SOMETIMES A SECOND THOUGHT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA

Someone Has To Be The Fly In The Ointment

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

There is circulating among the states model legislation that would ban mRNA as a therapy or part of therapy except for the treatment of Cancer and genetic disorders. That legislation has apparently become law in seven states with it being newly introduced in Kentucky. As they say on the floor of every legislative body in the nation:

I rise in opposition.

And here is why.

The following was posted as a comment on a recent article written by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH on Dr. Peter McCullough page Courageous Discourse.

I greatly disagree with the enthusiastic support for any legislation, no matter how well intended and no matter how apparently justified it is, that allows a legislative body to place itself between doctor and patient. I have written some of the sponsors of Kentucky HB 469 all of whom I know personally and have shared my concerns with them.

Understand that my perspective comes for full awareness of the harms of the so-called mRNA vaccine (feel free to read my extensive analysis in the COVID Chronicles of Larry's Letters) and from one who spent 30 years engaged in the development of national public health policy with a MS in the biochemistry of nucleic acids as a foundation.

This is the email that I sent to those Members who are sponsors of HB 469:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The draft, "An Act relating to human gene therapy products and declaring an emergency", HB 469, just came to my attention. As I understand this Bill It would ban the use of messenger RNA (mRNA) therapies except for cancer and genetic disorders in the Commonwealth. I am writing to you as sponsors of this Bill from Northern Kentucky to express my concern about the impact that such legislation may have an an individual's freedom to choose their own healthcare methods.

Having earned my MS in the arena of nucleic acids in general and enzymes that produce RNA specifically and also being well versed in the dangers of the current mRNA inoculant inappropriately called a vaccine, I have very mixed feelings about this proposed Bill. While there is no doubt in my mind that this Bill is well intended my concern is that it allows the Legislature to enter an arena in which Legislatures in general are ill suited to enter because it creates a slippery slope of placing themselves between patient and doctor. It is in my view a matter of Legislative over-reach.

As we have witnessed on the federal level great debate has occurred on the proper role of legislative and administrative bodies in determining what healthcare should or should not be available to the People. While I have great concerns about the current state of science of mRNA therapy and while this draft attempts to accommodate future advances in that science, I am far more bothered by the Legislature becoming involved in personal decisions no matter how well intended the effort.

In my view the House would have far more success and support of the People if it would focus on legislation that would prohibit either the Legislature or any Executive or Judicial Office, Officer, or Court from mandating any form of healthcare treatment. While I firmly believe that it would be quite appropriate for the Cabinet of Health and Family Services to make informed public health recommendations and to communicate those recommendations to the People - that should be the end of the involvement of the state in individual healthcare decisions.

We all know that HB 469 if it becomes law, will require administrative oversight. In the worst case that "oversight“ will become a delegation of Legislative authority and may well result in an edict by either the Office of the Governor or the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or other administrative body. As we have all seen on the federal level the possibility of administrative over-reach is real, unending, and fraught with peril.

As much as I am opposed to mRNA from a foreign source or mimicking a foreign source from being introduced into humans, I am equally opposed to a legislative foot in the door of my future healthcare choices.

As a matter of good science and prudent public health policy and as practitioners of both, careful thought and debate and a considered exploration of consequences are mandatory. Facile rushes to judgement as popular as they may appear are in no ones best interest.


Union, Kentucky

13 February 2025