The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a lot of serious questions with very few scientific answers in spite of public admonitions to “follow the science.” One is not likely to find the science, much less follow it in corporate news sources. Unbeknownst to many of us, scientists are battling behind the scenes over some of the most basic suppositions media have reported as “science” or facts. What if these basic suppositions are neither science nor facts?
Few people know about, and media have not covered a lawsuit filed July 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama: America’s Frontline Doctors, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.
The lawsuit begins by questioning the most fundamental fact that the vast majority of people have accepted as true, that is whether the Vaccine Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) are unlawful. Wow! This section of the lawsuit argues seven points in a spaghetti-like mix of medical and jurisprudential terms, the first of which is, “There is No Emergency.” How would you like to argue that in legal and medical terms?
The second point is even more hair-raising against the most commonly agreed upon “science” of the pandemic: “There is in Fact no Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition.” Remember, these points were written by a consortium of doctors and lawyers following not only federal law, terminology and definitions, but also medical and scientific terminology and definitions.
The following are the remaining points, 3 - 7, under section A:
(3) “The Vaccines Do Not Diagnose, Treat or Prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.”
(4) “The Known and Potential Risks of the Vaccines Outweigh their Known and Potential Benefits.”
(5) “There Are Adequate, Approved and Available Alternatives to the Vaccines.”
(6) “Healthcare Professionals and Vaccine Candidates are Not Adequately Informed.”
(7) “Monitoring and Reporting of Adverse Events.”
Please bear in mind that federal lawsuits like this one raise questions that are adjudicated in the federal courts, and are likely to be appealed regardless of initial outcomes. In other words, this ain’t no debate on Facebook.
Federal lawsuits don’t move nearly as predictably as court cases on TV, and this case is a slow mover for sure. To date, the court has acted or reacted 22 times regarding procedures. The next scheduled action is a telephone conference call Tuesday, Sept. 21, so the judge and parties can discuss various issues. Judge Corey L. Maze has set two other dates, Oct. 15 and Nov. 5, for submissions from both sides.
What impact might this lawsuit have on how the federal government acts or reacts to other health related situations? Will there be any implications for other governing authorities like states and municipalities? Sadly, most of us would likely agree this whole thing has been politicized way too much, though we couldn’t agree in a hundred years who politicized it, who was right, or who was wrong.
Doctors and other health providers have normally been highly respected. Nevertheless, the politicization of COVID has sullied even some of the most revered medical professionals. Trust and respect are two of the most important character traits doctors and health care professionals need to practice medicine. Smart communities value their local health care professionals.
Daniel L. Gardner is a syndicated columnist who lives in Starkville, Miss. You may contact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.