In the context of medical procedures, whenever mandates, requirements, or other “term of art du jour”, are applied to an individual, a person may seek an exemption in response, or they may hold the mandating entity to full legal account for issuing the mandate in the first place, by suing for Informed Consent as defined in your state.
Approaching mandates by using them as an asset, as opposed to adversarial in nature will allow for the issuer themselves to “do the research” you place on them, because they are required by law to answer your questions.
If your question is framed like, “If the S1 subunit of the spike protein for SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be the causative agent for Long Covid, and Long Covid has been labeled as a disability by the US Dept of HHS under the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA), then will you, as the mandating party be taking full fiscal responsibility and liability for any and all disabilities which may arise?”
You may be surprised to find their ability to all of a sudden change the mandating policy, which is what we ultimately want in the end, right?
Another angle to approach mandates is to expose information, or “trains of thought”, directly counter to a prevailing policy from a preemptory standpoint. Meaning, by using the Informed Consent process to allay your own understanding the procedures effects, that may otherwise be censored or initially discounted. Provide your research, conclusions, and understanding, while requiring the other party to counter your understanding on the scientific merits.
Either way, the point is to use the mandates to your own advantage by being proactive with your own process of Informed Consent, as opposed to reactive exemptions that may, may not be approved.
Leave a Reply