Covid-19 mandate



Covid-19 vaccine mandate


UC HEALTH never had the authority to require your participation in Pfizer’s BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or other clinical research drugs under threat of penalty.  There isn’t a single federal or state statute affording them the legal authority of exemption from laws protecting you from medical research abuse.

The More You Know!

DISCLAIMER: The advice on this page is not authored by an attorney and should not be considered professional legal advice.  Should the reader desire to engage in litigation utilizing the information on this website they should consult a licensed attorney in their state.

NOTE: UC Health is a non-profit entity with no employees. University of Colorado Hospital Authority (UCHA) is the actual employer and therefore more investigative work is required to understand the contractual obligations of each entity.  

The FDA has classified the only COVID-19 vaccines available to UC HEALTH employees as experimental, having no legal intent.  To require participation in experimental substances violates significant treaties, federal laws, and the statutes of all US STATES.  The legal blackout stems from the fact that not a single judge has heard a legal argument relating to these statutes since they were given birth in the 1970s.  This fact is because no one has been stupid enough to violate them until now.

Who can participate in a potential lawsuit? A UC HEALTH employee/contractor who was/is under threat of penalty to participate in a COVID-19 experimental vaccine (e.g., Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19, Moderna, Janssen). This right is irrespective of whether or not an employee participated in a COVID-19 vaccine.

UC HEALTH’s “potential” violations of federal and state laws by subjecting ( to mean under force of rule, law, or constitution) employees to medical experimentation could include:

1) Article VII of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights Treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. No person may be subjected (under force of law) to medical experimentation (administration of an investigational drug inn the normal practice of healthcare) without their free consent.

2) HIPAA privacy statutes and or state privacy rights that are most likely criminal. One may not require acknowledgement of biomedical research participation nor continually inquiring about such participation.

3) UC HEALTH has several Federal Wide Assurance agreements (FWA00002344) with the  Health and Human Services requiring compliance with 45CFR45 and the Belmont Report. Their mandate has violated this agreement. CEO Elizabeth Concordia and internal lawyers are most likely unaware of this agreement’s policy which is significant.

4) UC Health is required to abide by the statutes of all US States, foreign governments, and Indian Tribes relating to experimental substances because of their FWA agreement.

5) The US States are considered “Emergency Stakeholders,” and UC Health violated the state’s requirement to abide by the EUA’s Scope of Authorization.

6) The 14th Amendment requires UC Health to ensure equal protection of the laws for its employees.

7) 21 USC §360bbb-3 requirement of the option to accept or refuse a clinical research drug and UC Health penalized employees who excercised the right to refuse. 

8) Dozens of federal and state statutes involving the protection of human subjects involved in experimental substances such as Pfizer’s BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

And many many more!

The process:

After several UC Health employees reached out to me, I have agreed to participate as the project manager.

The first step is to engage UC Health’s general counsel and present a private lecture on the facts of the law.  This activity is not legally binding, but I will ask you to write a letter to UC Health expressing to them what you believe is an equitable remedy for your particular scenario.  I will provide you with a template letter to get you started.

UC Health will then have the opportunity to reach out to you personally with an offer should they choose to do so.

Should UC Health not agree to correct its errant behavior and to make all of you whole again, we will engage in a significant legal and public relations strategy.

The fee you pay is not for legal services, and you are not hiring an attorney.  However, suppose UC Health does not repent after I educate them of their errant behavior. In that case, I will find a licensed attorney in Colorado and educate them on the facts of the law and a strategy on how to proceed with me acting as the expert consultant. The fee you pay will help offset the cost of my time and potential travel expenses.

UC Health employees had the right to refuse the administration of a COVID-19 investigational new drug without incurring a penalty or losing a benefit to which they were otherwise entitled. This statement is irrefutable by law, and UC Health has no defense because they already knew this fact before the pandemic even started. Furthermore, UC health has been administering INDs long before COVID hit!