Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yelostar

EUAs are clear: Getting these vaccines is voluntary:

The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant emergency use authorization also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

Likewise, the FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require facts sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states that, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”

What this means in practice:

When the FDA grants emergency use authorization for a vaccine, many questions about the product cannot be answered. Given the open questions, when Congress granted the authority to issue EUAs, it chose to require that every individual should be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether or not to receive an EUA product. The FDA and CDC apparently consider this fundamental requirement of choice important enough that even during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic they reinforced that policy decision when issuing their guidance related to the Covid-19 vaccines.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/


5 posted on 04/02/2021 7:59:20 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Starstruck tagline: (Since I'm old, I don't know whether I'm senile or brilliant. Or happily both!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Grampa Dave

Which means NOBODY can mandate the vaccines, right?

Not for travel, employment, or just plain socializing in larger venues.


6 posted on 04/02/2021 8:06:52 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Grampa Dave

As long as they are EUA’s - they are experimental.


15 posted on 04/02/2021 8:35:01 PM PDT by yelostar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Grampa Dave
 
 
At the base, base level, it comes down to liability. If people get force-fed some flaky new vaccine and things go sideways, they can credibly sue everyone in sight up and down the chain. Have those Rutgers nitwits bothered to consult their legal counsel concerning risk assessment and liability? If they stuck with their mandate and students keeled over from it they could be sued into ruination.
 
 

22 posted on 04/02/2021 9:02:29 PM PDT by lapsus calami (What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson