What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Will the tough guys mace and beat kids walking into school like they did to the lady going into the breast cancer treatment center?
Click to expand...

1a1rljhv79g71.jpg
 
I need a legal mind here to help me reconcile:
- the vaccines are still under an EUA (meaning: still experimental)
- the first section of the Nuremberg Code addresses consent, and coercion, during human experimentation
- Nuremberg is considered a keystone of American medical ethics, but is not codified in US law

How can an experimental drug ethically be forced or coerced upon someone in light of Nuremberg?
 
The Sicatoka said:
I need a legal mind here to help me reconcile:
- the vaccines are still under an EUA (meaning: still experimental)
- the first section of the Nuremberg Code addresses consent, and coercion, during human experimentation
- Nuremberg is considered a keystone of American medical ethics, but is not codified in US law

How can an experimental drug ethically be forced or coerced upon someone in light of Nuremberg?
Click to expand...

How about you go pay someone to provide you with your answers?
 
The Sicatoka said:
I need a legal mind here to help me reconcile:
Click to expand...
You don't need a lawyer (so far as I know) - you need a dictionary.

EUA = Emergency Use Authorization, not Experimental Use Authorization.

Experimental:
(of a new invention or product) based on untested ideas or techniques and not yet established or finalized.

Emergency:
1. a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
2. arising from or needed or used in an emergency.

(Emphasis added)
 
LynahFan said:
EUA = Emergency Use Authorization, not Experimental Use Authorization.
Click to expand...

Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
Click to expand...

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

In 1902, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, faced a smallpox outbreak. In response, the local health board ordered the city’s residents over the age of 21 to be vaccinated against this disease. Violators faced a $5 fine.

After a local pastor was fined for violating this vaccine mandate, he appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court told him to pound sand in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/22599791/covid-...me-court-jacobson-massachusetts-boss-employer

Try it in Court. See if it works. Maybe Drunky McRapist will save you.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
Click to expand...

EUA neither means nor implies experimental therefore Nuremberg is irrelevant.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
Click to expand...

The EUA IS an approval. You're welcome.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
Click to expand...

Have you ever gotten something approved by the FDA? A friend of mine has spent half his career dealing with FDA approvals of medical equipment.

There could be lots of reasons something does not get fully approved but is not experimental, and therefore due to circumstances requires an EUA. Simple paperwork delays can be the culprit all the way to more complicated reasons (the bureaucracy for an approval is immense, thanks to lawsuits and congressional hearings, not necessarily because they haven't finished the experimentation phase), but if the FDA feels comfortable these reasons do not stand in the way for a safe EUA declaration, they will go ahead and provide an EUA. And EUAs are time limited, to make sure the formal process is completed and not forgotten about. But it doesn't mean the particular item is still in an experimental phase.
 
The Sicatoka said:
I need a legal mind here to help me reconcile:
- the vaccines are still under an EUA (meaning: still experimental)
- the first section of the Nuremberg Code addresses consent, and coercion, during human experimentation
- Nuremberg is considered a keystone of American medical ethics, but is not codified in US law

How can an experimental drug ethically be forced or coerced upon someone in light of Nuremberg?
Click to expand...

Fuck off.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, EUA is an emergency use authorization. Did I say otherwise? Knowing it's an "emergency" authorization, and you'd only give emergency authorization to an unapproved drug*, thus my parenthetical use of "(meaning: still experimental)". Should I have said "implying it's still experimental"? Either way, we have a drug still considered experimental given the need to apply emergency status to it.


Now that we have Merriam and Webster spinning in their graves, can someone help with the original question about experimental drugs, humans, and Nuremberg. Thanks.


*There's no need to give emergency status to something already approved.
Click to expand...

Again, fuck off, you obsequious fuck.
 
Wooooo deathsantis is threatening to yank salaries of school officials who defy his no masking order
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top