This serves as Notice that any requirement for an individual to be tested, using All COVID-19 tests, whether polymerase chain reaction (PCR), antigen tests or others, which tests are authorized, not approved or
licensed, by the Food and Drug Administration; they are Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only, is
The RT-PCR test has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “This product has
not been FDA cleared or approved, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an EUA for
use by authorized laboratories” (EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARY COVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA- May 11, 2021.). Even the instructions
for use on the package insert of the SARS-CoV-2 Test Kit (Real-time PCR), cautions under “WARNING
AND PRECAUTIONS”, “For Emergency Use Authorization only”.
EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. The Law governing
the authorization of medical products for use in emergencies (Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) stipulates that individuals to whom the product is administered
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use,
and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, 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.
Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a
medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” Applying this principle, the court
found that even the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003).
Additionally, the PCR Tests are not appropriate to determine a diagnosis as they do not convey anything
which determines if a person is sick. In a Portuguese case the court found that the PCR test “is unable to
, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a
person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”- Lisbon Court of Appeal on 11 November 2020 Proc. N
In a similar finding the Austrian tribunal pointed out that the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared that “a PCR test is not appropriate to conduct a diagnosis and,
therefore, cannot establish neither the illness nor the level of contagiousness of an individual.”
Furthermore, swabs used in PCR tests are treated with Ethylene Oxide (EtO) which is a known
carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent). The National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of
Health states, “The primary routes of human exposure to ethylene oxide are inhalation and ingestion…
The general population may also be exposed through…the use of products that have been sterilized with ethyleneoxide, such as medical products…”. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency says, “EPA, as well as the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National
Toxicology Program, classifies ethylene oxide as carcinogenic to humans.
Evidence in humans indicates
that exposure to ethylene oxide by inhalation increases the risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers
(including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia) and, for females, breast
cancer. EtO is mutagenic (i.e., it can change theDNA in a cell).
Children may be more susceptible to the harmful effects of mutagenic substances.” Additionally, the EPA says, “Acute (short-term) inhalation
exposure to high concentrations of ethylene oxide can cause headache, dizziness, nausea, fatigue,
respiratory irritation (e.g., coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing) and, in some cases, vomiting and other
types of gastrointestinal distress.”
The EPA further states, “Some evidence exists indicating that inhalation
exposure to ethylene oxide can cause an increased rate of miscarriages in female workers. Various
reproductive effects have been noted in inhalation exposure studies of animals, including decreased
number of implantation sites, decreased testicular weights and sperm concentration, and testicular
In view of these risks, would the government, employers, schools and other private institutions accept
liability for any possible harm done to children and adults who are coerced into use of this EUA only
medical product, which is experimental? Liability for coercing participation in a medical experiment, and any injury from it, may be incalculable.
We recommend a saliva test which has been shown to detect the virus’ genetic material at similar rates as
swabs that collected material through the mouth or nose. Commenting on a study published in the Journal
of Molecular Diagnostics done by the Clinical Microbiology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center, Lead Investigator Esther Babady said, “The use of self-collected saliva provides a cheaper and
less-invasive option for viable sample collection.
It’s certainly easier to spit in a cup twice a week than
undergoing frequent nasopharyngeal swabs.”
Finally, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Case Definitions guidance reveals that a healthy
person is not a suspected case of SARS-CoV-2.
A suspected case requires that the patient meets clinical
and epidemiological criteria to be so determined; this includes “ANY THREE OR MORE of the following
signs or symptoms: Fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, myalgia, sore throat, coryza,
dyspnoea, anorexia/nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, altered mental status.”
The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty Inc. S.V.G. urges the Government, Employers, Schools and
other private Institutions to respect and uphold the rights of individuals to refuse EUA tests. No
individual should subject themselves to any policy that is NOT LEGAL
The views expressed are not those of Asberth News Network, all articles must be submitted to [email protected]