moderna's EUA and Johnson & Johnson EUA.

Under Federal Law EUAs cannot be issued if there is already an FDA approved drug on the market. The way Big Pharma got around that with Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc.. is to say they are only looking at other "vaccines". Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine are not considered vaccines. That the game they have been playing.

Plus under EUA there is no liability. Pfizer actually does not want FDA approval because then they are liable. What they approved is not even on the market.

See more below.

https://banned.video/watch?id=612801e527d8fc6ed4dc2e07

[Marcell]

ping

[Marcell]

https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ276/PLAW-108publ276.pdf

[Marcell]

It is in the law.

‘‘(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available
alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition; and

[TexasGurl24]

Still missing the key phrase and reading the law like a lay person.

I’ll give you a hint…. It’s a “who” that is key.

[Dr. Franklin]

Please post the URL (again?).
I’d appreciate you saving me (us) a lot of time by providing the relevant language.

Well don't hold your breath waiting for that from her!

21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii):
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3

[Dr. Franklin]

As for the EUA, it is absolutely irrelevant. Pfizer/BioNTech has immunity whether the products are distributed pursuant to full approval or under a EUA. Your appeal to German law notwithstanding.

The case law in Germany, from an American prosecutor and judge no less, is quite compelling:

https://www.fhi360.org/sites/all/libraries/webpages/fhi-retc2/Resources/nuremburg_code.pdf

[Dr. Franklin]

Still missing the key phrase and reading the law like a lay person.
I’ll give you a hint…. It’s a “who” that is key.

A good lawyer gives his/her authority for the argument posited. From your omission, we can all draw only one conclusion...

[Dr. Franklin]

You are only proving my long held contention that lawyers are a species of slime mold.

It is no longer a respected profession, and hasn't been for some years. Sharp lawyers have always taken advantage of the poor common folk, and those ignorant of the law. However, in too many cases, judges control the outcome of cases more so than the lawyers.

[CJ Wolf]

I work÷d for a lawyer once as a paralegal. Which was a blessing. I used what I learned. In the few times I’ve been to court I am at 100% win rate representing my self.

Even beat my misguided ex and her lawyer. I wish she could have paid my legal fees like was requested of me. Instead she paid the loser lawyer from her own pocket.

My time for prepping and knowing the law was was more valuable cause I won. Happened more then once. I always enjoy justice but you gotta prep to achieve it. The legal system isn’t that hard to use to protect yourself if you know what you’re doing.

[The Mayor]

Sure as hell is

[antceecee]

Certainly looks like a troll…. Good catch!

[CJ Wolf]

[nonsporting]

Well don't hold your breath waiting for that from her!

Thanks for the relevant language from 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii).

Have there been "appropriate conditions to ensure that individuals .. are informed" of the inherent risks of taking these experimental products? Are these risks posted at dispensaries?

[grey_whiskers]

“I’m just a Bill, Yes I’m only a Bill.”

Do you think it has a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed and signed into law...?

[TexasGurl24]

It passed in Montana.

It’s the law.

https://erd.dli.mt.gov/human-rights/human-rights-laws/employment-discrimination/hb-702

So yes.

[TexasGurl24]

A good lawyer gives his/her authority for the argument posited. From your omission, we can all draw only one conclusion...

Nope, you are the clown who continually has pretended to be a lawyer on here when you are not one.

So I’m giving you a chance to be what you aspire to be.

[TexasGurl24]

The case law in Germany, from an American prosecutor and judge no less, is quite compelling: https://www.fhi360.org/sites/all/libraries/webpages/fhi-retc2/Resources/nuremburg_code.pdf

This is the kind of stuff that both betrays the fact that you aren’t a lawyer and that you like to spread misinformation. There is a real danger to what you are doing as well.

The Houston Methodist nurses who were rightly fighting a mandate tried a bunch of the internet lawyer claims, including referring to the Nuremberg Code and they lost, badly.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible. Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.” - Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110382 (2021).

The sad thing, is that they had an actual winning argument if they had just used existing law properly. However, then went into Qtard land with Italian space lasers and satellites, Krakens, secret delta force raids, the Nuremberg Code and other such things, and they lost.

The way to win these battles is to make sound legal arguments and then change the law, just like Montana did. Not playing make believe in Q land.

[Dr. Franklin]

Have there been "appropriate conditions to ensure that individuals .. are informed" of the inherent risks of taking these experimental products? Are these risks posted at dispensaries?

It certainly appears that the FDA is violating the law by engaging in double talk and conspiring to confuse ordinary people into thinking that the Pfizer "vaccine" has been fully tested and approved by the FDA so that they "consent" to get the vaccine in the face of "requirements" from state and local governments, schools, universities, corporations, etc. Those responsible should be fired, or impeached if necessary.

Thanks for the relevant language from 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii).

Oh, you are quite welcome. A good lawyer always cites the relevant legal authority for the proposition.

[TexasGurl24]

Oh, you are quite welcome. A good lawyer always cites the relevant legal authority for the proposition.

You aren't a lawyer. You didn't cite the operative language at all. You are still tilting at windmills.

[grey_whiskers]

Is that enough to trigger “Full Faith and Credit” by other states (as with, say, marriage / divorce? ‘cause it sure doesn’t with gun rights).