Disclaimer: This is for informational and educational purpose only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.

There have been a lot of articles and information disseminated to the public concerning informed consent.  Using the search function on this website with the terms “informed consent” brings up 36 pages of articles that concern informed consent.  Here are some examples.

• Trial Date Set in Landmark Lawsuit on Medical Killing & Informed Consent
• Informed Consent, 5 Dead Jet Blue Pilots &Liquefying the Dead with Kate Shemirani
• Employer Mandated Vaccines, Informed Consent, & The Nuremberg Code
• Are You Giving Proper Informed Consent for Experimental COVID Injections?
• Bill Gates On Board with GMO Mosquitoes to Administer Vaccines Bypassing Informed Consent

These are just a few.  Be sure and take the time to read these and some others contained in the remainder of the 36 pages.  Yes, it will take some time, but will be well worth it to expand the knowledge of what has, and is, being perpetrated against the American people and the world.

There have been countless mentions of informed consent, definitions given, and why it is important. However, there has not been much discussion on the process of informed consent which covers ethical, moral, and legal requirements.  Moreover, while informed consent has been used primarily for medical diagnostics, procedures, treatments, and interventions, it is not well-known that informed consent is applicable in more areas than the medical system.

Proof of this claim can be found in the Declaration of Independence – one of our founding documents. It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ….” In order to provide consent, one has to be “informed”. Also, notice it is “just” powers that are derived from the consent of the governed. Government does not have power to do whatever it wants. It has just (righteous, limited) powers given to it by the men (people) who institute government to protect their God-given unalienable rights.

The powers given to the created government of the united States are defined and limited by The Constitution for the united States of America. And, the God-given unalienable rights the created government is to protect is found in the first ten amendments to The Constitution for the united States of America, known as The Bill of Rights. Please take the time to read these references as we will be revisiting these documents.

While there have been lots of talk about the 21^st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016, and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, Division C of Public Law 109-148 passed in 2005, as altering informed consent laws and providing “liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving ‘willful misconduct’ as defined in the PREP Act” respectively.

However, just because a “law” is passed does not make that law “legal” (Romans 10:3).  All laws have to be congruent (in agreement) with our Constitution. Moreover, the PREP Act pertained to the military/Department of Defense (DOD) and was never meant to be used in a civilian context. (read Part II here) Doing an “end run” around the law as was done with the CONvid-1984 injections and “measures” is unlawful and criminal.

If we operate under the premise these previously mentioned federal laws negate the right to informed consent, it means any covered individual under these laws has a basic license to kill, maim, or incapacitate an individual without suffering consequences. We have to recognize that “informed consent” is NOT mentioned as negated in the PREP Act and the 21^st Century Cures Act specifically addresses informed consent with clinical investigations. The 21^st Century Cures Act only waives informed consent for the following:

SEC. 3024. INFORMED CONSENT WAIVER OR ALTERATION FOR CLINICAL

INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Devices.–Section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)(3)) is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking “except where subject

to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the

investigator” and inserting the following: “except where,

subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe–

“(i) the proposed clinical testing poses no more

than minimal risk to the human subject and includes

appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety,

and welfare of the human subject; or

“(ii) the investigator”; and

(2) in the matter following subparagraph (D), by striking

“subparagraph (D)” and inserting “subparagraph (D)(ii)”.

(b) Drugs.–Section 505(i)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(4)) is amended by striking “except where

it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of such human

beings” and inserting “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary

to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical

testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and

includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights,

safety, and welfare of such human beings”.

As we can see, certain criteria has to be met in order for informed consent to be waived in the 21^st Century Cures Act.  Moreover, any “willful misconduct” negates the liability immunity in the PREP Act.  But, the PREP Act was to only be applied to the military/DOD.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did an “end run” around the law to secure CONvid-1984 injections.  Still, in the PREP Act, a covered individual/entity that engages in willful misconduct negates the liability immunity clause.  Could the administration of the product, knowing adequate informed consent could not be given, be considered willful misconduct?

Looking at the 21^st Century Cures Act, Section 3024 (a) (2) (b), could the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/HHS be considered as engaging in willful misconduct with informed consent by failing to provide appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human beings receiving the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) CONvid-1984 injections (Matthew 7:21-23)?

Knowing these lawless actions have occurred, it becomes more imperative to understand informed consent, understand our individual State laws concerning informed consent, the acceptable medical standard regarding it, and how we can be sure we are informed about what is happening to our body.  Remember, if government/individual/entity can force you to “take” something into your body without informed consent or the right to refuse, government/individual/entity can force you to “remove” something from your body without that informed consent or the right to refuse as well.

Despite what these laws have purported to do, we, as consumers of medical products, diagnostic testing, medical procedures, medical interventions and medical countermeasures, can still demand our right to informed consent by proactive means.  Using the same logic, we can demand our right to informed consent to other scenarios by proactive means.  The right to informed consent also includes the right to refuse.  Without the right to informed consent and the right to refuse, we are no more than prisoners of Auschwitz ripe for experimentation from the Mengele’s of the day, which include government, private corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private individuals – Gates, Schwab, university scientists, etc., court systems, etc.

Informed consent and the right to refuse encompasses everything in our lives even though we normally don’t equate informed consent with anything but medical interventions.  Even if some intervention is beneficial, there is still the right to informed consent and the right to refuse.  It is called freedom and liberty to make your own choices based upon all available information, the risk to benefit ratio, and alternatives.  Moreover, we have to realize that people will make less than intelligent decisions.  Put simply, you cannot legislate ethics or morality.

Our framers understood this, which Samuel Adams profoundly stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1 Corinthians 2:14).  This speaks volumes in many ways. Adams is saying our government was based upon our people being moral and religious.  And, a moral and religious people need little government interferences.  On the other side, Adams is saying when the people become immoral and non-religious, the type of government established would not be adequate to govern the shift in society from a moral and religious people to an immoral and non-religious people.

The key takeaway is it is up to the people to maintain society throughout the generations by upholding morality and religious tenets.  Allowing immorality and non-religious tenets to seep into society will eventually erode our form of government.  This threatens freedom and liberty for everyone (Deuteronomy 28).

Is this not what we have seen?

In the next installment, Part I, the process of informed consent will be covered.