Letter to All California County Supervisors Regarding Illegal Mandates of EUA Products, fake school openings/ Alix Mayer, Children’s Health Defense-California

Alix Mayer at Children’s Health Defense, California wrote this excellent letter to all California county supervisors, warning them to obey the law or risk litigation. Since the letter is 11 pages long, but could be useful for many other regions, I reproduced the first part, but invite readers to copy and save the entire letter.

Letter to All California County Supervisors Regarding Illegal Mandates of EUA Products

March 26, 2021

Dear Supervisor,

I am the President of the California Chapter of Children’s Health Defense, a 501(c)(3), and I write on behalf of our organization on this urgent matter regarding your County’s COVID-19 programs. We are a non-profit organization concerned with medical science, law, public policy, medical ethics and now more than ever, impingements on our personal freedoms from both the public and private sectors. One way we are doing this is by taking steps to protect the health of children by ensuring all medical interventions, such as vaccines and COVID-19 testing, are ethical, necessary, voluntary, and only offered with fully informed consent. Over many years, our non-profit has identified the environmental and iatrogenic causes of chronic illness in children, has brought corporate offenders to justice, and has enacted safeguards to prevent future transgressions.

As you may recall, we copied you on a Notice of Liability which we sent to all school districts in California, regarding the legal and ethical need to make COVID testing and vaccines voluntary as they are only authorized for use under federal Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and are thus illegal to mandate under Federal and CA state law.[1]

Our letter dated January 29, 2020[2] served as a Notice of Liability regarding schools and school districts’ plans to impose illegal mandates of certain EUA products on students and employees.  A number of districts contacted us after receiving that letter, including large urban districts such as the San Jose Public School District, to inform us they have elected to follow the law and science, rather than risk being sued. We applaud these districts’ decisions.

However, a number of other school districts, as well as public agencies, counties, cities, and private entities across the state and nation, continue to roll out plainly illegal and dangerous mandates imposed on employees, customers, students, constituents and others.  We are rapidly descending into a society in which blatantly criminal and legally-suspect actions are being imposed on us to simply participate in many normal aspects of life. Your County has possibly been operating in violation of multiple sections of federal and state law, as are most entities that do public business.

The EUA Statute authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to declare a health emergency and authorize the use of drugs, treatments, or other products that may be beneficial but have not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective and are thus only available for use under the EUA. The federal COVID EUA was declared by HHS Secretary Azar on April 1, 2020[3] and includes numerous authorizations for a wide range of products, none of which are fully approved, and all of which may be offered only on a voluntary — not a mandatory — basis.

The large clinical trials for the EUA mRNA injectables and recombinant vaccines in the U.S. will not conclude until late 2022 and early 2023.[4] [5] [6] Full licensure may be considered after the trial results are in, and after government agencies such as FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have reviewed safety and efficacy data from the trials and experimental usage on the population.

There are substantial known and unknown risks associated with using any EUA product, including in the context of COVID. EUA products are, by definition, experimental and investigational; anyone administering or receiving an EUA product is participating in a medical experiment. That is precisely why EUA products cannot be mandated.[7]

Among the key product types authorized for COVID-related EUAs are:

  1. devices, systems and procedures that may detect the possible presence of some viral material in a person (i.e., “tests” or “RT-PCR tests” or “antigen tests” or “antibody tests”);
  2. wearable devices that may have some effect on reducing transmission (i.e., “masks” or “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”); and
  3. two different manufacturers’ mRNA injectable drug treatments delivered via two consecutive shots (i.e., “vaccines”).
  4. one manufacturer’s recombinant single-shot vaccine.

For these — or any other EUA products — to be distributed and used, disclosure documents published by the FDA for each product must be provided at the time of distribution to all potential users, detailing the potentially significant risks and benefits associated with use of that specific product.  Additionally, extensive protocols are required by federal law for assessing the effectiveness and safety of EUA products, while also protecting users’ medical health, privacy and other guaranteed rights.

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Law[8]

Mandating employees, students or others to use products that have been approved only conditionally for emergency use violates federal and state law.[9] Federal and state law are clear:  mandates are illegal for EUA products. The prohibition on EUA mandates has been upheld in court.[10] The RT-PCR test, COVID vaccines, and certain face coverings are not FDA-approved; they are available only under an EUA.[11]

The EUA statute explicitly states that administration of all EUA products must “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”[12]  21 U.S.C. Sec. 360bbb-3(e)

Federal and state law on this rests on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code, requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.” This is a bright line that cannot be blurred. The consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.”[13]

In the letter we sent to schools, we officially put them on notice that if they illegally or irresponsibly mandate products on students or employees, we may take legal action. Children’s Health Defense has initiated a suit in New York against the NYC Department of Education and Mayor de Blasio for coerced PCR testing as a condition to in-person learning privileges.[14] (Aviles, et al. V. de Blasio, et al. 20-CV-09829 (PGG))…

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

This is great news, especially for those of us in California.
MR

OldLeonB
OldLeonB
1 year ago

Thanks for this info., Dr. Nass. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've seen a couple articles recently (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni and https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/20/coronavirus-vaccine-safety-studies.aspx?ui=78d9f327a8138ae0487a5a7c4f91cddb2ea186153f7bdd1b7f92c195087a89b7&sd=20160813&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210420&mid=DM862862&rid=1137515425) saying that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been, or will be, unblinded and what used to be the placebo group can now get vaccinated, because it would be "unethical" to deny them the vaccine. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to me that the general public has taken over as test subjects and the unvaccinated are now the control group. Depressing to think that the vaccine clinical trials have been severely adulterated and will conclude … who knows when, as opposed to "late 2022 and early 2023" as listed in the letter. All the same, as another Californian I'm delighted to have this info. Thanks again.

Scroll to Top