Question from Jessica Hockett:

Can you confirm that the word “lockdown” does not appear in any part of the U.S. communicable disease code or any other formal/legal document applicable to control of communicable diseases?

Also, am I correct in saying there is no explicit provision which allows federal or local officials to declare an emergency and tell everyone to “stay home, save lives” because some seen or unseen disease is ‘spreading’ or “out there”.

As far as I know, the word “lockdown” does not appear in federal or state laws. I may not have found it yet in federal laws, or the act (of locking people down) may be there as a different word or phrase, such as “detention” in the home or in facilities (hospitals, nursing homes, prisons) under quarantine and isolation laws and regulations.

I haven’t looked at all state laws, but I anticipate that they each have something similar to orders of detention at home or in facilities. In Pennsylvania state law, the phrase is “control the ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area and the occupancy of premises therein.”

I think all of the actions that state and federal officers took and will take during future declared emergencies under the phrase “stay home, save lives” fall under these general, open-ended provisions in federal and state laws.

For example: “the [HHS] Secretary may take such action as may be appropriate to respond to the public health emergency, including making grants, providing awards for expenses, and entering into contracts and conducting and supporting investigations into the cause, treatment, or prevention of a disease or disorder” [42 USC 247d(a)].

This provision is combined with HHS Secretary’s Congressionally-authorized, unilateral authority to determine or declare — also general, open-ended, no evidence required — that there “is a public health emergency or significant potential for a public health emergency” [21 USC 360bbb-3(b)(1)(C)]; that “an agent…can cause serious or life threatening disease or condition;” [21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(1)]; “that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk that the disease, condition, or threat may in the future constitute such an emergency,” [42 USC 247d-6d(b)(1)]; that designated actors (program planners and qualified persons as defined in the law, which includes everyone in the countermeasure supply and use chain) “shall not have engaged in ‘willful misconduct’ as a matter of law where such program planner or qualified person acted consistent with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the Secretary” [42 USC 247d-6d(c)(4)] and on and on.

The HHS Secretary’s credibility assessments of the threats are the only legally relevant credibility assessments that can occur, because of the blocking of judicial review, Congressional review, and state laws under 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7), (b)(8) and (b)(9).

Combined, all those general, open-ended, no-evidence-required, no-evidentiary-standards, no-evidentiary-review-process, all-inclusive provisions provide legal authority for any and all actions that the Secretary performs, recommends, or otherwise causes to occur lower down the chain of command in the federal government, and in the state, local and tribal authorities — called “authorities having jurisdiction” — to whom the authorities and liability immunities are delegated or extended or applied.

State laws have similar provisions, placing the general, open-ended, no-evidence-required authority to respond in the hands of the state governors and health officials.

For example, in Pennsylvania, the governor’s “Order…for Individuals to Stay at Home” and related orders were issued under provisions of 1955 Disease Prevention and Control Law, 1978 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Code, and related emergency powers laws addressing disaster response, on the model of Three Mile Island nuclear contamination incidents and geographically-designated disaster areas, but applying it in terms of presumptive, asymptomatic contamination of all Pennsylvania residents with an invisible, allegedly-transmissible virus, and limiting the movement of the contaminated physical space: living human beings.

The Pennsylvania governor’s order dated March 23, 2020 stated that he had “proclaimed the existence of a disaster emergency” pursuant to 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c) (part of the law adopted in 1978), and included in the clauses, “in addition to general powers, during a disaster emergency I am authorized specifically to control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area and the movement of persons within it and the occupancy of premises therein.” 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f).

The Pennsylvania health secretary’s order, also dated March 23, 2020, cited implementing regulation “28 Pa. Code §§ 27.60- 27.68 (relating to disease control measures; isolation; quarantine; movement of persons subject to isolation or quarantine; and release from isolation and quarantine).”

Sasha Latypova comment on a recent Robert Malone post.

Robert Malone demonstrates utter incompetence in pharmaceutical regulations, in addition to his previously known pro-vaccine stance.

Vaccines are absolutely, positively, NOT DRUGS. They are not regulated like drugs. In fact, they are subject to a totally separate set of pseudo-“laws” and pretend regulations which stem from 1902 Virus Toxin act, pre-dating the FDCA by decades. When FDCA was introduced, vaccines were explicitly carved out. Subsequent regulation updates “leapfrogged” vaccines, invariably excluding them from new regulations applicable to drugs.

Vaccines, unlike drugs DO NOT HAVE CHEMICAL IDENTITY. They do not have chemical names. They cannot be characterized as drugs. They are concoctions, preparations of putrid matter, blood, literal shit, aborted fetal cells, every in-process chemical (which are impossible to fully remove), toxic metals as adjuvants, detergents, ethanol, thousands of different proteins, etc. Most pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic/safety pharmacology studies which are routine for drug characterization for safety are either physically not possible to do for vaccines, or are waived as “unnecessary because we say so” for vaccines…

Risk/benefit considerations apply to drugs because being sick puts someone at some risk, which then can be compared to the drug risks. A person without the illness vaccines are claimed to “prevent” (they prevent nothing) has NO HEALTH RISK, therefore we are comparing zero risk to risk of death/lifelong disability in case of vaccination every single time!

Every single time the true analysis says: IT IS STUPID to consider the injection that can kill you!

Finally, it is impossible to make safe vaccines. The law of nature — anaphylaxis effect demonstrated by Charles Richet in 1913 (Nobel Prize) — precludes safe vaccination. Injections of protein-containing substances into blood stream is ALWAYS dangerous…