Un-Constitutional Mandates Jeopardize Blount County Taxpayers Blount Memorial Hospital

Greetings Mayor Mitchell, Chairman French and Commissioners, I hope you and yours enjoy the blessings of liberty and justice this 400th Thanksgiving celebration in the fellowship in unity of sharing, and give you and others some information to chew on with your turkey and family time this holiday. This correspondence is being shared with Director Heinemann and Board Chairman Redwine since they were not able to hear my remarks at the close of your November Commission meeting. The initial decision by the 5th-circuit was released on November 6 so maybe Blount Memorial’s Board of Directors had not been briefed on the OSHA Mandates ruling, but when and how did the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)’s mandates for COVID -19 payments come to Bount Memorial? Was legal counsel consulted before the policy appeared in the Daily Times 11-16-21? Was the Blount Memorial Board of Directors advised as to the contract changes and did they have any legal council advise them? It would be important for the community to know how the Board voted to put Blount Memorial at odds with community sentiment and law. Dr. Harold Navarmore was quoted as saying on p. 5A , DailyTimes 11-16-21; “I think it would make people hostile and angry.” He’s exactly right, it is why I spoke late Thursday night after the November County Commission meeting on items not on the agenda to bring the Commission and Mayor what I knew in 3 minutes. The FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances…[t]hat they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product…” https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download. With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Title 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) reiterates that individuals be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 — Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 EUA products are unapproved, unlicensed, and experimental. Under the Nuremberg Code— the foundation of ethical medicine—no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. The individual’s consent is absolutely essential. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003), 5 a federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines for soldiers: “[T]he United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs” How can Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) legally mandate for hospital employees what the US Military cannot do to it’s soldiers? 5th Circuit Orders OSHA to Stand Down By Melanie L. Paul on November 15, 2021 https://www.oshalawblog.com/2021/11/articles/5th-circuit-orders-osha-to-stand-down/ In a 22-page order issued November 12, 2021, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its initial stay of OSHA’s vaccine Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The 5th Circuit stated that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits, meaning that OSHA’s ETS is an overreach of its authority on likely a variety of grounds. The 5th Circuit also outlined arguments on why the continued stay is necessary to avoid irreparable harm to the consolidated group of petitioners comprised of private employers and states, both inside and outside the geographical boundaries of the 5th Circuit Court. The provisions of the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and a February 2020 declaration by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary mean that pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable for injuries or deaths caused by EUA Covid-19 injections. However, other companies, institutions, and individuals can be held liable. foot note : Congressional Research Service. The PREP Act and COVID-19: Limiting Liability for Medical Countermeasures. Updated Mar. 19, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443 As I said in my remarks after the November Commission meeting we need to know what liabilities the taxpayers of Blount county are being exposed to as well as medical care workers informed of not only the health risks they are being mandated to take but the financial security of their Medical Benefits regarding adverse effects to include loss of life insurance coverage because of the experimental status of COVID-19? I look forward to your timely response Mayor Mitchell and Commission Chairman French Respectfully, Harry Grothjahn Dist. 2 Alcoa 865-661-2500

Leave a Comment