the court rejected the plaintiffs’ federal claim that the vaccine mandate violated federal law because it is not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, explaining that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not confer a private right to sue an employer. It also dismissed plaintiffs’ argument that the vaccine mandate violated federal law that protects the rights of human subjects. In doing so, the court explained that the plaintiffs misrepresented the facts because the employees are not participants in a human trial, but are merely subject to a vaccine requirement. The judge further explained that the lawsuit’s reliance on the Nuremberg Code was misplaced because the Code does not apply to private employers, writing that it was “reprehensible” for the plaintiffs to equate a COVID-19 vaccine requirement to medical experimentation in Nazi concentration camps."
Fifth Circ. Affirms Texas Hospital's Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Policy (natlawreview.com)
- Forums
- Science & Medicine
- Background story to CV19 / HCQ and IVM treatments
Background story to CV19 / HCQ and IVM treatments, page-963
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 7,849 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
LGP
LITTLE GREEN PHARMA LTD
Paul Long, CEO
Paul Long
CEO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online